David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[Stephen Miller]

I have not yet read or got a copy yet but I am curious as to what David has to say about the

performance of the major media and their incompetence and/or inability to seek out the truth and at the very least, do any investigative reporting and blow the lid off the conspiracy.

Any information in the book and what does David say?

[Sid Walker]

I have not yet read or got a copy yet but I am curious as to what David has to say about the

performance of the major media and their incompetence and/or inability to seek out the truth and at the very least, do any investigative reporting and blow the lid off the conspiracy.

Any information in the book and what does David say?

That's a very good question, Stephen.

I'm in the same position as you - and I'd like the same answer.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have not yet read or got a copy yet but I am curious as to what David has to say about the

performance of the major media and their incompetence and/or inability to seek out the truth

That's a very good question, Stephen.

I'm in the same position as you - and I'd like the same answer.

I also have not read brothers (just starting Bugliosi) but in general I think any conspiracy author today should use great caution in criticising the media. Far better to ferret out and highlight the few good things they have done. The torch is being passed to a new generation of reporters and now is a good time to encourage a paradigm shift.

Name-calling against anyone, (whether Bugliosi or THE MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT) in general rarely advances the best interests of any inquiry.

[Michael Hogan]

I have not yet read or got a copy yet but I am curious as to what David has to say about the

performance of the major media and their incompetence and/or inability to seek out the truth and at the very least, do any investigative reporting and blow the lid off the conspiracy.

Any information in the book and what does David say?

That's a very good question, Stephen.

I'm in the same position as you - and I'd like the same answer.

From Brothers, Page 390

The American media's coverage of the Kennedy assassination will certainly go down in history as one of its most shameful performances, along with its tragically supine acceptance of the government's fraudulent case for the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Assassination critics have long railed at the media's obedient embrace of the Warren Report, a credulousness that grows more and more bizarre with the passage of time and accumulation of contrary evidence. But even more confounding is the failure of JFK's close friends in the press to investigate the monumental crime. Some of these Kennedy intimates occupied influential positions high on the media ladder. Critics see their failure to look into JFK's murder as not only a dereliction of professional duty but a personal betrayal.

From Brothers, Page 406

It has also become fashionable in all the media babble about Dallas that fills the air each year around November 22 for commentators to opine that "we will probably never know the truth about John F. Kennedy's assassination"--a self-fulfilling prophecy that relieves them of any responsibility to search for the truth.

[William Kelly]

I have not yet read or got a copy yet but I am curious as to what David has to say about the

performance of the major media and their incompetence and/or inability to seek out the truth and at the very least, do any investigative reporting and blow the lid off the conspiracy.

Any information in the book and what does David say?

David Talbot, Brothers, p. 390

"With the government incapable of investigating itself, it fell to the media to shine a light on the dark corners of the Kennedy assassination. There was overwhelming public support for such scrutiny, with polls over the years showing that anywhere from 50 to 85 percent of Americans believed the official version of the assassination was a fraud. But instead of aggressively investigating the many lingering questions about Dallas, the mainstream media continued to discredit conspiracy theories, straining harder with each passng decade to prop up the increasingly moth-eaten Warren Report. The most prestigious news institutions - the ones with the power to unearth new information - put themselves instead at the government's service. The special reports on the assassination produced with numbing regularity by the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, Time, and Newsweek inevitably rallied to the defense of the one gunman theory - with editors, reporters, and producers taking their cues in many cases from Warren Commission members, CIA and FBI officials, and media executives close to these government agencies. On some occassions, journalists who were intelligence assets simply funneled the government's version of Dallas directly into the press. As Carl Bernstein reported in an explosive 1977 Rolling Stone article, the CIA alone had over four hundred American journalists secretly at its service. And declassified documents reveal that some of these journalists did the CIA's bidding as the agency worked to tilt press coverage of the JFK mystery."

"The American media's coverage of the Kenendy assassination will certainly go down in history as one of its most shameful performances, along with its tragically supine acceptance of the government's fraudulent case for wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Assassination critics have long railed at the media's obedient embrace of the Warren Report, a credulousness that grows more and more bizarre with the passage of time and accumulation of contrary evidence. But even more confounding is the failure of JFK's close friends in the press to investigate the monumental crime. Some of these Kennedy intimates occupied positions high on the media ladder. Critics see their failure to look into JFK's murder as not only a dereliction of professional duty but a personal betrayal."

"The legendary newpaperman Benjamin Bradlee - who reigned for yeras as the executive editor of the Washington Post, including during the Watergate-era investigative glory days - comes immediately to mind in this regard. As I researched this book, I gegan to wonder why the man who was JFK's closest friend in the Washington press corps - a man who had the power to help bring down the Nixon presidency - apparently did nothing to reveal the truth behind Kennedy's murder...."

[Michael Hogan]

Bill K, I know you pay a lot of dues at the keyboard, generously sharing information you have read in various books.

How about a good scanner for Christmas?

[Jim Glover]

Of course, there have been some notable exceptions in the Left's coverage of Dallas -- Ramparts magazine in the 60s (as well as the more obscure but important Minority of One journal) and hey, Salon today (I take the blame for that). But by and large it has not been a pretty picture.

David,

Good Luck with your new Book "Brothers".

I would like to let you know, if you haven't read it yet, that Phil Ochs met RFK on an Airliner and sang him his song about the Assassination of his brother and Robert cried.

I remember Phil telling me about this but I can't remember if Phil told him that he was in Dealy Plaza as a "Security Observer".

I kind of doubt if Phil told him because he was afraid of being killed about that fact but who knows because Bobby was probably scared like all of us..

I may be the only one Phil told about it because we shared secrets.

I found Phil's photo from the Documentary on the History Channel and almost everyone I have sent it to thinks it is Phil or his double.

Of course my Family and Phil's do not want to believe that Phil was there because since they were not aware of the secret stuff they do not want to get involved in the war over the conspiracy and like anyone do not have any control over where the truth may lead or how many other lies the government has in still secret files...or maybe truth is in those one million yet to be released documents.

I believe we were both set up to be in Texas when JFK was shot but the fact that I lived to tell the tale makes me think that maybe there were some folks in the CIA or the Mob or whatever who also thought that the truth should come out some day.

If anyone would like to see the photos and compare them with Photos of Phil and me singing at Ohio State two Years earlier, I well share them with the forum.

We are making great progress and if you havent yet seen the photos of the three shells that Mr. Dolva posted, see the dented shell at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry104042

Jim

[Myra Bronstein]

...

If anyone would like to see the photos and compare them with Photos of Phil and me singing at Ohio State two Years earlier, I well share them with the forum.

...

Jim

I would like to see them Jim.

Please and thank you.

Myra

[Jim Glover]

...

If anyone would like to see the photos and compare them with Photos of Phil and me singing at Ohio State two Years earlier, I well share them with the forum.

...

Jim

I would like to see them Jim.

Please and thank you.

Myra

OK Myra, I hope they come through.

Well I tried to past them in but they do not insert on this page....If you or anyone wants to see them I well send them regular email just let me know.

jimglover@verizon.net

[William Kelly]

...

If anyone would like to see the photos and compare them with Photos of Phil and me singing at Ohio State two Years earlier, I well share them with the forum.

...

Jim

I would like to see them Jim.

Please and thank you.

Myra

OK Myra, I hope they come through.

Well I tried to past them in but they do not insert on this page....If you or anyone wants to see them I well send them regular email just let me know.

jimglover@verizon.net

If you post them, please start another thread or post them somewhere else, as we would like to continue the discussion about David Talbot's new book Brothers.

Bk

[John Geraghty]

Of course, there have been some notable exceptions in the Left's coverage of Dallas -- Ramparts magazine in the 60s (as well as the more obscure but important Minority of One journal) and hey, Salon today (I take the blame for that). But by and large it has not been a pretty picture.

David,

Good Luck with your new Book "Brothers".

I would like to let you know, if you haven't read it yet, that Phil Ochs met RFK on an Airliner and sang him his song about the Assassination of his brother and Robert cried.

I remember Phil telling me about this but I can't remember if Phil told him that he was in Dealy Plaza as a "Security Observer".

I kind of doubt if Phil told him because he was afraid of being killed about that fact but who knows because Bobby was probably scared like all of us..

I may be the only one Phil told about it because we shared secrets.

I found Phil's photo from the Documentary on the History Channel and almost everyone I have sent it to thinks it is Phil or his double.

Of course my Family and Phil's do not want to believe that Phil was there because since they were not aware of the secret stuff they do not want to get involved in the war over the conspiracy and like anyone do not have any control over where the truth may lead or how many other lies the government has in still secret files...or maybe truth is in those one million yet to be released documents.

I believe we were both set up to be in Texas when JFK was shot but the fact that I lived to tell the tale makes me think that maybe there were some folks in the CIA or the Mob or whatever who also thought that the truth should come out some day.

If anyone would like to see the photos and compare them with Photos of Phil and me singing at Ohio State two Years earlier, I well share them with the forum.

We are making great progress and if you havent yet seen the photos of the three shells that Mr. Dolva posted, see the dented shell at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry104042

Jim

Jim,

It may be a good idea to start a seperate thread on your experiences surrounding the assassination. Althoug I'm 21 I'm a big fan of Phil Ochs The story about singing to Bobby is very interesting.

Would you mind starting another thread and giving us a full round up of your knowledge in this area?

All the best.

John

[William Kelly]

Talbot was unfairly outnumbered in that intvu but he wasn't prepared either. He should have left out the parts of his book he wasn't willing to drop at least a few coins in NARAII's copiers for. You haven't really earned your stripes until you visit the stacks and flip through the films. Talbot told LA Times this week he doesn't "paw" over documents. So, what, you go to all the guy's buddies and expect truth and corrections to flow from their lips almost half a century later? Did Talbot talk to RFK? RFK shoulda coulda woulda but he didn't and here we all are with those boxes of "Cuba secret war" files in JFK Act to decipher on our own.

This is a problem I have with David's book. It relies too much on interviews and not enough on documents. This is a book written by a journalist rather than a historian. Yet these documents do exist. That is why Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, is so good.

Alan Brinkley (Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University) in the International Herald Tribune has given probably the fairest review of the book.

Talbot's interpretation of the Kennedy years is at odds even with many of the most sympathetic accounts. Kennedy did show signs in the last months of his life of reconsidering some of the premises of the cold war and of doubting the wisdom of Vietnam. But few historians would describe his presidency as a radical challenge to the status quo. Kennedy declined to escalate the Bay of Pigs invasion and the missile crisis, to be sure, but his differences with the hard-liners who opposed him were mostly tactical, not strategic. He wavered between bold, liberal visions of the future and conventional cold war thinking. His inspiring American University speech in the spring of 1963, calling for peaceful cooperation with the Soviet Union, was followed weeks later by a bellicose denunciation of Soviet power in Berlin. His private suggestions that he wanted to end the Vietnam War were accompanied by public actions that made terminating the conflict far more difficult for his successors. He and his brother were skeptical, at times even contemptuous, of the C.I.A. But as Talbot himself makes clear, that did not stop Robert Kennedy (presumably with the support of his brother) from continuing to encourage the C.I.A. to undertake covert actions to undermine Castro. John Kennedy was a smart, ambitious and capable president, with moments of greatness. If he had lived, he might well have become the heroic figure Talbot claims he was. But the reality of his foreshortened presidency was much more complex and inconsistent than Talbot acknowledges.

One would expect such an important historical argument to be accompanied by substantial evidence. Talbot has relied heavily on his own extensive conversations with Kennedy friends and colleagues and their widows, sons and acquaintances.

I believe the documentary record supports David Talbot's view, and the view of RFK, LBJ, Stockdale and others that there not only was a conspiracy, but it was a high level coup d'etat, connected to the CIA-Mob-anti-Catstro Cuban nexus.

The minutes of the National Security Council that approved the supposidly covert Cuban commando missions mentions many of those suspected as being behind Dealey Plaza and I'm sure there are other unreleased records that are being surpressed for a reason.

The best JFK document specialists I know - John Newman, Rex Bradford, Larry Hancock and Stu Wexler are all much more familiar with the documentary record than I am, and I would like to hear from them as to whether Talbot's perspective of the assassination is supported by the available records.

I'd also like to hear what David has to say about this.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

[Chris Cox]

“Kennedy declined to escalate the Bay of Pigs invasion and the missile crisis, to be sure, but his differences with the hard-liners who opposed him were mostly tactical, not strategic. He wavered between bold, liberal visions of the future and conventional cold war thinking.”

Above a fair statement by Brinkley. The old Kennedy speeches are wonderful, famous addresses are designed that way-- inspiring heart felt words for sure but actions louder, so leave the White Out and glossies at home. Is the sentimentality really useful now? Where is this salon stuff coming from-- the real world? It’s more movie of the week, an unauthorized memoir than documentary, really, why bother?

The secret war was bipartisan, the documents absolutely support that. What does it matter that we apologize RFK didn’t get to it in time-it stinks to be us.

Mist up the lens, fine, just don’t call it “history.”

[Larry Hancock]

Bill, the following is from Talbot:

"Bobby's suspicions immediately focus on the nest of CIA spies, gangsters, and Cuban exiles that had long been plotting a violent regime change in Cuba."

Anyone reading my book will find that the leaks, gossip, insider remarks and the documentation that

corroborates them points to exactly the same group of suspects. Time after time. And each year we get

more documents to corroborate the informants and sources that point in that direction.

What we don't get is any of the media types or investigative journalists that are willing to deal with it.

And we get Vince B writing off Martino's remarks as hallucination based on his medical connection...without

contacting the family or providing any data at all to support that speculation (I have; they don't).

...probably enough said from me, Larry

Talbot was unfairly outnumbered in that intvu but he wasn't prepared either. He should have left out the parts of his book he wasn't willing to drop at least a few coins in NARAII's copiers for. You haven't really earned your stripes until you visit the stacks and flip through the films. Talbot told LA Times this week he doesn't "paw" over documents. So, what, you go to all the guy's buddies and expect truth and corrections to flow from their lips almost half a century later? Did Talbot talk to RFK? RFK shoulda coulda woulda but he didn't and here we all are with those boxes of "Cuba secret war" files in JFK Act to decipher on our own.

This is a problem I have with David's book. It relies too much on interviews and not enough on documents. This is a book written by a journalist rather than a historian. Yet these documents do exist. That is why Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, is so good.

Alan Brinkley (Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University) in the International Herald Tribune has given probably the fairest review of the book.

Talbot's interpretation of the Kennedy years is at odds even with many of the most sympathetic accounts. Kennedy did show signs in the last months of his life of reconsidering some of the premises of the cold war and of doubting the wisdom of Vietnam. But few historians would describe his presidency as a radical challenge to the status quo. Kennedy declined to escalate the Bay of Pigs invasion and the missile crisis, to be sure, but his differences with the hard-liners who opposed him were mostly tactical, not strategic. He wavered between bold, liberal visions of the future and conventional cold war thinking. His inspiring American University speech in the spring of 1963, calling for peaceful cooperation with the Soviet Union, was followed weeks later by a bellicose denunciation of Soviet power in Berlin. His private suggestions that he wanted to end the Vietnam War were accompanied by public actions that made terminating the conflict far more difficult for his successors. He and his brother were skeptical, at times even contemptuous, of the C.I.A. But as Talbot himself makes clear, that did not stop Robert Kennedy (presumably with the support of his brother) from continuing to encourage the C.I.A. to undertake covert actions to undermine Castro. John Kennedy was a smart, ambitious and capable president, with moments of greatness. If he had lived, he might well have become the heroic figure Talbot claims he was. But the reality of his foreshortened presidency was much more complex and inconsistent than Talbot acknowledges.

One would expect such an important historical argument to be accompanied by substantial evidence. Talbot has relied heavily on his own extensive conversations with Kennedy friends and colleagues and their widows, sons and acquaintances.

I believe the documentary record supports David Talbot's view, and the view of RFK, LBJ, Stockdale and others that there not only was a conspiracy, but it was a high level coup d'etat, connected to the CIA-Mob-anti-Catstro Cuban nexus.

The minutes of the National Security Council that approved the supposidly covert Cuban commando missions mentions many of those suspected as being behind Dealey Plaza and I'm sure there are other unreleased records that are being surpressed for a reason.

The best JFK document specialists I know - John Newman, Rex Bradford, Larry Hancock and Stu Wexler are all much more familiar with the documentary record than I am, and I would like to hear from them as to whether Talbot's perspective of the assassination is supported by the available records.

I'd also like to hear what David has to say about this.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

[Larry Hancock]

Bill, the following is from Talbot:

"Bobby's suspicions immediately focus on the nest of CIA spies, gangsters, and Cuban exiles that had long been plotting a violent regime change in Cuba."

Anyone reading my book will find that the leaks, gossip, insider remarks and the documentation that

corroborates them points to exactly the same group of suspects. Time after time. And each year we get

more documents to corroborate the informants and sources that point in that direction.

What we don't get is any of the media types or investigative journalists that are willing to deal with it.

And we get Vince B writing off Martino's remarks as hallucination based on his medical connection...without

contacting the family or providing any data at all to support that speculation (I have; they don't).

...probably enough said from me, Larry

Talbot was unfairly outnumbered in that intvu but he wasn't prepared either. He should have left out the parts of his book he wasn't willing to drop at least a few coins in NARAII's copiers for. You haven't really earned your stripes until you visit the stacks and flip through the films. Talbot told LA Times this week he doesn't "paw" over documents. So, what, you go to all the guy's buddies and expect truth and corrections to flow from their lips almost half a century later? Did Talbot talk to RFK? RFK shoulda coulda woulda but he didn't and here we all are with those boxes of "Cuba secret war" files in JFK Act to decipher on our own.

This is a problem I have with David's book. It relies too much on interviews and not enough on documents. This is a book written by a journalist rather than a historian. Yet these documents do exist. That is why Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, is so good.

Alan Brinkley (Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University) in the International Herald Tribune has given probably the fairest review of the book.

Talbot's interpretation of the Kennedy years is at odds even with many of the most sympathetic accounts. Kennedy did show signs in the last months of his life of reconsidering some of the premises of the cold war and of doubting the wisdom of Vietnam. But few historians would describe his presidency as a radical challenge to the status quo. Kennedy declined to escalate the Bay of Pigs invasion and the missile crisis, to be sure, but his differences with the hard-liners who opposed him were mostly tactical, not strategic. He wavered between bold, liberal visions of the future and conventional cold war thinking. His inspiring American University speech in the spring of 1963, calling for peaceful cooperation with the Soviet Union, was followed weeks later by a bellicose denunciation of Soviet power in Berlin. His private suggestions that he wanted to end the Vietnam War were accompanied by public actions that made terminating the conflict far more difficult for his successors. He and his brother were skeptical, at times even contemptuous, of the C.I.A. But as Talbot himself makes clear, that did not stop Robert Kennedy (presumably with the support of his brother) from continuing to encourage the C.I.A. to undertake covert actions to undermine Castro. John Kennedy was a smart, ambitious and capable president, with moments of greatness. If he had lived, he might well have become the heroic figure Talbot claims he was. But the reality of his foreshortened presidency was much more complex and inconsistent than Talbot acknowledges.

One would expect such an important historical argument to be accompanied by substantial evidence. Talbot has relied heavily on his own extensive conversations with Kennedy friends and colleagues and their widows, sons and acquaintances.

I believe the documentary record supports David Talbot's view, and the view of RFK, LBJ, Stockdale and others that there not only was a conspiracy, but it was a high level coup d'etat, connected to the CIA-Mob-anti-Catstro Cuban nexus.

The minutes of the National Security Council that approved the supposidly covert Cuban commando missions mentions many of those suspected as being behind Dealey Plaza and I'm sure there are other unreleased records that are being surpressed for a reason.

The best JFK document specialists I know - John Newman, Rex Bradford, Larry Hancock and Stu Wexler are all much more familiar with the documentary record than I am, and I would like to hear from them as to whether Talbot's perspective of the assassination is supported by the available records.

I'd also like to hear what David has to say about this.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly