David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[David Talbot]

Forgive me for jumping around in my replies -- I'm exhausted and about to collapse into bed before resuming my book tour. Myra -- the source on Bobby's last words was Goodwin's memoir "Remembering America." But he makes clear that this was told to him by a third party -- he was upstairs in a hotel room at the time.

Re: Bugliosi, even though I'm fuming now about a dismissive and nasty joint review of our books in the Boston Globe, I actually think the coincidental publication dates helps reopen the JFK debate. So it's good for everybody. (And, Brian, Wrone's review of my book was wonderful consolation, since I have great respect for his work.)

Charles -- if you're saying that B's rhetoric tends to be inflated and tendentious and bombastic, I completely agree.

And yes, I was entering speculative territory when I suggested that Bobby might have worried about provoking a civil war by aggressively confronting his brother's killers immediately after Dallas. This theory was, as I say in the book, floated by MS Arnoni in Minority of One in Jan. 1964, and I found it intriguing enough to entertain as a possible motive for Bobby's silence (but not the main one).

Dawn, thanks for your comments on the book. And no I don't believe Bobby intended to sabotage Garrison in the beginning -- he was genuinely curious about what G was digging up. And no I don't believe RFK was pushing the assassination efforts against Castro (and neither did Castro believe this, as I explain in the book).

More later!

[John Dolva]

David: "And yes, I was entering speculative territory when I suggested that Bobby might have worried about provoking a civil war by aggressively confronting his brother's killers immediately after Dallas. This theory was, as I say in the book, floated by MS Arnoni in Minority of One in Jan. 1964, and I found it intriguing enough to entertain as a possible motive for Bobby's silence (but not the main one). "

Interesting. This is a theme that has evolved independently in my own research ignorant of what you've posted here. As said, speculative, but it would be good to read what others have said on this previously. Even as early as january 1964. Is it postable? Perhaps an undeveloped theme because it got submerged in so much else. The idea has a logic that explains a lot, including (and I'd partly refer here to Dukes piece on Patriotic Assassination) the 'raison d'etre' for much and not least the WC conclusions. What did happen was akin to a simmering Civil War across many parts of the US for most of the rest of that decade and into the next, fuelled later by the MLK and RFK assassinations. (I can't get the Troop G deathsquad lining up as a firing squad to shoot the Kent students out of my mind.). There are many other very violent days long confrontations on US soil that the news footage exist of but are not really known today. A foreign war is a common way to attempt to defuse domestic disturbances. There are lots of issues that can be viewed differently in the light of the idea of preventing a Civil War at home.

Edited May 22, 2007 by John Dolva

[William Kelly]

Forgive me for jumping around in my replies -- I'm exhausted and about to collapse into bed before resuming my book tour....

Re: Bugliosi, even though I'm fuming now about a dismissive and nasty joint review of our books in the Boston Globe, I actually think the coincidental publication dates helps reopen the JFK debate. So it's good for everybody....

Charles -- if you're saying that B's rhetoric tends to be inflated and tendentious and bombastic, I completely agree.....

More later!

Three days in Dallas - The Boston Globe - 3:14amBy Vincent Bugliosi Norton, 1612 pp., illustrated, $49.95. Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years By David Talbot Free Press, 478 pp., ...

www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/05/20/three_days_in_dallas/ - May 20, 2007 - Similar pages - Note this

Gossipy, pro-conspiracy ramblings?

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/20...days_in_dallas/

David, thank you for being such an eloquent spokesman for the desperate and tanacious.

BK

[David G. Healy]

Forgive me for jumping around in my replies -- I'm exhausted and about to collapse into bed before resuming my book tour. Myra -- the source on Bobby's last words was Goodwin's memoir "Remembering America." But he makes clear that this was told to him by a third party -- he was upstairs in a hotel room at the time.

Re: Bugliosi, even though I'm fuming now about a dismissive and nasty joint review of our books in the Boston Globe, I actually think the coincidental publication dates helps reopen the JFK debate. So it's good for everybody. (And, Brian, Wrone's review of my book was wonderful consolation, since I have great respect for his work.)

Charles -- if you're saying that B's rhetoric tends to be inflated and tendentious and bombastic, I completely agree.

And yes, I was entering speculative territory when I suggested that Bobby might have worried about provoking a civil war by aggressively confronting his brother's killers immediately after Dallas. This theory was, as I say in the book, floated by MS Arnoni in Minority of One in Jan. 1964, and I found it intriguing enough to entertain as a possible motive for Bobby's silence (but not the main one).

Dawn, thanks for your comments on the book. And no I don't believe Bobby intended to sabotage Garrison in the beginning -- he was genuinely curious about what G was digging up. And no I don't believe RFK was pushing the assassination efforts against Castro (and neither did Castro believe this, as I explain in the book).

More later!

excellent work, Mr. Talbot!

[John Simkin]

There is also a review of David's book by Gabriel Molina in the Cuban journal Granma.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/mayo/lun2...ng-the-cia.html

[Larry Hancock]

Best wishes on the tour David, hope you get a little rest in between stops!

I just wanted to exapnd a bit on your point about the assassination efforts against Castro. It's now

clear that that there was a long term effort to assassinate Castro...starting in 1959 in an offer from

Sturgis to CIA personnel in Havana (including Morales of course) to set up a an assassination inside

Cuba while Castro was traveling to military posts. In the same period of time, crime assets in the U.S.

planned to kill him when he traveled to New York to the U.N. In the late 1960-61 time frame, in addition

to the Roselli plots, there were multiple CIA paramilitary operations being organized to attack and

kill Castro inside Cuba. In SWHT I describe one which was orchestrated by Carl Jenkins and utilized, among

others, Felix Rodriquez in a planned sniper attack....another was conducted during a naval mission

by Rip Robertson. None of these would have been known to RFK. Bottom line is that all of talk about

the Kennedy's plans to kill Castro pales beside these actual documented actions by crime and CIA personnel.

Later Johnson tried to blame all the murder plots on JFK and RFK ("murder inc.) but it just doesn't wash...

As your book points out, RFK was right on the money almost immediately:

"Bobby's suspicions immediately focus on the nest of CIA spies, gangsters, and Cuban exiles that

had long been plotting a violent regime change in Cuba."

-- go get 'em, Larry

Forgive me for jumping around in my replies -- I'm exhausted and about to collapse into bed before resuming my book tour. Myra -- the source on Bobby's last words was Goodwin's memoir "Remembering America." But he makes clear that this was told to him by a third party -- he was upstairs in a hotel room at the time.

Re: Bugliosi, even though I'm fuming now about a dismissive and nasty joint review of our books in the Boston Globe, I actually think the coincidental publication dates helps reopen the JFK debate. So it's good for everybody. (And, Brian, Wrone's review of my book was wonderful consolation, since I have great respect for his work.)

Charles -- if you're saying that B's rhetoric tends to be inflated and tendentious and bombastic, I completely agree.

And yes, I was entering speculative territory when I suggested that Bobby might have worried about provoking a civil war by aggressively confronting his brother's killers immediately after Dallas. This theory was, as I say in the book, floated by MS Arnoni in Minority of One in Jan. 1964, and I found it intriguing enough to entertain as a possible motive for Bobby's silence (but not the main one).

Dawn, thanks for your comments on the book. And no I don't believe Bobby intended to sabotage Garrison in the beginning -- he was genuinely curious about what G was digging up. And no I don't believe RFK was pushing the assassination efforts against Castro (and neither did Castro believe this, as I explain in the book).

More later!

[Myra Bronstein]

Best wishes on the tour David, hope you get a little rest in between stops!

I just wanted to exapnd a bit on your point about the assassination efforts against Castro. It's now

clear that that there was a long term effort to assassinate Castro...starting in 1959 in an offer from

Sturgis to CIA personnel in Havana (including Morales of course) to set up a an assassination inside

Cuba while Castro was traveling to military posts. In the same period of time, crime assets in the U.S.

planned to kill him when he traveled to New York to the U.N. In the late 1960-61 time frame, in addition

to the Roselli plots, there were multiple CIA paramilitary operations being organized to attack and

kill Castro inside Cuba. In SWHT I describe one which was orchestrated by Carl Jenkins and utilized, among

others, Felix Rodriquez in a planned sniper attack....another was conducted during a naval mission

by Rip Robertson. None of these would have been known to RFK. Bottom line is that all of talk about

the Kennedy's plans to kill Castro pales beside these actual documented actions by crime and CIA personnel.

Later Johnson tried to blame all the murder plots on JFK and RFK ("murder inc.) but it just doesn't wash...

...

No it doesn't wash, but it gets major mileage from Propaganda Inc. Characterizing both brothers as bloodthirsty heathens, indistinguishable from bloodthirsty heathen LBJ, is high up on the the Propaganda Inc. play list. In particular they delight in claiming that President Kennedy was behind the assassination of Diem, when in fact JFK was horrified by that CIA coup.

But claiming the Kennedys were cut out of the same cloth as LBJ is essential to the post-assassination character assassination

that makes the case that even if President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, so what? He was just another standard issue

corrupt politician and his murder had no impact on history.

The success of this strategy just blows me away. It's nearly impossible to read one word that Kennedy uttered in his short presidency, on any subject, and conclude that he was a typical politician. Should anyone bother to seek out his words it becomes crystal clear that he was positively a revolutionary, on almost any policy matter he turned his attention to.

Edited May 22, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[John Dolva]

Myra : "It's nearly impossible to read one word that Kennedy uttered in his short presidency, on any subject, and conclude that he was a typical politician. Should anyone bother to seek out his words it becomes crystal clear that he was positively a revolutionary, on almost any policy matter he turned his attention to."

I agree.

Not only that. He was also a scholar of the highest caliber. One may only go back to some of the speeches and writings pre 1960 to see what a loss to humanity he was. His standing in Algeria among Muslims for example and the respect that the French conservatives for example, even Kruschev, accorded him. He broke boundaries, cooled the atmosphere and listened to the silent voices.

His wit and wisdom was born of a life of misery that would have consumed lesser men. His grasp on reality and steadfast rejection of extremism in the face of the ideologues of the day was exemplary. The respect he and consequently the possibilities of what the US could be, for a short time, meant a lot to much of humanity. (One must not forget the other great men of the time, MLK and RFK and the revitalised post Mecca MalcolmX, Cassius Clay, Che, Castro and Ho, and the many in the anti-war movements and many others, too many to mention.)

The arch conservatives, the religious right, the "Strategy of Tension", the war criminal terrorist Bush and his henchmen in power at the moment in Washington and the seeds of discontent they so liberally spreads with impunity that inevitably will flower and seed, needs some restraint.

That's all just my opinions as a non American. Lets get disarmament back on the agenda. Had Kennedy succeeded in revitalising the UN and supported positive change in Latin/South America and Africa, the world today would be different. People like Bush and Kennedy's assassins create the problems that they and the whole worlds future has to then deal with.

On the other hand, the contrast between someone like Bush and Kennedy is so stark that as Myra says one only has to listen or read some of Kennedy to see what once was. I think the fact that Americans did vote for him is important. ie anti america is not anti the people of america. There is a frustrations that cries out 'take your country back, for goodness sake', please. Leash the dogs of war. Bring out the secateurs and do some pruning. If you can't eat the super rich at least tax them to size and get some descent universal healthcare and foreign aid going. Reagan is a foul perpetrator. His trickle down economincs and economic rationalism (and political correcteness) is defunct.

People of the world unite! That's an order. However, as all I have is a pen I can't expect to enforce that order. However it stands and may be reviewed as time goes by. (not)

Anyway, William Kelly et al are doing something. May I suggest perhaps a delegation of tasks? For my part, send me a request for some graphic work and I'll cooperate with others in a committee format in that field to provide material. Take it or leave it, I don't care to have my name in lights but would be happy to participate where people may feel I can be of value. Other committees can be got together to provide other material. Let's honour Kennedy by seeking to emulate him as a group. I think that would please him greatly. How would Kennedy himself go about it?

Edited May 22, 2007 by John Dolva

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Myra : "It's nearly impossible to read one word that Kennedy uttered in his short presidency, on any subject, and conclude that he was a typical politician. Should anyone bother to seek out his words it becomes crystal clear that he was positively a revolutionary, on almost any policy matter he turned his attention to."

I agree.

Not only that. He was also a scholar of the highest caliber. One may only go back to some of the speeches and writings pre 1960 to see what a loss to humanity he was.

Did Kennedy substantively write his own speeches? I'm aware of the Sorenson V Kennedy debate on the "ask not..." speech. However I am ignorant of whether he wrote his own, for the most part.

[John Dolva]

Myra : "It's nearly impossible to read one word that Kennedy uttered in his short presidency, on any subject, and conclude that he was a typical politician. Should anyone bother to seek out his words it becomes crystal clear that he was positively a revolutionary, on almost any policy matter he turned his attention to."

I agree.

Not only that. He was also a scholar of the highest caliber. One may only go back to some of the speeches and writings pre 1960 to see what a loss to humanity he was.

Did Kennedy substantively write his own speeches? I'm aware of the Sorenson V Kennedy debate on the "ask not..." speech. However I am ignorant of whether he wrote his own, for the most part.

He wrote much, a Pulitzer Price winning book while convalescing in hospital, for example. His speeches were drawn from a big body of work that he created, whether writing or dictating or arising from arguing/discussing with others, and many speeches were cobbled together from parts of that, principally by Soerensen. Kennedy of course always had the last say in the final output. Soerensen was a loyal, tried, tested, and trusted person to oversee that collection from which variants of many speeches were created to suit. There are only so many hours in a day, so of course he had writers, but he wasn't their mouth piece.

I understand a number of his more scholarly pieces as a Senator such as the 'Algerian Question' for example, were his own work.

Much of his many regular news conferences were off the cuff, in the same style as his speeches, so one could say that while ohers may have held the pen on many occasions, he was the source.

Then of dourse there are the many important policy directed letters he wrote regularly to people like Kruschev. Not for public consumption at the time, but important nevertheless.

Edited May 22, 2007 by John Dolva

[Michael Hogan]

He wrote much, a Pulitzer Prize winning book while convalescing in hospital, for example....

In the preface to Profiles in Courage, Kennedy wrote:

Professor Jules Davids of Georgetown University assisted materially in the preparation of several chapters.

and

The greatest debt is owed to my research associate Theodore C. Sorenson, for his invaluable assistance in the assembly and preparation of the material upon which this book is based.

In the October 18, 1997 issue of The New York Times, Patricia Cohen wrote (abstract):

Recently discovered letter written by late Georgetown Prof Jules Davids in 1957 appears to support Davids' earlier claim that he wrote major portions of John F Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book Profiles in Courage; Davids commented similarly in 1978 letter to Herbert Parmet, who wrote Kennedy biography crediting Davids and describing future President as 'overseer' on book; Theodore Sorensen, often cited as book's true author, says Davids overstated his role; 1957 letter to Rev Brian McGrath, found in Georgetown archives, recalls giving lecture on political courage in 1954 and being approached by Jacqueline Kennedy, his student, to suggest for her husband names of historical figures of Jacqueline Kennedy in Davids class; Davids also told of correcting book draft, doing research and being paid only $700; Kennedy thanked Davids in preface and 1956 letter....

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...eline%20Kennedy

Cecil Adams writes:

...doubts about the book's authorship surfaced early. In December 1957 syndicated columnist Drew Pearson, interviewed on TV by Mike Wallace, said, "Jack Kennedy is . . . the only man in history that I know who won a Pulitzer prize on a book which was ghostwritten for him." Outraged, Kennedy hired lawyer Clark Clifford, who collected the senator's handwritten notes and rounded up statements from people who said they'd seen him working on the book, then persuaded Wallace's bosses at ABC to read a retraction on the air.

Kennedy made no secret of Sorensen's involvement in Profiles, crediting him in the preface as "my research associate," and likewise acknowledged the contributions of Davids and others. But he insisted that he was the book's author and bristled even at teasing suggestions to the contrary. Sorensen and other Kennedy loyalists backed him up then and have done so since.

The most thorough analysis of who did what has come from historian Herbert Parmet in

Jack: The Struggles of John F. Kennedy

(1980). Parmet interviewed the participants and reviewed a crateful of papers in the Kennedy Library. He found that Kennedy contributed some notes, mostly on John Quincy Adams, but little that made it into the finished product. "There is no evidence of a Kennedy draft for the overwhelming bulk of the book," Parmet writes. While "the choices, message, and tone of the volume are unmistakably Kennedy's," the actual work was "left to committee labor." The "literary craftsmanship [was] clearly Sorensen's, and he gave the book both the drama and flow that made for readability." Parmet, like everyone else, shrinks from saying Sorensen was the book's ghostwriter, but clearly he was.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031107.html

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Thanks guys,

Personally I think Kennedy did write for the most point his own words, ably assisted by Sorensen, though not to the detraction of what Kennedy wished to say.

I feel incomparably amongst US Presidents, I'm aware of, his oratory was his outstanding strength and as John says his ability to go off the cuff was remarkable.

Once again thank you for your efforts in enlightening me.

Gary

[William Kelly]

Myra : "It's nearly impossible to read one word that Kennedy uttered in his short presidency, on any subject, and conclude that he was a typical politician. Should anyone bother to seek out his words it becomes crystal clear that he was positively a revolutionary, on almost any policy matter he turned his attention to."

I agree.

Not only that. He was also a scholar of the highest caliber. One may only go back to some of the speeches and writings pre 1960 to see what a loss to humanity he was.

Did Kennedy substantively write his own speeches? I'm aware of the Sorenson V Kennedy debate on the "ask not..." speech. However I am ignorant of whether he wrote his own, for the most part.

David Talbot devotes a considerable amount of Brothers in describing the releationship between JFK and Sorenson, and the role Sorenson played in his life and administration.

Sometimes given a half hour to prepare a speech JFK was going to give on national TV on a major crisis, Sorenson came through in spades.

While acknowledging Sorenson's role in crafting JFK's speechs, writings and book(s), Sorenson was so closely joined with JFK that their careers and lives were tied together. When JFK was killed, Sorenson pretty much died with him.

Compared to other politicians, who don't even read, let alone write, JFK was a literary genius. Bush can't even read Presidential Summaries and must have someone read them to him. So I don't expect we will get President Bush's autobio of his life and times, like Churchill, writing his own legacy.

And while on the topic of David Talbot, I very much would like to hear and read the transcript of his PBS Fresh Air interview with Terry Gross, an ace interviewer who you can be sure will have read Brothers before talking with David.

If anyone comes up with the air time of that show or a transcript it would be greatly appreciated.

Bill Kelly

[John Simkin]

My copy of Brothers arrived yesterday from the publishers (it is not published in the UK until June). I have so far read the first 60 pages and I agree it is a great book. I would go as far to say that it is the best written of all the books I have read on the subject. As this thread shows, it raises a lot of issues. I think it will help researchers in the future if this material was divided into different topics. David agrees about this and so over the next few days I will be using this material to start different threads. These different threads will then be added to the JFK index.

[John Simkin]

I have now created several different threads on David’s book (see below). Please add general comments about the book, information on book reviews, interviews, etc. on this thread. However, if it is about a specific topic please either start a new thread or add it to one of the threads that I have started. If you start a new thread please include David Talbot’s name in the title. I am also listing these topics in the JFK Index. This will help researchers in the future if this material is divided into different topics.

Evelyn Lincoln

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10040

Walter Sheridan and Jim Garrison

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10041

Gordon Campbell

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10042

JFK’s Character

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10043

Burke, Lemnitzer, LeMay

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10044

Haynes Johnson

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10045

Angelo Murgado

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10046

JFK and Foreign Policy

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10048

The Kennedy Family and the Assassination of JFK

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10049

JFK and the Assassination Plots Against Castro

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10050

Ted Sorenson

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10051