David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[Myra Bronstein]

John Newman goes into some detail about this two-track phenomenon.

LBJ's military advisor: Col. Howard Burris, to this correspondent a prime suspect and one of the "boys in the woodwork" (see Newman).

Charles

Exactly Charles. Newman's book "JFK and Vietnam" is Scott's main reference for his Vietnam info.

I'm eager to read it.

[William Kelly]

I think David Talbot's book is very important, and sets the stage for the next series of events that are necessary to solve the JFK assassination to a legal and moral certainty.

I spent a few days reading the book and quite a while retyping this section, which I think is a very powerful statement that deserves more attention than it is getting and should not be overlooked.

The lingering "malaise" is our own.

Those who want to argue and debate details and opinions can do so, those who want to take this case to the next level must begin where David Talbot leaves off.

Doesn't anyone else think this is significant?

BK

David Talbot (p.406) :

"In recent years, the Kennedy legacy has been clouded by a spate of books, documentaries, and articles that have attempted to demythologize Camelot by presenting JFK as a drug-addled, sex-deranged, mobbed-up risk taker. While Kennedy's private life would certainly not pass today's public scrutiny, this pathological interpretation missess the essential story of his presidency. There was a heroic grandeur to John F. Kennedy's administration that had nothing to do with the mists of Camelot. It was a presidency that clased with its own times, and in the end found some measure of greatness. Coming to office at the height of the Cold War and held hostage by their party's powerful Southern racist wing, the Kennedy brothers steadily grew in vision and courage - prodded by the social movements of the sixties - until they were in such sharp conflict with the national security bureaucracy and Southern Democrats that they risked splitting their own administration and party. This is the fundamental historical truth about the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

"And yet, caught up in the fashionable anti-Kennedy backlash of the times, prominent journalsits like Christopher Hitchens dismiss JFK as "a vulgar hoodlum." One result of this relentless Kennedy bashing has been to diminish the public outrage over JFK's unsolved murder. After all, if President Kennedy really was such a sleazy character, where is the tragedy in his violent demise?"

"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 responsiblity to search for the truth. Ironically, some of the more politically backward countries were Bobby Kennedy took hi srapturous mission in the 1960s - including South Africa, Argentina, and Chile- have made strenuous, if painful, efforts to confront the deepest traumas of their past, including assassinations, kidnappings and torture. In South Africa, the post-apartheid process of political and moral self-examination became known as 'truth and reconciliation.'"

"But in the United States, the darkest political mysteries of recent decades - including the assassination of President Kennedy - have yet to be fully explored. From Dallas to Vietnam to Iraq, the truth has consistently been avoided, the perpetrators have never fully answered for their actions. When the nation has mustered the courage to impanel commissions, these investigations soon come up against locked doors that remain firmly shut to this day. The stage for this reign of secrecy was set on November 22, 1963. The lesson of Dallas was clear. If a president can be shot down with impunity at high noon in the sunny streets of an American city, then any kind of deceit is possible."

"Assassination researchers insist that it is not too late, even at this remote date, to revive the JFK investigation. Most people who could have shed light on the crime are now dead, reserachers acknowledge, but the trail has not receded entirely into history's far horizons."

"Researchers list a variety of actions that can still be taken. The government should be compelled to release the JFK files it is still withholding - including the 1,100 documents related to George Joannides that the CIA has admitted it still has locked away. The CIA should also be required to disclose the phone and travel records of other agents suspected of involvement in the JFK - and RFK - assassinations, such as David Morales. Washington should follow this by making a formal request to the Cuban and Mexican governments to release all their secret files on the case. The Justice Department should offer amnesty and waive government secrecy pledges for all those who step forward with relevant testimony. Lingering technical disputes about the events in Dealey Plaza - such as the hotly debated 'acoustic fingerprints' on the Dallas police motorcycle Dictabelt that apparently indicated that as many as five shots were fired that day - should be resolved by utilizing the most sophisticated forensic resources, including those of the federal Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, which oddly refused to take on the case. Finally, the Kennedy family should be persuaded to completely open the papers under their control - including those of John and Robert Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - which are still subject to frustrating restrictions."

"The assassination researchers are, of course, indefatigable by nature. That's what has allowed them to carry on, through years of government obstruction, media ridicule, and the bewilderment of family and friends. But outside this shrinking community of hardy souls, a malaise hangs over the JFK crusade."

"...Do Americans still want the truth - starting with Dallas and going all the way to Guantanamo? Do they want to take back their country? I don't know for certain. But I have to be optimistic. Just because there really is no other way, is there?"

David Talbott, from Brothers - The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years.

Hi Bill,

Just into chapter 2 of Brothers and one thing I'm very impressed by is the job Talbot has done in illustrating just how much disdain, animosity, and outright contempt the the leaders of the military (Burke, Lemnitzer, LeMay, etc.) and intelligence (Dulles, Bissell, etc.) apparatus' had for president Kennedy and his entire administration. Like most of us here, I've accepted this fundamental reality for years and I've argued as much several times, especially where LeMay and Lemnitzer are concerned. But Talbot cites many compelling examples of just how much they hated, distrusted, and openly disobeyed Kennedy. The author does a brilliant job making the reader understand the degree to which these "leaders" viewed Kennedy as weak, naive and dangerous. While some will view this more as a backdrop, I think the nature of this relationship goes right to the heart of why Dallas occurred.

Shanet Clark, you still out there? This dovetails nicely with your views on the case.

On to chapter 3.

Hi Greg,

I'm glad somebody contributing to this thread is actually reading the book. Talbot certainly does establish JFK was "at war with his own administration," especially his military and intelligence advisors.

BK

[Anthony Thorne]

I (like others here I guess) have ordered it and look forward to reading it. I'm hoping that when Talbot answers questions in a specific thread at some future date a lot of us will have tackled it and we can get a really solid Q&A session happening. I'll be curious to see how Talbot fares with his national media tour. Will mainstream journalists be pushing the "Gee, do you REALLY think there was a conspiracy?" angle, or will it be accepted as a given? I'm guessing that a few high-profile outlets will be skittish about completely endorsing the theory, whilst writers from other smaller publications and media outlets will have more common sense and won't feel the pressure to conform to the usual nonsensical mainstream position on this. I've noticed this happening with discussion here and there on 9/11 and will watch to see if Talbot's book follows the same path.

[Evan Marshall]

I (like others here I guess) have ordered it and look forward to reading it. I'm hoping that when Talbot answers questions in a specific thread at some future date a lot of us will have tackled it and we can get a really solid Q&A session happening. I'll be curious to see how Talbot fares with his national media tour. Will mainstream journalists be pushing the "Gee, do you REALLY think there was a conspiracy?" angle, or will it be accepted as a given? I'm guessing that a few high-profile outlets will be skittish about completely endorsing the theory, whilst writers from other smaller publications and media outlets will have more common sense and won't feel the pressure to conform to the usual nonsensical mainstream position on this. I've noticed this happening with discussion here and there on 9/11 and will watch to see if Talbot's book follows the same path.

UPS delivered it today at the shop and I've been reading it between customers-very entertaining read unlike many assassination books-will need to read it at least twice-wonder why Blakey who worked for RFK turned out to be such a dud.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Evan Marshall

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

As Charles points out john Newman also goes into this two-track Kennedy strategy. In Newman's JFK and Vietnam, Newman deftly describes the pressure the JCS was putting on JFK to intervene in Laos. He then says JFK developed a second track to go around the JCS, while fending off the bureacracy with quotes that were designed to appease them. Reading Newman's account I realized just how easy it would be for Chomsky, Cockburn and Co. to depict JFK as an ultra-Hawk, and to imply the unstated corrolary of their Kennedy writing: he was so war-like that it's not worth persuing the assassination.

I was a bit suprised that Talbot didn't develop this two track theme more re: Laos, as it may have buttressed his aguments re:Cuba. He mentions Laos but only in passing.

So far I am loving the book. Especially the gentlemanly jabs at Sir Seymour of the Langley Set.

[Myra Bronstein]

As Charles points out john Newman also goes into this two-track Kennedy strategy. In Newman's JFK and Vietnam, Newman deftly describes the pressure the JCS was putting on JFK to intervene in Laos. He then says JFK developed a second track to go around the JCS, while fending off the bureacracy with quotes that were designed to appease them. Reading Newman's account I realized just how easy it would be for Chomsky, Cockburn and Co. to depict JFK as an ultra-Hawk, and to imply the unstated corrolary of their Kennedy writing: he was so war-like that it's not worth persuing the assassination.

...

Oh yeah, good point Nathaniel. That may be part of what happened with Ultimate Sacrifice in fact, as pertaining to Bobby Kennedy. He may have been writing contingency plans, or more hawkish plans for getting Castro as part of a two-track strategy where John and Bobby didn't plan on using the hawk track but the authors took it literally. Maybe.

...

So far I am loving the book. Especially the gentlemanly jabs at Sir Seymour of the Langley Set.

That's a pretty gentlemanly description right there. More gentlemanly than he deserves anyway.

[Thomas Graves]

As Charles points out john Newman also goes into this two-track Kennedy strategy. In Newman's JFK and Vietnam, Newman deftly describes the pressure the JCS was putting on JFK to intervene in Laos. He then says JFK developed a second track to go around the JCS, while fending off the bureacracy with quotes that were designed to appease them. Reading Newman's account I realized just how easy it would be for Chomsky, Cockburn and Co. to depict JFK as an ultra-Hawk, and to imply the unstated corrolary of their Kennedy writing: he was so war-like that it's not worth persuing the assassination.

...

Oh yeah, good point Nathaniel. That may be part of what happened with Ultimate Sacrifice in fact, as pertaining to Bobby Kennedy. He may have been writing contingency plans, or more hawkish plans for getting Castro as part of a two-track strategy where John and Bobby didn't plan on using the hawk track but the authors took it literally. Maybe.

...

So far I am loving the book. Especially the gentlemanly jabs at Sir Seymour of the Langley Set.

That's a pretty gentlemanly description right there. More gentlemanly than he deserves anyway.

__________________

Yeah. Definitely.

__________________

[William Kelly]

Finely, a sober assessment. BK

Who really did kill Kennedy?

Talbot's got his own ideas, seen through RFK's eyes

Reviewed by Dan Cornford

Sunday, May 13, 2007

• Printable Version
  
• Email This Article
  

sfgate_get_fprefs();

Brothers

The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years

By David Talbot

FREE PRESS; 478 PAGES; $28

To quote from the first line of eminent historian Robert Dallek's recent biography of John Kennedy: "Why another Kennedy book?" And why, one might add, yet another book that focuses on JFK assassination conspiracy theories as well?

David Talbot, founder of Salon.com who was a 16-year-old volunteer in Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign when RFK was assassinated, offers several rationales for his re-examination of the JFK era. First, he believes that new evidence, including his own research encompassing more than 150 interviews, further undermines the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report. Second, he asserts that no book has ever examined the JFK years, and the post-assassination traumas, through the eyes of Robert Kennedy or explained RFK's apparent reluctance to push for a fuller investigation into his brother's murder. Finally, Talbot claims that "missing from the vast body of literature on the Kennedy years ... is a sense of the deep tumult at the heart of the administration."

"Brothers" focuses on two major themes: a detailed though not comprehensive account of the JFK presidency, juxtaposed with the story of his many adversaries and the possible grounds for their involvement in an assassination plot. Talbot rebuts critical assessments of JFK by revisionist historians and also seeks to rehabilitate the Kennedy image after the battering it has received by authors such as Seymour Hersh in his scathing book "The Dark Side of Camelot" (1997).

Throughout the book, Talbot stresses the extent to which the Kennedy administration faced political pressure from the extreme right, including elements of the CIA leadership, the national security apparatus (including the military) in general, anti-Castro Cubans and a resurgent wing of the Republican Party led by Barry Goldwater. The author insists that JFK's policies, while not always consistent with his "New Frontier" rhetoric, nevertheless effectively pre-empted and frustrated his opposition. In doing so, JFK incurred the wrath of his enemies and incubated a desire for revenge in many of them.

Talbot is least convincing when he attempts to rebut the claim that JFK was a Cold War warrior. To be sure, he makes an interesting case that America, and especially its military and defense elites, were so consumed by the Cold War that the narrowly elected president had limited room to maneuver. But although a case can perhaps be made that shortly before his death JFK had begun to see the folly of his commitment to South Vietnam, Talbot's account of JFK's Cuba policies largely ignores good historical evidence portraying Kennedy as a die-hard adversary of Communism and is, at times, puzzlingly self-contradictory.

Talbot eloquently recounts how Robert Kennedy was traumatized by the death of his brother. Aside from the enduring shock, RFK's failure to press more aggressively for an investigation into the assassination was due to his marginalization by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration and RFK's hopes that he would be able to launch an inquiry if or when he won the presidency.

With respect to assassination conspiracy theories, some readers may conclude that Talbot and his publisher have overstated the book's originality and that some of its findings are unspectacular, unsurprising and hardly "hidden," in spite of the many interviews the author conducted. Talbot tends to play down, and occasionally ignore, contrary evidence and arguments. In addition, he sometimes attaches too much weight to hearsay and the speculations of those he interviewed, especially some of Kennedy's aging "band of brothers." Nevertheless, the author will convince many not wedded to the Warren Commission findings that the likelihood of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK (and maybe RFK) is significant.

However, Talbot may eventually regret granting so much credibility to the testimony of St. John Hunt, the son of the late E. Howard Hunt, a leading CIA operative in the 1950s and 1960s and one of the Watergate masterminds. Neither father nor son makes the best of witnesses. In his recently published autobiography, "American Spy," Howard Hunt made the dubious and unsubstantiated assertion that Johnson was involved in JFK's assassination. The senior Hunt speculated that the CIA might have been involved, and even mentioned several names, but, according to Talbot, his second wife prevented him from saying anything about his role.

In an interview with Talbot, however, St. John Hunt claimed that his father had confessed to him that in 1963 he had been invited by a group of CIA agents, including Frank Sturgis ("the mob-friendly anti-Castro operative who later joined Hunt's Watergate burglary team") and David Morales, who was involved with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to join in an assassination plot. At the very least, he says, his father had foreknowledge of a conspiracy. While no source should be dismissed out of hand, especially one so closely linked to one of the few men who may have known it all, St. John Hunt's involvement in the Watergate cover-up (as a teenager, he helped his father get rid of evidence), and his felony drug convictions do not make him the most ideal witness.

Notwithstanding the deficiencies of this and some other sources, Talbot's highly readable, at times gripping book makes the case for releasing the classified documents pertaining to the JFK assassination. Talbot summarizes more compelling and troubling evidence than that offered by St. John Hunt. In particular, questions remain about the role CIA agent George Joannides may have played.

Declassified JFK files reveal that in 1963, Joannides was the agent in charge of one of the most powerful Cuban anti-Castro organizations in Miami, the Revolutionary Students Directorate, or DRE. A few months before JFK's assassination, the DRE had significant contact with Lee Harvey Oswald, and Oswald attempted to infiltrate the New Orleans branch of the DRE. In the course of four intensive investigations of the JFK assassination, however, the CIA failed to divulge information about this connection, or even that Joannides was the CIA officer assigned to manage the DRE, and refused to release important parts of Joannides' personnel file.

Among other things, Talbot's book is an important contribution to a recent and growing chorus of Kennedy authors and researchers, including Gerald Posner, the most oft-cited authority for the "one gunman/no conspiracy" thesis, calling for a reopening of investigations into the JFK assassination or, at minimum, for the CIA to release pertinent, identified documents that might shed light on the subject. In September, on grounds of national security, the CIA successfully thwarted a request for such information. Until it is released, many authors or citizens with an interest in the issue will reasonably speculate that crucial information about the JFK assassination is being concealed. Dan Cornford is a San Jose State University emeritus professor of history.

This article appeared on page M - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Edited May 13, 2007 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

Finally, a sober assessment. BK

Talbot is a gifted writer and Brothers is a gripping and important read. However, after finishing Talbot's book, I agree with the reviewer (Dan Corford) when he writes:

With respect to assassination conspiracy theories, some readers may conclude that Talbot and his publisher have overstated the book's originality and that some of its findings are unspectacular, unsurprising and hardly "hidden," in spite of the many interviews the author conducted. Talbot tends to play down, and occasionally ignore, contrary evidence and arguments. In addition, he sometimes attaches too much weight to hearsay and the speculations of those he interviewed, especially some of Kennedy's aging "band of brothers."

In addition, I found Talbot's citations to be inconsistent. In some instances, sources for his claims were not even mentioned in the footnotes, which was frustrating.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Dawn Meredith]

My copy finally arrived and thus far I am loving it. It's a different kind of CT book, it gives you an inside view of the the day to day problems JFK and RFK faced with the war mongers. It was uphill from the start and JFK stuck to his morality (and Sanity!) against these JCS, and others who wanted war, invasions, toppling governments. They hated him and he did not trust them. I think he even knew it was only a matter of time til he was killed by powers he could not stop.

This book is definately must reading.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

[

In addition, I found Talbot's citations to be inconsistent. In some instances, sources for his claims were not even mentioned in the footnotes, which was frustrating.

In my copy there are no indications on the text as to what is footnoted. There are notes in the back but but without numbers on the actual text it's impossible to see what the cites are referring to.

Dawn

[David McLean]

A small observation perhaps, but I feel an important one: according to David Talbot's interviews, RFK said on the phone to his friend and relatively more liberal Cuban, Harry Ruiz Williams, "One of your guys did it", with Haynes Johnson nearby.

However, Haynes Johnson according to an article, repeated later in Fatal Sacrifice(p.137) was recipient of this statement, as he had been writing his book on the Bay of Pigs and aftermath, using the rightwing Manuel Artime faction as a primary source.

Can this be clarified? It may indicate what RFK knew of LHO and his affiliations, I suspect. PS I have Talbot's book on order.

[Michael Hogan]

From the Leonard Lopate show, an interview with David Talbot about the Kennedy brothers, Jack and Bobby:

http://prairieweather.typepad.com/the_scribe/

Audio link: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2007/05/07

[Myra Bronstein]

From the Leonard Lopate show, an interview with David Talbot about the Kennedy brothers, Jack and Bobby:

http://prairieweather.typepad.com/the_scribe/

Audio link: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2007/05/07

Good interview Mike, thanks.

"I met with one, a man named Angelo Murgado, a Bay of Pigs veteran, who warned Bobby that there was dangerous talk about the president in these circles. They even tracked Oswald to New Orleans, these informants for Bobby, and they reported back to Bobby that this strange gringo, Oswald, was up to something, and they didn’t know exactly what. But he seemed odd to them."

Hm, I know many think that Murgado has no credibility in the context of the Odio episode. Do doubts of his credibility go even deeper though? Is Talbot quoting someone very iffy?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&hl=Murgado

[Pat Speer]

From the Leonard Lopate show, an interview with David Talbot about the Kennedy brothers, Jack and Bobby:

http://prairieweather.typepad.com/the_scribe/

Audio link: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2007/05/07

Good interview Mike, thanks.

"I met with one, a man named Angelo Murgado, a Bay of Pigs veteran, who warned Bobby that there was dangerous talk about the president in these circles. They even tracked Oswald to New Orleans, these informants for Bobby, and they reported back to Bobby that this strange gringo, Oswald, was up to something, and they didn’t know exactly what. But he seemed odd to them."

Hm, I know many think that Murgado has no credibility in the context of the Odio episode. Do doubts of his credibility go even deeper though? Is Talbot quoting someone very iffy?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&hl=Murgado

I think Talbot hurts the book by not mentioning Murgado's involvement in the Odio incident. It feels like he hid Murgado's purported involvement in order to bolster his credibility in other areas.