David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[William Kelly]

Oh yeah, definitely check out Salon.

Media/Author events here:

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/events.html

Tuesday May 15

Extension 720 With Milt Rosenberg, WGN Radio 720 in Chicago, 9 to 11 p.m.

Monday May 21

Tavis Smiley Show, PBS/TV -- check listings for local airtimes.

Tuesday May 22

The Pete Wilson Show, KGO/AM 810, 3 to 4 p.m.

Author appearance: Book Passage, 1 Ferry Building, San Francisco, Calif., 7 p.m.

Wednesday, May 23

Author appearance: Cody's Books, 1730 Fourth Street, Berkeley, Calif., 7 p.m.

Wednesday, May 30

Author appearance: Powell's Books, Cedar Hills Crossing, Beaverton, Ore., 7 p.m.

Thursday, May 31

Author appearance: Elliott Bay Book Co., 101 S. Main St., Seattle, Wash., 7:30 p.m.

Excerpt here:

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/excerpt.html

From Chapter 1.

Thanks for that info Myra,

David seems very busy.

I'm looking forward to hearing his interview with Terry Gross, NPR Fresh Air.

And there's Chapter One for those who haven't got to the book yet.

BK

[Dawn Meredith]

Oh yeah, definitely check out Salon.

Media/Author events here:

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/events.html

Tuesday May 15

Extension 720 With Milt Rosenberg, WGN Radio 720 in Chicago, 9 to 11 p.m.

Monday May 21

Tavis Smiley Show, PBS/TV -- check listings for local airtimes.

Tuesday May 22

The Pete Wilson Show, KGO/AM 810, 3 to 4 p.m.

Author appearance: Book Passage, 1 Ferry Building, San Francisco, Calif., 7 p.m.

Wednesday, May 23

Author appearance: Cody's Books, 1730 Fourth Street, Berkeley, Calif., 7 p.m.

Wednesday, May 30

Author appearance: Powell's Books, Cedar Hills Crossing, Beaverton, Ore., 7 p.m.

Thursday, May 31

Author appearance: Elliott Bay Book Co., 101 S. Main St., Seattle, Wash., 7:30 p.m.

Excerpt here:

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/excerpt.html

From Chapter 1.

Thanks for that info Myra,

David seems very busy.

I'm looking forward to hearing his interview with Terry Gross, NPR Fresh Air.

And there's Chapter One for those who haven't got to the book yet.

BK

Thanks BK. Keep em copming this book needs a LOT of press. FInished it last night and loved it, with one exception the Garrison/Sheridan stuff. That literally made me sick. So Joan's only half right- Bobby sent Walter Sheridan to investigate. Not sagotage. Then Garrison and Sheridan did not hit it off so Sheridan convinced Bobbby he was phony. Why the hell didn't Bobby go to NO and meet Garrison himself? THat really irritated me about him. That he let others do his trusting ( or lack thereof) for him.

But loved the book.

JOhn: When is David Talbot going to come here and discuss it with us?

Dawn.

[Dawn Meredith]

Oh yeah, definitely check out Salon.

Media/Author events here:

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/events.html

Tuesday May 15

Extension 720 With Milt Rosenberg, WGN Radio 720 in Chicago, 9 to 11 p.m.

Monday May 21

Tavis Smiley Show, PBS/TV -- check listings for local airtimes.

Tuesday May 22

The Pete Wilson Show, KGO/AM 810, 3 to 4 p.m.

Author appearance: Book Passage, 1 Ferry Building, San Francisco, Calif., 7 p.m.

Wednesday, May 23

Author appearance: Cody's Books, 1730 Fourth Street, Berkeley, Calif., 7 p.m.

Wednesday, May 30

Author appearance: Powell's Books, Cedar Hills Crossing, Beaverton, Ore., 7 p.m.

Thursday, May 31

Author appearance: Elliott Bay Book Co., 101 S. Main St., Seattle, Wash., 7:30 p.m.

Excerpt here:

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/excerpt.html

From Chapter 1.

Thanks for that info Myra,

David seems very busy.

I'm looking forward to hearing his interview with Terry Gross, NPR Fresh Air.

And there's Chapter One for those who haven't got to the book yet.

BK

Thanks BK. Keep em copming this book needs a LOT of press. FInished it last night and loved it, with one exception the Garrison/Sheridan stuff. That literally made me sick. So Joan's only half right- Bobby sent Walter Sheridan to investigate. Not sagotage. Then Garrison and Sheridan did not hit it off so Sheridan convinced Bobbby he was phony. Why the hell didn't Bobby go to NO and meet Garrison himself? THat really irritated me about him. That he let others do his trusting ( or lack thereof) for him.

But loved the book.

JOhn: When is David Talbot going to come here and discuss it with us?

Dawn.

Opps sorry, I meant thanks MYRA!!!! And what do you mean by Chpter one, BK? That there is a chapter not included? Or just for those who have yet to read even chapter one??

[William Kelly]

Oh yeah, definitely check out Salon.

Thanks BK. Keep em copming this book needs a LOT of press. FInished it last night and loved it, with one exception the Garrison/Sheridan stuff. That literally made me sick.

So Joan's only half right- Bobby sent Walter Sheridan to investigate. Not sagotage. Then Garrison and Sheridan did not hit it off so Sheridan convinced Bobbby he was phony.

Why the hell didn't Bobby go to NO and meet Garrison himself? THat really irritated me about him. That he let others do his trusting ( or lack thereof) for him.

But loved the book.

JOhn: When is David Talbot going to come here and discuss it with us?

Dawn.

David Talbot says that Garrison did meet RFK in DC.

Garrison was invited to meet JFK at the White House and traveled with his girlfriend, and missed the early morning appointment with the President and instead, met with RFK.

So Talbot says Garrison is no Kevin Costner.

BK

[William O'Neil]

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 presideency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

____________________________________

Hmmm...it appears my earlier criticism of Talbot is unfair, presumptious and unfounded.

At last someone who prominently (or at least appears to so far) addresses what (IMO) are CORE issues. (pun intended)

John , You are right on the money, pun and all....

[Michael Hogan]

David Talbot says that Garrison did meet RFK in DC.

Garrison was invited to meet JFK at the White House and traveled with his girlfriend, and missed the early morning appointment with the President and instead, met with RFK.

Talbot's source was Joan Mellen's A Farewell to Justice. (Page 22)

It was with "scrambled eggs," [airline attendant Judy Chambers] and not his wife, that Garrison traveled to Washington D.C., with Denis Barry for the purpose of meeting President John F. Kennedy. This trip had been arranged by Chep Morrison, now Kennedy's representative to the Organization of American States. After a raucous night, Garrison overslept. The next day he had to face an irritated attorney general, the president's brother.

"How did it go?" Haik asked on his return. [Robert Haik was a friend of Garrison]

"Well, I met Bobby," Garrison said. "Bob, you can always meet a president. But you can't always get a piece of a__ like that!"

Mellen's source seems to be an interview with Haik.

[Michael Hogan]

Thanks BK. Keep em coming this book needs a LOT of press. FInished it last night and loved it, with one exception the Garrison/Sheridan stuff. That literally made me sick. So Joan's only half right- Bobby sent Walter Sheridan to investigate. Not sagotage. Then Garrison and Sheridan did not hit it off so Sheridan convinced Bobbby he was phony. Why the hell didn't Bobby go to NO and meet Garrison himself? That really irritated me about him. That he let others do his trusting (or lack thereof) for him.

Talbot recounts how Robert Kennedy placed a personal phone call to Dr. Nicholas Chetta who had performed the autopsy on David Ferrie. Kennedy wanted to "assure himself that Garrison's key suspect was not the victim of foul play." Talbot's source was Gus Russo, who interviewed Chetta's son Nicky for his book Live by the Sword.

Talbot interviewed Ed Guthman, RFK's former press spokesman, who left the justice department in August, 1964 and became national editor for the Los Angeles Times. Guthman took a team of his crack reporters to New Orleans shortly after news broke about Garrison's case in February 1967. They stayed until the fall. According to Talbot, "They quickly developed a scornful attitude towards the prosecutor and his case," after interviewing Jack Ruby's sister (who they found in Southern California), Perry Russo, and most importantly, William Gurvich.

According to Talbot:

Guthman later met with Kennedy in Washington and reported to him what the Los Angeles Times had decided about Garrison. "I talked to Bob. He wanted to know what we had found out and I told him. So he accepted that. My feeling was that it was possible there was a conspiracy, but with Garrison, the evidence wasn't there."

But the man who had the most impact on Kennedy's view of the New Orleans investigation was Walter Sheridan. The former chief of RFK's "Get Hoffa" squad at the Justice Department played a central, yet little known (?) role in Kennedy's secret search for the truth about Dallas. There was no person in his inner circle on whom Bobby depended more to help him ferret out the full story of what happened to his brother. Sheridan's word on Garrison was bound to carry enormous weight with Kennedy....he was the man whom Kennedy intimates assumed would one day lead the way to cracking the case....

Sheridan was loved "as a brother and as a member of the family," recalled Teddy Kennedy. He and Bobby, who were born on the same day, celebrated their birthdays together....

Two years later, The Garrison probe exploded in the press. Kennedy and Sheridan were both eager to find out what the D.A. had. Bobby told Arthur Schlesinger that he thought Garrison was on to something. But Sheridan, who decided to go to New Orleans to check out the investigation, quickly came to a different conclusion, putting the Kennedy camp and the Garrison camp on a fatal collision course.

Like Guthman, Sheridan insisted he did not go to New Orleans on Kennedy's behalf. But soon after arriving there, he began feeding his former boss information about the investigation. Sheridan's scathing reports on Garrison would turn Kennedy against the prosecutor, and his scorching NBC special--"The JFK Conspiracy: The Case of Jim Garrison"--would turn the media tide against the New Orleans lawman.

According to Nancy Sheridan, her husband decided that Jim Garrison was "a fraud--a dishonest man, morally and intellectually" within twenty-four hours of his arrival in New Orleans....As with Guthman's Los Angeles Times team, Garrison defector Bill Gurvich was a principal source for Sheridan as he reached his withering assessment of the prosecutor....

Sheridan thought enough of the disgruntled Garrison employee to set up a meeting for him at Hickory Hill on June 8, 1967. Their ninety minute conversation continued in a cab ride to the airport and ended as the two men sat on a luggage conveyor....In their conversation, the investigator bluntly told Kennedy, "Senator, Mr. Garrison will never shed any light on your brother's death."

"Then why is he doing this?" Kennedy asked him.

"I don't know," Gurvich replied. "I wish I did."

Talbot's source for the above was Patricia Lambert's False Witness. He concludes:

There is a tragic sense to the blood feud that broke out between Jim Garrison and Walter Sheridan. These two men probably knew more than anyone else in the country, besides the conspirators themselves, about the plot that cut down JFK. But like the competing heirs to Kennedy legacy--RFK and LBJ--they were doomed to clash rather than cooperate. You could not find two more different men--one big, loud-mouthed, and brash; the other slight, tight-lipped, and circumspect.

Garrison was a man of outsized appetites and ambitions. Sheridan was a devoted family man and squeaky-clean public servant who had submerged his own dreams in those of Robert Kennedy. But it was not their clashing personalities that ultimately drove them into opposing corners. It was Kennedy's need to control the search into his brother's killing. Even without his obvious flaws, Garrison would have been unacceptable to Bobby. When it came to solving the crime, RFK trusted only himself and a few men, like Sheridan, who served him.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Michael Hogan]

So Joan's only half right- Bobby sent Walter Sheridan to investigate. Not sagotage. Then Garrison and Sheridan did not hit it off so Sheridan convinced Bobbby he was phony. Why the hell didn't Bobby go to NO and meet Garrison himself? THat really irritated me about him. That he let others do his trusting ( or lack thereof) for him.

Joan Mellen has posted the following information on her website:

ON THE MATTER OF WALTER SHERIDAN

(Since the new book, “Brothers” by David Talbot, suggests, falsely, that Walter Sheridan went down to New Orleans to “find out” what Jim Garrison was up to, I’m placing on this web site the original sections on Sheridan that I wrote for the longer, first draft of “A Farewell to Justice,” so that readers might compare and consider the evidence).

Part One: http://www.joanmellen.net/SHERIDAN.htm

Part Two: http://www.joanmellen.net/SHERIDAN-PART_TWO.htm

Edited May 17, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Dawn Meredith]

So Joan's only half right- Bobby sent Walter Sheridan to investigate. Not sagotage. Then Garrison and Sheridan did not hit it off so Sheridan convinced Bobbby he was phony. Why the hell didn't Bobby go to NO and meet Garrison himself? THat really irritated me about him. That he let others do his trusting ( or lack thereof) for him.

Joan Mellen has posted the following information on her website:

ON THE MATTER OF WALTER SHERIDAN

(Since the new book, “Brothers” by David Talbot, suggests, falsely, that Walter Sheridan went down to New Orleans to “find out” what Jim Garrison was up to, I’m placing on this web site the original sections on Sheridan that I wrote for the longer, first draft of “A Farewell to Justice,” so that readers might compare and consider the evidence).

Part One: http://www.joanmellen.net/SHERIDAN.htm

Part Two: http://www.joanmellen.net/SHERIDAN-PART_TWO.htm

So Ms. Mellen's got a hair across her a**, again! Her hatred of the Kennedys is

so transparent. I believe David got it right. That Sheridan convinced Bobby that

Garrison was a phony. And, unfortunately for history, Bobby believed him.

Talbot's book is far more credible on this than AFTJ. She needed to stick with updating Garrison's work, for which I will always commend her, not re-killing the brothers Kennedy.

Sy Hersh did that already.

Dawn

[David Talbot]

Hello everyone -- I'm back in the Forum after a long absence, so I hope I still remember how to post properly. I'm very interested to read this group's comments on the book, since I have a high regard for what John and you all have accomplished in -- keeping the debate going on this deepest of political traumas.

I'd like to reply briefly to some of the remarks that I've read, and I'd be happy to stick around for awhile (until my book tour resumes in a few days and I get spirited away again). And speaking to Anthony's question, yes my tour has been a real eye-opener about the state of the JFK debate in America. I'm actually amazed at how open the media now is to the idea that JFK was killed by a conspiracy -- even one connected to the government. Of course the Bugliosi book is also being championed in media circles -- the Bugliosi vs. Brothers duel is shaping up as this year's Oliver Stone vs. Posner battle. But at least the debate has been joined, or rejoined, and I think that is healthy for the US -- particularly in this strange, post-Bush era where the country is debating its place in the world (similar to the JFK era, when Kennedy was trying to redefine the US role in the world).

On Ray's comment about Brothers being more about a "love story at the highest political levels" between two brothers. Thank you for seeing that! That was indeed the main focus of my book -- and of course Bobby's search for justice for his dead brother. And thank you Myra for seeing the book as "a new path" into the JFK labyrinth. I did indeed want to avoid getting lost in some of the old dark tunnels, and I thought telling the story from Bobby's perspective would give me a chance to do that. I thought it was very important to establish an emotional narrative for the reader -- because that conveys what we feel in our hearts, those of us who still remember or care about the Kenendy story -- instead of presenting another detailed brief for conspiracy, which has already been done by many others more qualified than myself on the forensics minutiae of Dealey Plaza.

On Don's comment about Garrison: I devote an entire chapter to New Orleans, because I think it is a critical part of the RFK/Dallas story. I hope readers will see that I have a complex view of Garrison and Sheridan. I think of them both as flawed heroes, who unfortunately for the case, were both doomed to clash -- given their polar-opposite personalities and different agendas.

On Dawn's comments about footnotes. The publishing industry practice these days (for popular history books at least) is to publish end notes instead of numbered footnotes, which I admit are a bit harder to decipher. But by looking at the key words in the end notes section, you can figure out the source citations.

Finally on Pat's comments about Angelo Murgado and why I found his RFK/Oswald story credible. Big discussion, and happy to go into it further with you, but suffice it to say for now, that I DID take note of his version of the Sylvia Odio story (in my end notes) -- which, like you, I find dubious. I think he was trying to blur his and Bernardo De Torres' possible connection to Oswald, for obvious reasons. But I believe he was on more solid ground with his RFK/Oswald story.

I look forward to a lively dialogue with all of you.

[Charles Drago]

Mr. Talbot,

Please add my voice to those raised in loud appreciation of Brothers.

In regard to the "Bugliosi vs. Brothers duel," I would appreciate your comment on the following original statement that I first offered publicly at a JFK Lancer conference some years ago, and that I am led to believe motivated -- at least in part -- Bugliosi's newly published conclusion that, in the wake of "Reclaiming History," the argument that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't "do it" alone is unworthy of serious response:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the assassination of JFK who does not conclude that that murder was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Do you concur?

If so, then would you describe Bugliosi, within the context of his grasp of JFK's assassination, as an ignoramus, an accessory after the fact, or both?

I congratulate you, sir, on a most impressive and welcome contribution to the movements toward truth and justice.

Charles Drago

Edited May 18, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Myra Bronstein]

Hello everyone -- I'm back in the Forum after a long absence, so I hope I still remember how to post properly. I'm very interested to read this group's comments on the book, since I have a high regard for what John and you all have accomplished in -- keeping the debate going on this deepest of political traumas.

I'd like to reply briefly to some of the remarks that I've read, and I'd be happy to stick around for awhile (until my book tour resumes in a few days and I get spirited away again). And speaking to Anthony's question, yes my tour has been a real eye-opener about the state of the JFK debate in America. I'm actually amazed at how open the media now is to the idea that JFK was killed by a conspiracy -- even one connected to the government. Of course the Bugliosi book is also being championed in media circles -- the Bugliosi vs. Brothers duel is shaping up as this year's Oliver Stone vs. Posner battle. But at least the debate has been joined, or rejoined, and I think that is healthy for the US -- particularly in this strange, post-Bush era where the country is debating its place in the world (similar to the JFK era, when Kennedy was trying to redefine the US role in the world).

On Ray's comment about Brothers being more about a "love story at the highest political levels" between two brothers. Thank you for seeing that! That was indeed the main focus of my book -- and of course Bobby's search for justice for his dead brother. And thank you Myra for seeing the book as "a new path" into the JFK labyrinth. I did indeed want to avoid getting lost in some of the old dark tunnels, and I thought telling the story from Bobby's perspective would give me a chance to do that. I thought it was very important to establish an emotional narrative for the reader -- because that conveys what we feel in our hearts, those of us who still remember or care about the Kenendy story -- instead of presenting another detailed brief for conspiracy, which has already been done by many others more qualified than myself on the forensics minutiae of Dealey Plaza.

On Don's comment about Garrison: I devote an entire chapter to New Orleans, because I think it is a critical part of the RFK/Dallas story. I hope readers will see that I have a complex view of Garrison and Sheridan. I think of them both as flawed heroes, who unfortunately for the case, were both doomed to clash -- given their polar-opposite personalities and different agendas.

On Dawn's comments about footnotes. The publishing industry practice these days (for popular history books at least) is to publish end notes instead of numbered footnotes, which I admit are a bit harder to decipher. But by looking at the key words in the end notes section, you can figure out the source citations.

Finally on Pat's comments about Angelo Murgado and why I found his RFK/Oswald story credible. Big discussion, and happy to go into it further with you, but suffice it to say for now, that I DID take note of his version of the Sylvia Odio story (in my end notes) -- which, like you, I find dubious. I think he was trying to blur his and Bernardo De Torres' possible connection to Oswald, for obvious reasons. But I believe he was on more solid ground with his RFK/Oswald story.

I look forward to a lively dialogue with all of you.

Welcome David. We're lucky that we have a forum like this; your presence is a real perk. I think you know from this thread that I think Salon is excellent. And I'm eager to read your book, which is en route from a special courier even now... Since I've read excerpts of your book and read/listened to many of your associated interviews, I have some questions from that material.

I listened to your interview on WGN on Wednesday. (I'll mention to other forum members that the interview should be added to the WGN archives soon, the host said about a week:

http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_c...mp;Itemid=267.)

And in it you continued to, as you say, "establish an emotional narrative."

Particularly when you revealed that Richard Goodwin said Bobby Kennedy's last words at the Ambassador were about his brother. Did I understand that correctly, and if so do you feel that Goodwin was confident about his recollection of those words?

Also, regarding the timing of Bugliosi's book, when did you know that the two books would both be released around President Kennedy's birthday, and therefore serve as a point/counter-point to the crimes against the Kennedys? What I'm really wondering is: How much did Bugliosi's book impact you in terms of publicity and strategy and the story you want to tell? Do you mind the fact that a Bugliosi vs. Brothers duel is emerging?

When you say "Bobby Kennedy was America's first assassination conspiracy theorist," are you intentionally trying to remove the taint from the term, sort of reclaim it? It almost seems like you've decided to take the term away from those that have misappropriated it to put us on the defensive, and instead embrace it. Am I reading too much into that?

Also, you've seen the tangent we took while discussing your revelations about Bobby's researcher Sheridan, his encounter with Jim Garrison, and Sheridan's assessment of Garrison which I find harsh.

Do you think Sheridan was being harsh in dismissing Garrison?

I know you devote a chapter to it, but I'm just curious because it's so so tragic that they didn't unite.

And finally, for now, you said "I'm actually amazed at how open the media now is to the idea that JFK was killed by a conspiracy -- even one connected to the government." Would you mind expanding on that? Maybe give an example or two? I would like to be similarly amazed, but perhaps I'm too cynical.

I hope you don't mind some of the questions about your personal opinions on a few areas, as opposed to asking about research and hard facts (which I also hope you'll stick around for). It's unusual--as I think you know--to read a book in this area that focuses on flesh and blood and emotions instead of autopsy photos.

Thank you.

Myra

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Here is this Sunday's NYT book review of David Talbot's Brothers. Coming from NYT its about as good as one might expect. Alan Brinkley is a pretty good historian. I think he mischaracterizes Talbot's argument as one sided. Talbot makes it pretty clear that he is trying to correct a one sided labeling of JFK as

"just another Cold Warrior" ; he is trying to balance a view that has already been distorted by Hersh et. al. Hopefully we can post more positive reviews aound the net. I noticed it was rated 122 on Amazon, but Sunday's NYT has it 17th in Nonfiction.

In my view the book's strongest selling point is its analysis of the motive for the assassination. It is not overly reductive, but seems to grow from many different conflicts that JFK had with the National Security State. The National Security State comes off as an overnourished child who had gotten its way with

the only parent it had ever known: the eight years it grew up with very free reign under Eisenhower. This was more than half of its 13 years. Kennedy, must have seemed like an interloper when he took the CIA's charter-- the part about it existing under the control of the President, and that it could not get involved in domestic politics.

Talbot's analysis of motive is refreshingly "big picture". It insists that the assassination is connected to the rest of our history, not a sideshow to be labeled and sent to the Siberia of the small presses.

Note especially Brinkley's remarks about the Warren Commission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/re...html?ref=review

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I also think that Brinkley oversimplifies Talbot's argument, when he says that most historians do not see in Kennedy a major radical break with previous foreign policy. That might be so, but Talbot's main accomplishment is to highlight just how strong the hard right was alligned against Kennedy, and in how Kennedy consistently rejected THEIR efforts for a radical break-- a rightward break of the" roleback" ilk.

Talbot makes Seven Days In May seem like a non-fiction bureacratic reality that Kennedy dealt with by using a consistent two-track policy designed to keep the bellicose National Security State off guard, while occasionally tossing them a bone.

By not discussing this very real right wing threat in his book review, Brinkley unfairly diminishes the creativity of JFK's foreign policy.

[Brian LeCloux]

One of the top historians on the JFK case, David R. Wrone, Emeritus Professor of History, UW-Stevens Point, has

just weighed in on David Talbot's new book:

Great book reveals Kennedys' courage

David R. Wrone

Special to The Capital Times

May 18, 2007

Based on wide-ranging interviews with associates of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, David Talbot, the founder of Salon.com, gives us a hitherto hidden picture of the years 1960-1968. His just-released book, "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years," is a great work and beautifully written.

Talbot reveals that even as JFK took office, he confronted military and CIA forces that moved to control policies and thrust America into nuclear war. This continued throughout his 1,000 days as he, with his brother, fought to block the right wing, CIA and military's drive for a nuclear war and control of national policies. According to Talbot, the military had a covert plan to use the Bay of Pigs invasion to pull JFK into a major war, which he courageously blocked by standing up to the generals and CIA. In Laos and later in Berlin, the military sought nuclear war, but he resisted. JFK learned the military had designs for a sneak attack on Russia and China with nuclear weapons, which he also scuttled.

In the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, according to Talbot, JFK initially stood with only his brother Robert against the clamor of the Joint Chiefs, who wanted an invasion. Unbeknownst to the United States, the Soviet troops had scores of nuclear missiles on the island that, had Kennedy invaded, would have been fired at America and launched the world into a nuclear holocaust. Talbot says that the generals and admirals counted JFK's peaceful solution as the worst defeat in the nation's history and hated him with unbridled passion and that the CIA and FBI constantly surveilled him.

In the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attorney General Robert Kennedy confronted a racist, reactionary institution. Talbot tells how Robert Kennedy had to assemble his own team of agents from other departments' scraps to carry out his and the president's policies. His life was constantly threatened by criminal elements, requiring him at times to bring in trusted personal friends from the marshal's service to guard him and his family. One great unsung accomplishment, Talbot says, was to cripple organized crime's movement to take over government functions, because they had become a growing force threatening the nation itself.

By November 1963, as JFK moved to disengage from Vietnam, abate Cuban tensions, restructure the CIA and establish detente, bullets cut him down.

Not for a minute, Talbot stresses, did Robert Kennedy believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed his brother; within hours, he came to believe reactionary American forces assassinated him. If Oswald was involved at all, it was as a minor player. Talbot tells how immediately after the funeral Robert Kennedy dispatched a family friend to the Kremlin to inform the Soviets not to believe the story of what happened circulating in federal circles. He informed his closest friends that it would require the power of the presidency to find the culprits, and his search for the murderers never ceased. He went to surprising lengths to seek out information, including a secret meeting with Teamster Jimmy Hoffa.

In a frightening point, Talbot convincingly shows how intelligence agencies have, since the death of the Kennedy brothers, insidiously fed untrue information about them to Congress and to happy conduit reporters like Seymour Hersh.

What is so striking in this remarkable volume is what is not there. At the national level, Robert Kennedy stood almost alone in his fight to find his brother's killers, while the prominent academicians, the intellectuals, JFK's aides, and the Democratic Party of the nation (and Wisconsin) either stood to the side or clasped the whitewash of the Warren Report. It was left to the remnants of the old progressives and the youth of the '60s, to the housewives and bartenders, to struggle to show that two or more riflemen shot JFK -- and that neither of them was Oswald.

Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years By David Talbot; Free Press, 478 pages, $28.

David R. Wrone, a retired history professor from UW-Stevens Point, has studied, published, lectured and debated about the JFK assassination for the past 40 years.

http://www.madison.com/tct/books/135016