David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[Myra Bronstein]

I am really mystified though at its depiction of LBJ as just another victim of the assassination, some poor soul caught in the cross hairs of history. Frankly I don't understand how Talbot could characterize Johnson, one of the most ruthless and corrupt politicians in history, so benignly.

I agree. This was the first question that I asked at our meeting in London. David argued that LBJ's response to the assassination suggested that he was unaware that it was going to take place. I will start a new thread on this topic and try to get David to answer questions on LBJ and the assassination.

I have been impressed by what I would describe as the balance of the book. All pertinent views are represented and David goes to great pains to avoid expressions of personal judgement.

This, IMO, has lead to what I would consider a less explosive book overall (I thoroughly enjoyed it though, very well written and enlightening) in that every reader can have their point of view reinforced.

If you are a right wing nut, you can read that Kennedy was a weak, Commie loving, black (though thats not what the right winger I had in mind would say) loving president. You could side with Le May and the JCS very easily. You could understand why Kennedy 'had to go' and if you were so inclined actually rejoice.

I was struck by the absolute naiveté of JFK and his brother. In a lot of places they move too soon without preparing their constinuency for the moves. I loved their vision and embraced their direction.

The point I'm trying to make is, for the most part, this book allows reader's own biases prior to reading the book to be reinforced whilst at the same time permits re-evaluation, if one was inclined. Two stools which are notoriously hard to straddle for any writer.

And I'm extremely impressed with many aspects of the book too Gary.

Though I can't help but be concerned about something: If Talbot's depiction of LBJ is so different from the man I know LBJ to have been that he's basically describing a different person, I have to wonder if I can have confidence in his depiction of other people. It's undermined my confidence in his research and judgement.

...

I was struck by the absolute naiveté of JFK and his brother. In a lot of places they move too soon without preparing their constinuency for the moves. I loved their vision and embraced their direction.

...

This concept of the brothers as naive is an interesting subject to me. Can you give examples of some of the places they moved too soon without preparing their constituency?

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Though I can't help but be concerned about something: If Talbot's depiction of LBJ is so different from the man I know LBJ to have been that he's basically describing a different person, I have to wonder if I can have confidence in his depiction of other people. It's undermined my confidence in his research and judgement.

This concept of the brothers as naive is an interesting subject to me. Can you give examples of some of the places they moved too soon without preparing their constituency?

I'll reserve judgement on the first part, until David responds to John's concerns on the same point. I'd say, though, that the book tended to balance both sides reasonably well and left personal authors judgements out. This is in IMO of course. Which, as I've stated seemed to allow the reader to 'pick a side' as it were - courageous men of integrity and vision Versus weak inexperienced men. I think, using the book as a reference, both these views could be argued reasonably well (as with virtually every aspect of this portion of history it seems).

I've just been interrupted by my crying children, (2 and 4 Yrs old) it seems someone won't let them play on their slide in the back.

Hopefully I'll reply to your second point soon, though for the most part it was my evaluation of portions of the book. If I were to make reference to Northern Ireland here Sinn Fein expertly prepared their constituency for what would have been treasonable (and all that entails) to Republicans just 10-15 years ago. Loyalists and the DUP didn't and really still haven't hence the delay in setting up government and the uneasy truce which exists. Although MI5 seems to have left the area for a while so maybe things can progress.

Speak soon

Gary

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Hopefully I'll reply to your second point soon, though for the most part it was my evaluation of portions of the book. If I were to make reference to Northern Ireland here Sinn Fein expertly prepared their constituency for what would have been treasonable (and all that entails) to Republicans just 10-15 years ago. Loyalists and the DUP didn't and really still haven't hence the delay in setting up government and the uneasy truce which exists. Although MI5 seems to have left the area for a while so maybe things can progress.

Speak soon

Gary

Still, you said "In a lot of places they move too soon without preparing their constinuency for the moves."

If they (Jack & Bobby) moved too soon in a lot of places there should be a lot of examples.

Or at least one.

I'm trying to understand your point, and right now I don't.

[David Talbot]

Back from the media war's heart of darkness ..the horror, the horror. I want to thank all of you again for your comments on the book -- and particularly John for setting up the London chat and his ongoing efforts. There have been some days when I think America (and the media in particular) has made absolutely no progress -- and one of the worst days had to be when HBO announced it was turning Bugliosi's book into a mini-series. HBO has been a cultural oasis. What are they -- and specifically Tom Paxton and Tom Hanks --thinking?

Speaking of HBO, I too have been struck over the years by Sopranos creator David Chase's obvious obsession with the Kennedy story. Now that's MY dream -- getting David Chase to turn "Brothers" into a mini-series.

Other low points for me -- the Wash Post and BOSTON (of all places) Globe reviews. But as Ishmael Reed has said, "Writin' is fightin'" -- I knew my book would stir up a hornet's nest (the worst thing would have been to be ignored). And I'm actually pleasantly surprised how well the book has done. And yes, John, I think the fact that Time magazine, Henry Luce's creation, asked me to write the lead essay on JFK for their current special issue IS some kind of cultural landmark. (They also asked me to write a shorter piece on RFK's suspicions about Dallas as a counterpoint to a Bugliosi screed.)

Speaking of Mr. B -- I have to say my opinion of him was not improved after our meeting backstage following our "Hardball" encounter. He's a very mean-spirited little man, and was still fuming after our on-air encounter. The producers were trying to keep us apart -- I guess they thought we would end up strangling each other. I offered him my hand -- he hesitated before shaking it -- and I offered to debate him onstage (with an impartial moderator next time). He said he would think it over. So far no word from his camp.

I agree that my weakest moment on "Hardball" was my response to Matthews' persistent questioning about how Oswald ended up in the TBD -- it was not a main focus of my research. And though I suspect that Ruth Paine had some low-level intelligence connection, I was not prepared to make a strong case. I think my strongest moment came when I pointed out that key members of the Warren Commission themselves were lone nut doubters (that really set off Bugliosi). In general, though, what I've heard from viewers is that B came off so angry and unhinged on the show that he sabotaged himself. I think his reputation as a masterful courtroom debater is undeserved.

Re: documents research vs. personal interviews. The LA Times piece bungled that quote from me. I was not dismissing the idea of "pawing through dusty documents" -- believe me, I did my share of that. I was trying to say that I did not want to ONLY rely on archival research. I put in long hours at the Kennedy Library and other institutions. And I hired a skilled researcdh associate at the National Archives, Cliff Callahan. (Malcolm Blunt, the British expert in JFK-documents, also provided generous assistance.) But documents can lie and distort too. They must be put in their proper context. And to do that -- and to get a feel for past events and characters -- I find that talking to key players is indispensable.

Re: New Yorker story. The good news is that the New Yorker did indeed pay for a final burst of research that was very useful for my book. But when Jeff Morley and I ended up discredting the BBC report on RFK, the New Yorker declined to publish the piece. Jeff and I will be posting a summary of our work -- including new photos of David Morales and George Joannides -- on the Mary Ferrell web site.

Re: Myra's case against LBJ. Again, not a major focus of my research, and I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise by new research. But I just don't see anything more than circumstantial evidence that Johnson was involved in the plot. Did he figure it out quickly afterwards and participate in the coverup? Absolutely. But I don't see him as a co-conspirator, and more importanly, I see no evidence that Bobby did. If RFK suspected LBJ was guilty, he would not have lobbied to join him as vp on the 1964 ticket.

I'm still in the final throes of my tour -- and the UK aspect of it was exhilirating, btw. The book is #4 on the Irish bestseller list -- the Kennedys are still a magical name there. But I will try to jump in now and then when I can. Thanks again for the high level of debate in the forum.

Edited June 22, 2007 by David Talbot

[Pat Speer]

Re: Myra's case against LBJ. Again, not a major focus of my research, and I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise by new research. But I just don't see anything more than circumstantial evidence that Johnson was involved in the plot. Did he figure it out quickly afterwards and participate in the coverup? Absolutely. But I don't see him as a co-conspirator, and more importanly, I see no evidence that Bobby did. If RFK suspected LBJ was guilty, he would not have lobbied to join him as vp on the 1964 ticket.

Perhaps I've read too much Shakespeare. It would seem to me that, if Bobby in fact suspected LBJ, he would do cartwheels to become VP. That way, should he find proof positive Johnson's involvement, he could enact a little "divine retribution" of his own, and reap the rewards. Good Catholic or no, Bobby was no physical coward, and I suspect he would have reaped vengeance on Johnson should that crucial moment have arrived.

Edited June 22, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Stuart Wexler]

Hi David,

I'm glad you are fighting the good fight. I wanted to respond to one section of your post, the section on what I have come to call the "Chris Mathews Question." This is the idea that Oswald got his job before the motorcade route was announced and that, therefor, if one discounts a motorcade route change, a conspiracy would have had to have been extremely lucky. There are several possible answers to this question:

(1) Is to challenge the question as a historical fallacy. The way a historical event turns out is not necessarily the way it HAD to turn out... To wit, Oswald, if part of a conspiracy, or manipulated by a conspiracy, may have been WHEREVER the motorcade route happened to pass. If the motorcade route took another maneuver, Oswald may have taken off work and found his way into the Trade Mart. Ultimately, this means that once Dallas is announced as a potential shooting site, there are only a few possible key places where Oswald may have decided to work. He did, indeed, apparently ignore other opportunities and may have tried to get work at places that may have been on alternate routes.

(2) Is to say that the conspiracy simply took advantage of Oswald's proximity to the potential motorcade route when the situation presented itself. In this situation, more than one possible patsy, or co-conspirator, etc., are available to the conspiracy and the conspirators simply made use of those people who were most available. This would require either a multiple patsy scenario a la Joan Mellen OR that the conspiracy was opportunistic in who it chose to involve in its case. In the latter scenario, Oswald would be more culpable and witting than many attest to, but it is something I do not dismiss.

(3) Perhaps most importantly: the conspiracy simply got lucky, although not as lucky as people think. Two of the most notable assassination CONSPIRACIES in world history, those of Lincoln and of Archduke Ferdinand, were highly fortuitous outcomes. In the case of the former, Lincoln's bodyguard left his post to go drinking before Booth came to attack, and Booth was also very lucky in escaping the immediate area (from what I recall, Booth managed to get to choose the only escape avenue that still hadn't been cordoned off at the time.) Again, the Lincoln assassination CONSPIRACY succeeded based on luck. In the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, several conspirators (including Princip) tried to kill the Archduke in almost immediate succession and all FAILED. Most were caught in the escape that followed and tortured in an effort to find out who was involved. Princip managed to escape, and by sheer happenstance, ran into the Archduke's carriage after the Archduke had taken a circuitous (and alternate) route to his original location. Considering that the entire plot was part of an even larger conspiratorial plan on the part of the Black Hand, this was a case of an even larger conspiracy getting very lucky. But in a way we overrate the luck... in the case of both conspiracies, there was a dogged determination to strike at their targets in one way, shape or form. There were failed kidnapping plans in the case of Lincoln, for instance. Taken in isolation, the ultimate outcomes seem lucky, but taken in the context of a set/domain of potential attacks, they were bound to get lucky sometime. An analogy is in order: if I played one hand of poker in my life, the fact that I got a royal flush would seem extremely lucky. On the other hand, if you knew I got a royal flush but that I was an avid poker player, the fact that, at one point, I got lucky, is not so unusual or odd.

Most collective human endeavors are a combination of poor planning that ultimately succeeds and good planning that ultimately fails. I don't see why the Kennedy assassination would be exempt.

-Stu

[Guest Gary Loughran]

...

Hopefully I'll reply to your second point soon, though for the most part it was my evaluation of portions of the book. If I were to make reference to Northern Ireland here Sinn Fein expertly prepared their constituency for what would have been treasonable (and all that entails) to Republicans just 10-15 years ago. Loyalists and the DUP didn't and really still haven't hence the delay in setting up government and the uneasy truce which exists. Although MI5 seems to have left the area for a while so maybe things can progress.

Speak soon

Gary

Still, you said "In a lot of places they move too soon without preparing their constinuency for the moves."

If they (Jack & Bobby) moved too soon in a lot of places there should be a lot of examples.

Or at least one.

I'm trying to understand your point, and right now I don't.

Hi Myra,

I'll give this a quick bash, on the fly.

RE: Civil rights specifically Ole Miss and Cuba.

The Kennedy's, IMO, should have worked from the inside out to solve these problems. That is got the JCS, Military, CIA etc. on side or at least in a reasonably supportive position. Then the moves they made in Cuba etc. could have had a substantially better chance of success. In order to enact lasting changes there needs to be a consistency of message from all the parties involved. It takes time, it's difficult, but this way when the action is taken it has a better chance of lasting success.

In tandem with this strategy; the electorate should be prepared for the moves, slowly and steadily. This will reduce external political pressure and prevent wavering within the political party/Government at large. Re: Sinn Fein - they were able to take 98% of the Republican movement with them in the moves for peace over a 20 year period - this included some folk who made were as mad and crazy as those 'crazy Cubans'. Each and every PM who dealt with them recognised their command of political nuance and expressed admiration. Excepting Mrs Thatcher of course who to the disappointment of many has fallen off the 'popular hit' radar.

IMO the naivete of making these political moves too fast fermented many important people against them.

Look, I think the what they were doing was right. I agree with their strategy. However tactically they executed this strategy with political inexperience hence naivete. The problems they tried to solve vis Cuba, Civil Rights are still a ways from being perfect, some 40 odd years later. I'd have given them (the warmongering hardline right) 'Nam for Cuba and Civil Rights - Vietnam would've drawn domestic attention off these issues and maybe allowed them to sneak in under the radar. Victory in the Vietnam war was understood to be unattainable from an early stage and I'm sure withdrawal could've been made down the line. There needs to be a quid pro quo, it's the way of the world unfortunately; you can't get something for nothing. It seemed JFK/RFK just railed against the status quo of power at every turn.

The vision was one to be agreed and admired by every right thinking person. Unfortunately there was an eerie inevitability about how it would end. Being right isn't always the right thing to be.

I hope this reads OK, I've just fired it off without proof reading or editing for readability. Pretty tired right now.

Gary

[Guest Gary Loughran]

bump

[Sterling Seagrave]

I am really mystified though at its depiction of LBJ as just another victim of the assassination, some poor soul caught in the cross hairs of history. Frankly I don't understand how Talbot could characterize Johnson, one of the most ruthless and corrupt politicians in history, so benignly.

I agree. This was the first question that I asked at our meeting in London. David argued that LBJ's response to the assassination suggested that he was unaware that it was going to take place. I will start a new thread on this topic and try to get David to answer questions on LBJ and the assassination.

I have been impressed by what I would describe as the balance of the book. All pertinent views are represented and David goes to great pains to avoid expressions of personal judgement.

This, IMO, has lead to what I would consider a less explosive book overall (I thoroughly enjoyed it though, very well written and enlightening) in that every reader can have their point of view reinforced.

If you are a right wing nut, you can read that Kennedy was a weak, Commie loving, black (though thats not what the right winger I had in mind would say) loving president. You could side with Le May and the JCS very easily. You could understand why Kennedy 'had to go' and if you were so inclined actually rejoice.

I was struck by the absolute naiveté of JFK and his brother. In a lot of places they move too soon without preparing their constinuency for the moves. I loved their vision and embraced their direction.

The point I'm trying to make is, for the most part, this book allows reader's own biases prior to reading the book to be reinforced whilst at the same time permits re-evaluation, if one was inclined. Two stools which are notoriously hard to straddle for any writer.

There were three non-military men in the first tier of government whose careers were to be terminated by JFK, and they already knew they were doomed if JFK remained in place. These were Allen Dulles, LBJ, and LBJ’s neighbor J. Edgar Hoover. Although LBJ would have been the chief victim of the Bobby Baker case, J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles had both been involved in collusion with LBJ and his patron Sam Rayburn in defense industry bribery and the myriad other scandals that made the Bobby Baker case such a pig-wallow.

IMO, the temptation to pin the assassination and coup on one mastermind is a dangerous error, which is a good reason not to point the finger at LBJ alone. It’s one of the virtues of David Talbot’s book that he does not point the finger at LBJ or any other individual. Start making a list of all those who probably were involved in various ways, and you end up with pages and pages of names. Talbot has done a service by avoiding this and maintaining a remarkably moderate tone throughout his book. Readers who would become hostile to finger pointing will now come to see the context of the coup and begin to grasp that the Kennedys were murdered by their seniormost military and civilian colleagues. Who then had the power to cover it all up with the Warren Commission, and throw away the key.

Sterling Seagrave

[Cliff Varnell]

I am really mystified though at its depiction of LBJ as just another victim of the assassination, some poor soul caught in the cross hairs of history. Frankly I don't understand how Talbot could characterize Johnson, one of the most ruthless and corrupt politicians in history, so benignly.

I agree. This was the first question that I asked at our meeting in London. David argued that LBJ's response to the assassination suggested that he was unaware that it was going to take place. I will start a new thread on this topic and try to get David to answer questions on LBJ and the assassination.

I have been impressed by what I would describe as the balance of the book. All pertinent views are represented and David goes to great pains to avoid expressions of personal judgement.

This, IMO, has lead to what I would consider a less explosive book overall (I thoroughly enjoyed it though, very well written and enlightening) in that every reader can have their point of view reinforced.

If you are a right wing nut, you can read that Kennedy was a weak, Commie loving, black (though thats not what the right winger I had in mind would say) loving president. You could side with Le May and the JCS very easily. You could understand why Kennedy 'had to go' and if you were so inclined actually rejoice.

I was struck by the absolute naiveté of JFK and his brother. In a lot of places they move too soon without preparing their constinuency for the moves. I loved their vision and embraced their direction.

The point I'm trying to make is, for the most part, this book allows reader's own biases prior to reading the book to be reinforced whilst at the same time permits re-evaluation, if one was inclined. Two stools which are notoriously hard to straddle for any writer.

There were three non-military men in the first tier of government whose careers were to be terminated by JFK, and they already knew they were doomed if JFK remained in place. These were Allen Dulles, LBJ, and LBJ’s neighbor J. Edgar Hoover. Although LBJ would have been the chief victim of the Bobby Baker case, J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles had both been involved in collusion with LBJ and his patron Sam Rayburn in defense industry bribery and the myriad other scandals that made the Bobby Baker case such a pig-wallow.

IMO, the temptation to pin the assassination and coup on one mastermind is a dangerous error, which is a good reason not to point the finger at LBJ alone.

Thank you for perspectives, Sterling.

I couldn't agree more with your last point.

It seems clear to me from a reading of Fonzi, Hancock & Bamford that

the assassination was not organized around personal or organizational

agendas, and thus did not have a "mastermind."

The JFK assassination team was organized toward affecting a violent

change in US policy on Cuba.

It wasn't a "CIA" operation per se -- or a "Mafia" operation, or a "Texas oil"

operation, or a "US military" operation.

The assassination team was composed of people with those backgrounds,

but the personal or organizational agendas those individuals brought to

their efforts were secondary to the over-all unifying goal -- establish a

pretext for the invasion of Cuba.

It’s one of the virtues of David Talbot’s book that he does not point the finger at LBJ or any other individual. Start making a list of all those who probably were involved in various ways, and you end up with pages and pages of names.

I think a good short list can be compiled.

David Sanchez Morales confessed to close friends, we've been told.

David Atlee Phillips confessed to his brother, we've been told.

We can hear E. Howard Hunt on tape with a "death-bed" confession fingering

both Morales and Phillips.

The boss of Operation Mongoose, Gen. Ed Lansdale, was fingered

by his boss Gen. Victor Krulak as being in one of the tramp

photos.

Lansdale, Morales, Phillips.

American coup-makers extraordinaire.

I'd peg the likelihood of those guys playing major roles at 95%,

which is the best we can ever do, imo.

Talbot has done a service by avoiding this and maintaining a remarkably moderate tone throughout his book. Readers who would become hostile to finger pointing will now come to see the context of the coup and begin to grasp that the Kennedys were murdered by their seniormost military and civilian colleagues. Who then had the power to cover it all up with the Warren Commission, and throw away the key.

Sterling Seagrave

[Myra Bronstein]

...

IMO, the temptation to pin the assassination and coup on one mastermind is a dangerous error, which is a good reason not to point the finger at LBJ alone.

...

Pointing out someone's complicity, which I did, is not the same as claiming they're the sole perp or mastermind.

Start making a list of all those who probably were involved in various ways, and you end up with pages and pages of names.

...

Sterling Seagrave

I already did that in in this thread Sterling:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10287&st=15

[Myra Bronstein]

...

It’s one of the virtues of David Talbot’s book that he does not point the finger at LBJ or any other individual.

...

Sterling Seagrave

Whereas I see it as a serious flaw.

If Talbot had stayed neutral about LBJ it would not have been a flaw. Instead, he took a stance on LBJ & painted a picture of him as an innocent victim that IMO is nothing like the real man.

This portrayal of LBJ ignores his entire ruthless background--strewn with bodies and bribes. It ignores his long association with other ruthless individuals, one being hit man Mac Wallace whose fingerprint was found in the Texas School book depository. It ignores what was going on in parallel with President Kennedy's murder, i.e., the congressional investigation of Bobby Baker that would have destroyed LBJ, and it ignores the fact that LBJ was being dumped from the 1964 ticket.

Ignoring context, and ignoring a man's background and criminal associates is not a virtue.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Re: Myra's case against LBJ. Again, not a major focus of my research, and I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise by new research. But I just don't see anything more than circumstantial evidence that Johnson was involved in the plot.

...

Welcome back David. I'm thrilled with the success of Brothers.

It is one of the most skillfully written, informative, and touching books I've ever read.

Thank you for fighting the good fight.

I do have to say that at this point, over 40 years after President Kennedy's murder, circumstantial evidence is likely all we will be able to get.

Myra

[William Kelly]

Back from the media war's heart of darkness ..the horror, the horror. I want to thank all of you again for your comments on the book -- and particularly John for setting up the London chat and his ongoing efforts. There have been some days when I think America (and the media in particular) has made absolutely no progress -- and one of the worst days had to be when HBO announced it was turning Bugliosi's book into a mini-series. HBO has been a cultural oasis. What are they -- and specifically Tom Paxton and Tom Hanks --thinking?

Speaking of HBO, I too have been struck over the years by Sopranos creator David Chase's obvious obsession with the Kennedy story. Now that's MY dream -- getting David Chase to turn "Brothers" into a mini-series.

Other low points for me -- the Wash Post and BOSTON (of all places) Globe reviews. But as Ishmael Reed has said, "Writin' is fightin'" -- I knew my book would stir up a hornet's nest (the worst thing would have been to be ignored). And I'm actually pleasantly surprised how well the book has done. And yes, John, I think the fact that Time magazine, Henry Luce's creation, asked me to write the lead essay on JFK for their current special issue IS some kind of cultural landmark. (They also asked me to write a shorter piece on RFK's suspicions about Dallas as a counterpoint to a Bugliosi screed.)

Speaking of Mr. B -- I have to say my opinion of him was not improved after our meeting backstage following our "Hardball" encounter. He's a very mean-spirited little man, and was still fuming after our on-air encounter. The producers were trying to keep us apart -- I guess they thought we would end up strangling each other. I offered him my hand -- he hesitated before shaking it -- and I offered to debate him onstage (with an impartial moderator next time). He said he would think it over. So far no word from his camp.

I agree that my weakest moment on "Hardball" was my response to Matthews' persistent questioning about how Oswald ended up in the TBD -- it was not a main focus of my research. And though I suspect that Ruth Paine had some low-level intelligence connection, I was not prepared to make a strong case. I think my strongest moment came when I pointed out that key members of the Warren Commission themselves were lone nut doubters (that really set off Bugliosi). In general, though, what I've heard from viewers is that B came off so angry and unhinged on the show that he sabotaged himself. I think his reputation as a masterful courtroom debater is undeserved.

Re: documents research vs. personal interviews. The LA Times piece bungled that quote from me. I was not dismissing the idea of "pawing through dusty documents" -- believe me, I did my share of that. I was trying to say that I did not want to ONLY rely on archival research. I put in long hours at the Kennedy Library and other institutions. And I hired a skilled researcdh associate at the National Archives, Cliff Callahan. (Malcolm Blunt, the British expert in JFK-documents, also provided generous assistance.) But documents can lie and distort too. They must be put in their proper context. And to do that -- and to get a feel for past events and characters -- I find that talking to key players is indispensable.

Re: New Yorker story. The good news is that the New Yorker did indeed pay for a final burst of research that was very useful for my book. But when Jeff Morley and I ended up discredting the BBC report on RFK, the New Yorker declined to publish the piece. Jeff and I will be posting a summary of our work -- including new photos of David Morales and George Joannides -- on the Mary Ferrell web site.

Re: Myra's case against LBJ. Again, not a major focus of my research, and I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise by new research. But I just don't see anything more than circumstantial evidence that Johnson was involved in the plot. Did he figure it out quickly afterwards and participate in the coverup? Absolutely. But I don't see him as a co-conspirator, and more importanly, I see no evidence that Bobby did. If RFK suspected LBJ was guilty, he would not have lobbied to join him as vp on the 1964 ticket.

I'm still in the final throes of my tour -- and the UK aspect of it was exhilirating, btw. The book is #4 on the Irish bestseller list -- the Kennedys are still a magical name there. But I will try to jump in now and then when I can. Thanks again for the high level of debate in the forum.

David, That was just the first round. Now you have to reload, refresh and get ready for the bell to ring again.

As for the New Yorker, I was going to subscribe for a year if they published the story of what you and Jeff came up with.

Looking forward to your report at MF.

Bill Kelly

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Hopefully I'll reply to your second point soon, though for the most part it was my evaluation of portions of the book. If I were to make reference to Northern Ireland here Sinn Fein expertly prepared their constituency for what would have been treasonable (and all that entails) to Republicans just 10-15 years ago. Loyalists and the DUP didn't and really still haven't hence the delay in setting up government and the uneasy truce which exists. Although MI5 seems to have left the area for a while so maybe things can progress.

Speak soon

Gary

Still, you said "In a lot of places they move too soon without preparing their constinuency for the moves."

If they (Jack & Bobby) moved too soon in a lot of places there should be a lot of examples.

Or at least one.

I'm trying to understand your point, and right now I don't.

Hi Myra,

I'll give this a quick bash, on the fly.

RE: Civil rights specifically Ole Miss and Cuba.

The Kennedy's, IMO, should have worked from the inside out to solve these problems. That is got the JCS, Military, CIA etc. on side or at least in a reasonably supportive position. Then the moves they made in Cuba etc. could have had a substantially better chance of success. In order to enact lasting changes there needs to be a consistency of message from all the parties involved. It takes time, it's difficult, but this way when the action is taken it has a better chance of lasting success.

In tandem with this strategy; the electorate should be prepared for the moves, slowly and steadily. This will reduce external political pressure and prevent wavering within the political party/Government at large. Re: Sinn Fein - they were able to take 98% of the Republican movement with them in the moves for peace over a 20 year period - this included some folk who made were as mad and crazy as those 'crazy Cubans'. Each and every PM who dealt with them recognised their command of political nuance and expressed admiration. Excepting Mrs Thatcher of course who to the disappointment of many has fallen off the 'popular hit' radar.

IMO the naivete of making these political moves too fast fermented many important people against them.

Look, I think the what they were doing was right. I agree with their strategy. However tactically they executed this strategy with political inexperience hence naivete. The problems they tried to solve vis Cuba, Civil Rights are still a ways from being perfect, some 40 odd years later. I'd have given them (the warmongering hardline right) 'Nam for Cuba and Civil Rights - Vietnam would've drawn domestic attention off these issues and maybe allowed them to sneak in under the radar. Victory in the Vietnam war was understood to be unattainable from an early stage and I'm sure withdrawal could've been made down the line. There needs to be a quid pro quo, it's the way of the world unfortunately; you can't get something for nothing. It seemed JFK/RFK just railed against the status quo of power at every turn.

The vision was one to be agreed and admired by every right thinking person. Unfortunately there was an eerie inevitability about how it would end. Being right isn't always the right thing to be.

I hope this reads OK, I've just fired it off without proof reading or editing for readability. Pretty tired right now.

Gary

Thanks for the example Gary. The thing about civil rights is that President Kennedy and Attorney General Kennedy did not dictate the timing of the changes. The US judicial system did, usually the Supreme Court.

In the case of Ole Miss, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision on September 10, 1962 upholding James Meredith's right to admission at the University of Mississippi. At that point Ole Miss and Governor Ross Barnett were breaking the law by continuing to refuse admission to Meredith, and the president and attorney general had to enforce the law. It's in the oath of office. So when Barnett physically blocked Meredith from registering, he forced the issue and federal troops were called in. Barnett couldn't be allowed to defy the law and the constitution, and Meredith's safety had to be insured.

http://afroamhistory.about.com/cs/jamesmer...mesmeredith.htm

"In an interview for CNN, Meredith stated, "I was engaged in a war. I considered myself engaged in a war from Day One. And my objective was to force the federal government – the Kennedy administration at that time – into a position where they would have to use the United States military force to enforce my rights as a citizen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Meredith

He succeeded. The Kennedy administration was forced into protecting his rights at Ole Miss.

The pace of the civil rights movement was dictated by the individual activists working within the US judicial system, not by the Kennedy brothers.