Skip to main content

I never did much reading on JFK of the contrevercial topic of how he was murdered, but I happened to hear a radio interview with Ray McGover on my local NPR station.                                        

This excerpt of Ray McGovern´s `KUOW interview is in response to a caller`s question that mentions the Oct. article in Rolling Stone by Robert Dreyfuss (The Generals' Revolt As Obama rethinks America's failed strategy in Afghanistan, he faces two insurgencies: the Taliban and the Pentagon) where Laurence Wilkerson (former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell) states that "It's going to take John Kennedy-type courage to turn to his Curtis LeMay and say, 'No, we're not going to bomb Cuba," when Kennedy resisted the pressure from the U.S. Military to take potentially provocative actions against missile sites in Cuba.

                               

I would refer you, and all listeners to a very important book that was put out last year without much fanfare, its called ¨JFK and the UNSPEAKABLE¨. Its an increadably well documented review of all the evidence, including all of the recently released evidence on JFK`s assassination. What the author James Douglass concludes and the evidence is very, very presuasive, is that John Kennedy was done in by a cabal comprised of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, parts of the CIA, the FBI, and even the Secret Service. Now OK, yeah, I know what you thinking, that´s what I thoughtnwhen I resisted reading this book for a year, OK, but I just completed it, and what the situation there, and the reason why Wilkerson makes the comparison, is that when JFK was deemed to be kind of wobbly on the Soviet Union. After all he was talking privately to Khrushchev, and everybody knew that. When he wouldn't back up the invasion of Cuba, and the Bay of Pigs thing. When indeed he was tempted...not tempted but took the first steps to withdraw from Viet Nam. He was adjudged to be, you know, really soft on Communism, and they went after him and they got him. Now what's the comparison? Well look at Obama...
                                                                   -Ray McGovern audio link
                                                           

Well this really jumped out at me, and I knew if someone with Ray McGovern's background, expertise, and stature thought that it was credible, then I had to read this book.

Who is Ray McGovern?

Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern on Torture
                                               
Ray McGovern was a CIA intelligence analyst for 27 years. He presented regular intelligence briefs to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. McGovern retired in 1990. Since then, he has been a vocal critic of U.S. policies. He spoke out against intelligence failures in the lead–up to the war in Iraq. He also co–founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity in 2003. McGovern remains outspoken on matters including torture, 9/11, and America's relations with Israel.

The book proved to be a work of meticulous scholarship, exhaustively documented, compiled over 15 years of research. The author has a background of publishing books on Catholic theology, pacifism and nonviolence. This quote comes from the book's dust jacket.

"With penetrating insight and unswerving integrity Douglass probes the fundamental truths about JFK's assassination....By far the the most important book yet written on the subject."  

-Gaeton Fonzi, former Staff investigator, US House Select Committee on Assassinations      
                 

I haven't read the other books but after reading this one by Douglass I suspect that this book is a watershed, a foundation to a new understanding of JKK's presidency, and how and why that presidency was brought to an abrupt end. Douglass's analysis creates a new understanding of the sobering effects of staring into the abyss during the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962 had on not only JFK but his counterpart Khrushchev as well. How following the Missile Crisis both leaders put their efforts into seek a peaceful solutions over of the options each leader's military and national security establishments were pushing them to peruse.

Kennedy was not even fully aware of some of the deliberately provocative things his military did at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis that could have triggered a nuclear war. Things like test firing a ICBM from California, and having the nuclear armed strategic bombers of SAC flying past their accustomed turn around points heading towards the Soviet Union. Kennedy's resisted the Pentagon's pressure to utilize the US's perceived advantage in nuclear weapons to attack Cuba, or attack the Soviet Union and Cuba in a massive nuclear first strike. We know now that either of those paths would have led to a war that would have been disastrous for both sides.

Douglass writes about the sobering effects of staring into the abyss during the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962 had on not only JFK but his counterpart Khrushchev as well. How following the Missile Crisis, both leaders changed by near catastrophe put their efforts toward seeking peaceful solutions over of the options each leader's military and national security establishments were pushing them to peruse.

Instead both leaders start to reach out to the other, and move away from confrontation. An indispensable part of this was a "secret" correspondence between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The two leaders used trusted back channel intermediaries to communicate directly. This built up trust and eventually bore the fruit with the two superpowers agreeing to a limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in a relatively short short time after the Cuban Missile Crisis. This Treaty was the first step towards arms control by the rival superpowers.

In a June 1963 Kennedy gave a visionary speech at American University that set a US goal of world peace. Here are a couple of excerpts:      

   

Commencement Address at American University  President John F. Kennedy Washington, D.C. June 10, 1963

...I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

    What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

    I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

    Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

    I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.

    With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

    So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

    Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

    Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

    In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

    So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

In the speech Kennedy issues a challenge to Khrushchev by promising that the U.S. would not be the first country to return to atmospheric nuclear tests. This kick started the negotiations that concluded with the Teat Ban Treaty. Kennedy then campaigned publicly for the passage of the treaty in Congress with a political coalition that included labor and peace groups. Then during a time of food shortage in the USSR Kennedy took a bold step, and sold U.S. wheat to the Soviets. When he was murdered JFK was taking the first steps to establish a dialogue with Castro.  

This speech also called for complete disarmament as an ultimate goal. Khrushchev in an unusual step allowed this remarkable Kennedy speech to be broadcast to the Russian People. In the US the media downplayed the speech. Ironically probably more Russians heard this Kennedy speech than Americans did. Then during a time of food shortages in the USSR Kennedy took the bold step of selling the Soviets U.S. wheat.

Kennedy had decided to start withdrawing U.S. forces from Viet Nam, with a goal of withdrawing all U.S. forces by the end of 1965, after the 1964 election. (Instead LBJ ran as the "peace" candidate in 1964 while he planed to send a large military force into South Viet Nam following the election.)

Kennedy along with Khrushchev were on a policy trajectory that would have put an early end to the Cold War.

This all was too radical a vision for the cold warriors holding positions of power in early 1960s America. Our own president had come to be perceived by the Cold War leadership as a threat to their idea of what was vital for the nation's security. Their response was to extinguish that perceived threat by murdering the US President. That assassination involved an elaborate effort coordinated by the Joint Chiefs of the Military, and the CIA, with the cooperation of the FBI, and even the Secret Service.
 
Douglass writes in JFK and the UNSPEAKABLE:

...the president's break with his military establishment was even more consequential than Khrushchev's. Kennedy's declaration of peace at American University, his successful negotiation of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, his opening to Fidel Castro, and his decision to withdraw from Viet Nam added up to a presidency that was no longer acceptable to power. Kennedy had traveled past the Cold War point of no return. His journey of peace would mean that that his soon experiencing firsthand the truth he stated at American University-that we are all mortal.

page 350

After the Bay of Pigs Kennedy remarked he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds¨.
     
Douglass catalogs not only all of the hows, but the why of JFK's death from every perspective now available through a multitude of sources. I would challenge anyone who has read ¨JFK and the UNSPEAKABLE¨ to call it theoretical. It is a historical watershed. Douglass confronts the "UNSPEAKABLE" present in the darkest chapter of American history. A Chapter with forces at play far more sinister than a partisan Supreme Court throwing an American election into the lap of their favored candidate.

I would even go so far as to say reading this book is essential to understanding the powerful forces that shaped America in the last 4 decades of the 20th century. Douglass' book got an average of 4 1/2 stars from 82 reviews on Amazon.

Now, in his statements Barack Obama has embraced the dream of a world without nuclear weapons.

  President  Barack Obama speech in Prague, Czech Republic, on April 5, 2009

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)

The inescapable question has to be asked: Will Obama reach a similar point of no return as well?

James W. Douglass´s June 2008 KUOW interview

Originally posted to Lefty Coaster on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:06 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  In 1963 I was a 10 year old (29+ / 0-)

    who was acutely aware that my whole society's  tenuous existence in the shadow of a Nuclear Sword of Damocles suspended by the slenderest of threads over our heads.

    "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 03:24:15 PM PST

    •  In 1963 I Was 18 (7+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doc2, Viceroy, milkbone, 0wn, sulthernao, Dbug, Gatordiet

      On Nov. 22, 1963, Lee Oswald, alone, shot two-men to death in Dallas, Texas. Sadly, to make a buck, many fiction writers have created a pack of lies about the two-murders. If you wish to believe Lincoln ducked that April night at Ford's Theatre & the Titanic sank the iceberg that April night, go for it.

      •  Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers created a pack (9+ / 0-)

        of lies, too.  They were both WW combat vets who were riding behind JFK, and they both insisted that shots came from the grassy knoll.  Tip O'Neill wrote about it in his memoir.

        Come to think of it, Gov. and Mrs. Connally, neither of whom ever bought the "magic bullet" theory, joined in the fiction writing.  4 credible eyewitnesses w/ no axe to grind contradicted the single gunman theory.  Go figure.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:33:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The 55 people who ran up (9+ / 0-)

          to the knoll, including gun shop owners, military trained, and police, where all fantasists too, if I recall.

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:38:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's called an echo. I've heard echoes (0+ / 0-)

            myself, so I can vouch they exist.

            I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

            by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 07:52:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  An echo couldn't have blown a 5X7 cm. (0+ / 0-)

              fragment of Kennedy's skull out of the back of Kennedy's head to be found the next day in the grass in Dealy Plaza by a pre-med student named William Harper.

              A deaf man named Ed Hoffman witnessed a two man sniper team at work behind a fence next to the railroad tracks. After firing the shooter who was wearing a suit threw a rifle to his companion dressed as a railroad worker who quickly broke down the rifle putting it in a railroad tool bag, he then ran down the tracks with the tool bag. The shooter in the suit then produced a prefect fake Secret Service ID to off duty Dallas police officer Joe Smith who confronted him soon after the shooting.

              Being deaf and unable to talk Ed Hoffman wasn't taken seriously by authorities. His father who could use sign language took Ed seriously and told him to keep his story to himself, which he did for years.

              "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

              by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:40:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oy. Lefty, do you believe the (0+ / 0-)

                "official version" of the 911 attack?

                I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:48:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                  Like Ray McGovern I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

                  "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

                  by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:52:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You know that there are books out there, (0+ / 0-)

                    thick books with lots of footnotes, etc., that claim that 911 was a setup. Have you read any of these books?

                    I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                    by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:54:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Get back to me when you've read it (0+ / 0-)

                      Until then you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

                      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

                      by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:56:04 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm never going to have the time to (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mcartri

                        read a Kennedy CT book. Thank goodness there are people like John McAdams who diligently do so, and point out the garbage to us. When someone rational says that a particular JFK CT theory has merits, I'll read the book.

                        I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                        by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:52:19 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  An apparent Viet Nam War apologist (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          vcmvo2, arendt

                          who hates the pro-peace politics of the author. Is that all you could come up with?

                          "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

                          by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 10:15:58 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm a Democrat, and a liberal. I don't see (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mcartri

                            how you can be a liberal Democrat AND believe in CT. We are supposed to be reality-based. We don't trust the government, which means we also don't believe that they are so uber-competent that they could orchestrate something so complex. This is not "24".

                            I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                            by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 10:26:56 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Amazing - two smears in one sentence. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Lefty Coaster
                            1. anyone who doesn't buy the official story in ALL its stupid and provably wrong detail is CT.
                            1. Anyone who fits into (1) is NOT A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

                            My hat is off to you, sir. You have a Ph.D. in slander.

                          •  You don't know what you're talking about (0+ / 0-)

                            With 82 reviews the Douglass book earned a 4 1/2 star average on Amazon. That should mean something even to an ignoramus troll like you.

                            "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

                            by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:22:15 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, it means that people who read CT books (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mcartri

                            love CT books. No mystery there. What did you expect, people to read 600 pages and then say "what a waste of time, I don't believe in ridiculous conspiracies"? Will you at least admit that the people who would read such a book would be more inclined to be conspiracy buffs? Would you at least grant me that?

                            I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                            by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:27:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So lame (0+ / 0-)

                            You got nothing.

                            "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

                            by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:28:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Gimme something. Anything. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mcartri

                            I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                            by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:29:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  69 of the 83 gave it 5 stars (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arendt

                            But they can't be right because they were all far more familiar with the book that you are. That's the idiotic mem of a Mr. know it all.

                            "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

                            by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:01:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The book alleging a JFK assassination (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mcartri

                            conspiracy is quite popular among JFK conspiracy fans. This is true.

                            I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                            by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:02:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your arrogance + ignorance = FAIL (0+ / 0-)

                            "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

                            by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:08:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So if someone who believes that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mcartri

                            Oswald shot JFK on his own is both arrogant and ignorant for believing that, then I guess that CT people are the opposite - humble and knowledgeable. I enjoyed having this conversation today with such humble and knowledgeable people. Let's meet again after the next CT book is published, with a new, improved assassination theory that you'll believe, and you can try to educate me again. Good day, sir.

                            I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                            by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:12:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When the best evidence no longer supports it (0+ / 0-)

                            then yes.

                            "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

                            by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 01:12:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You have zero credibility. You insist (0+ / 0-)

                            that readers of the book are not CT-inclined in the first place. That strains credulity. Either you really believe that, which makes you ignorant, or you know it is true but just can't bring yourself to admit it, which makes you intellectually dishonest. People who think that JFK CT is crap do not read tomes devoted to JFK CT; that is an obviously true statement which you apparently refuse to accept.

                            I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                            by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 02:18:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Echos, with gun smoke? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lefty Coaster

              Because that's what policemen, active and retired military, gun shop owners, and decades-long hunters reported. And what, they're all assholes and don't know the difference between an echo and a source?

              But you can pretend they didn't. After all, you weren't there so that makes you an expert on the topic, neh?

              Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

              by Jim P on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:08:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was there. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mcartri

                And there was no gunshots except from the book depository building. It all happened like the Warren Commission says it did. I will swear that til the day I die. If I don't the CIA and FBI and other shadowy groups will make my family disappear. You understand, I'm sure...

                I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:56:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's a strong claim... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lefty Coaster

                  that I think requires some documentation.

                  Because, in the end, you will base your argument on ONE PERSON'S (your own) experience in Dallas that day - versus all the other people who were there who contradict you.

                  So, either:

                  1. you were there, but never made any on the record statement to anyone about your experiences. You just choose to talk about it on blogs.
                  1. you were there and are part of the historical record. But, for purposes of internet anonymity, will not reveal your identity.
                  1. you are just making up some untestable BS.

                  For any of these cases, what proof do I have of the truth of what you are saying?

                  You have LESS credibility than James Douglass - because Douglass uses THE HISTORICAL RECORD, and you just mouth off.

                  I'd love to hear a substantive response, but I expect nothing but more scorn and sarcasm.

                  •  I had documents proving that I was there. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mcartri

                    But they mysteriously disappeared out of my safe. And the friend I was with mysteriously died when her brakes failed while on her way to see a reporter to tell all.

                    I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                    by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:24:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  As predicted, sarcasm instead of substance. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lefty Coaster

                      Its clear your intention here is nothing but negative.

                      •  It must be frustrating knowing that (0+ / 0-)

                        people think you are nuts to believe in conspiracy theories. People belittle you, even threaten to ban your discussions from this site. And yet you forge on, probably until you go to your graves, insisting that evil cabals of sinister govt officials do all sorts of things that would result in their imprisonment or worse if they're caught, but they're never ever caught and there is never a smoking gun, because they are all so damn competent. What is it that such illogical beliefs do for you folks, do you know? Or is it something that you can't know about yourself without a good deal of psychoanalysis?

                        Whatever it is, I find it fascinating (that's why I have spent time trying to understand you guys). Fascinating.

                        I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

                        by doc2 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 02:23:01 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  As predicted, scorn instead of substance (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Lefty Coaster

                          What a joke your worldview is.

                          The government never misses a conspiracy - like Enron, or the fake WMDs in Iraq. Anyone who disagrees with the government is a CTer.

                          Its a nice, simple, comforting worldview. Sorta like the lunacy that religious fundamentalists believe.

      •  At the time JFK was killed my dad (5+ / 0-)

        had a 6.5 millimeter Italian Carcano that was identical to Oswald's. At the time you could buy one from gun books.

        The old man, he was stubborn. He didn't think Oswald could have operated the bolt fast enough to have fired the number of shots fired, nor could he get the scope sighted in after the recoil from the gun. (considerable) So we set up the targets at the reported distance, and I leaned against a porch post.

        The old man was right. There was no way. No man was fast enough to work that 6.5 rifle bolt that fast.

        •  I'll have to correct you. It's a question of ... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jimreyn, grada3784, mcartri, Balanz

          ... training.

          The question remains whether Oswald had that kind of training.

          In Europe, we have a military discipline called STANG SHOOTING where we use bolt-loading 6.5mm rifles. The target is the size of a head - here's a video of someone placing 17 shots inside that target in under 25 seconds, including magazine changes.

          I am as skeptical as anyone as to what really happened on that day, but it is possible to operate a bolt-loading rifle with accuracy at that rate of fire.

          "If you don't use your majorities, you lose your majorities."

          by SteinL on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 04:41:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Watch this: the Secret Service stand-down (8+ / 0-)

        at Dealy Plaza. My guess is most have never seen this footage:

        War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

        by Valtin on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:18:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I smell trouble. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw

    I'd just post JFK's speech actually. Pretty clear he was thinking: "hey massive resources for war? That's stupid!"

    Also, this would have been a true disaster for all humanity, where you wrote about the "Teat Ban Treaty."

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:11:40 PM PST

  •  Garbage. All the JFK CT crap is total (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    0wn, Dbug, Gatordiet

    garbage. FBI, CIA, give me a break.

    I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

    by doc2 on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:23:57 PM PST

  •  Profound book (7+ / 0-)

    Read this book and "take the red pill."  Here's a piece:

    On the morning of October 5, 1963, President Kennedy was meeting with his National Security Council in the White House Rose Garden. Caroline suddenly appeared at her father's side. She said she wanted to tell him something. He tried to divert her attention while the meeting continued. Carolin persisted. The president smiled and turned his full attention to his daughter. He told her to go ahead. While the members of the National Security Council sat and watched, Caroline looked into her father's eyes and said:

    I have a rendezvous with Death
    At some disputed barricade,
    When Spring comes back with rustling shade
    And apple-blossoms fill the air -
    I have a rendezvous with Death
    When Spring brings back blue days and fair.

    It may be he shall take my hand
    And lead me into his dark land
    And close my eyes and quench my breath -
    It may be I shall pass him still.
    I have a rendezvous with Death
    On some scarred slope of battered hill,
    When Spring comes round again this year
    And the first meadow flowers appear.

    God knows 'twere better to be deep
    Pillowed in silk and scented down,
    Where love throbs out in blissful sleep,
    Pulse nigh to pulse, and breath to breath,
    Where hushed awakenings are dear...
    But I've a rendezvous with Death
    At midnight in some flaming town,
    When Spring trips north again this year,
    And I to my pledged word am true,
    I shall not fail that rendezvous.

    After Caroline said the poem's final word, 'redndezvous,' Kennedy's national security advisors sat in stunned silence. One of them, describing the scene three decades later, said the bond beteen father and daughter was such that 'it was as if there was 'an inner music' he was trying to teach her.

    (p. 224-225)

    "What they do in Washington, they just take care of number one. And number one ain't you. You ain't even number two." Frank Zappa

    by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:25:18 PM PST

  •  Great book. Wrong comparison. (8+ / 0-)

    Because Obama has no intention of bucking the military, or Wall St, or the insurance/pharma lobby, or any other big power center in this country.

    I said all this in my last diary Is Obama being set up? Cui Bono?, so read that if you want my take.

    It will be interesting to me to see whether or not your review of this book will be met with the same derision that mine was. Because I took an anti-Obama line, the book was trashed (along with my diary). If your pro-Obama line does not cause the book to be trashed, I will have prima-facie evidence of how one's stance on Obama colors one's judgment of books/events that are related to Obama ONLY BY ANALOGY.

    I've got my popcorn ready. This should be very interesting.

  •  We know the various rationales for JFK CTs. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    killjoy, Viceroy, 0wn, sulthernao, Dbug

    What we would like to see is proof.

    [message deleted] - Barack Obama

    by Bob Love on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:40:12 PM PST

    •  Don't judge what you have yet to read (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boatsie, budr

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:42:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've read the diary, and that's what I'm judging. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Viceroy, 0wn

        If the book provides proof, what is it, and why didn't you provide it in the diary?

        [message deleted] - Barack Obama

        by Bob Love on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:45:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How? By reproducing the whole book? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mint julep, chuckvw

          Its densely packed with information and credible sources.  

          "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

          by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:47:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would suggest...pulling some of the footnotes (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            semiot, Viceroy

            for the skeptics.  If you pull information from recently released archive documents...these are the only things that will add new information to the conversation 40 years later.

            "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

            by lakehillsliberal on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:51:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Book draws on hundreds of thousands of documets (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mint julep, ozsea1

              released under the recent JFK records act passed by Congress.

              "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

              by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:53:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Proof is easy to pinpoint. (0+ / 0-)

                The only "proof" here seems to be a number of people who say a number of things. Hearsay isn't proof. Connecting 1/2 dots isn't proof. Citations aren't proof. Millions of words aren't proof, especially when there are millions of words that say otherwise. Other books that contain allegations aren't proof, nor are large bibliographies.

                "It all makes sense to me" isn't proof. Proof is proof. Unimpeachable, unfalsifiable evidence is proof.

                Wikipedia defines many definitions of "proof". Satisfy one of them.

                [message deleted] - Barack Obama

                by Bob Love on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 03:15:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Then it should be easy to pull out one or two (0+ / 0-)

            pieces of actual evidence that proves the theory. Can't? Thought not.

            [message deleted] - Barack Obama

            by Bob Love on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 03:16:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Jeepers, still no proof? (0+ / 0-)

            Come on, it's right in the book!

            One piece of proof! One!

            [message deleted] - Barack Obama

            by Bob Love on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 05:57:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  You mean like the "magic bullet theory"? n.t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep, Lefty Coaster
      •  A theory isn't a proof. (0+ / 0-)

        Duh.

        [message deleted] - Barack Obama

        by Bob Love on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 03:18:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL. The magic bullet theory is in... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lefty Coaster

          the Warren Commission Report. You just dissed the Warren Commission - HAHAHAHAHA.

          Its Arlen Specter's first appearance on the national stage as a weasel.

          You really should study up before you make comments.

          •  Of course I diss the Warren Commission Report. (0+ / 0-)

            It's crap.

            You assume because I ask for proof for this unproven theory that I must support some other unproven theory like the Warren Commission Report. A simple-minded assumption, and a wrong one. What a surprise.

            Everybody knows about the Magic Bullet Theory, even feather-heads like you. It takes quite a dunce to imagine his own ignorance is superior to someone else's actual knowledge.

            Again, provide proof or admit you ain't got it. Better yet, learn the difference between a theory and a proof, since you haven't even gotten that far yet.

            [message deleted] - Barack Obama

            by Bob Love on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 05:55:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You provide minimal info, then bash me... (0+ / 0-)

              for drawing the obvious conclusion.

              Your anger really exceeds your willingness to explain yourself to a TOTAL STRANGER. I have no fucking idea where you are coming from. You are openly critical of the Warren Commission AND you think I'm full of shit. What exactly do you believe? I haven't a clue, but I'll bet its more complicated than the theory in "JFK and the unspeakable".

              After being the recipient of your setup, there is no way I am going to accede to any of your imperious demands. I know what's coming from what you already dished out, more predictable, free-floating insults.

              This "conversation" is over, because it was started under false pretenses.

              •  I simply asked for proof. (0+ / 0-)

                Nothing "false" about that. "Imperious" to ask for proof of a conspiracy theory? It's beyond imperious to insist on a theory and fefuse to provide a shred of proof - it's, uh, intellectually impoverished - is that nice enough?

                All the assumptions are yours, including the assumption that there are only two theories to consider. What I believe was never the issue, but since you raise the issue at the last minute, what I believe is that there's not enough evidence to prove a case for any of the theories. Is it that difficult to grasp a concept that has more than two valences? Is it so difficult to say "I don't know" instead of committing yourself to an unproven thesis because it's, like, really really neat?

                But the conversation ended when you foolishly wrote

                HAHAHAHAHA. You really should study up before you make comments.

                As if you're the nice guy. NOW this conversation is over.

                [message deleted] - Barack Obama

                by Bob Love on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:03:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  I want to know more about these shadowy groups (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1

    that have a specific idea for how things should be run.

    There seems to be a very low profile, but powerful group of hyper conservative financiers in texas. They do things very quietly but are very effective.

  •  It's kind of cute (0+ / 0-)

    The CIA, which has had an amazing record of either outright failure or total incompetence when it comes to secrecy, always manages to be perfectly on aim when it needs to be for some.

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:07:47 PM PST

    •  Not by a long shot (7+ / 0-)

      The CIA over did it by creating too many false trails to Oswald that put him in two places at once in a number of choreographed incidents that had to be dismissed or glossed over in the Warren Report. The CIA was both lethal and clumsy in a number of ways.

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:16:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Funny. The reason the claim favored by Cheney (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lefty Coaster
        and others that Atta picked up a vial of anthrax from an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 was rejected is that the FBI had evidence placing him in the U.S. at the time.  So was that alleged sighting in Prague of a fake second Atta?

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:39:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  No Way..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot

    Generals retire not only with a pension, but to top positions with military contractors.  Just why would they risk that to engage in treason, that if discovered would result in their execution.

    It takes organization, logistics to have a military coup.  And there has to be a purpose, a risk to the perpetrators.  

    And of course you need to posit someone in the Presidents closest adviser to plan a trip to Dallas and have a parade route down Dealy Plaza in an open car to give a person who happened to get a job on the fifth floor overlooking the route a clear shot.

    Who was that person?

    Something interesting.  I just read a book about the Arch Duke Ferdinand assassination in Sarajevo in 1914.  Talk about coincidences.  The first conspirator missed him, and then the car took a wrong turn and backed up slowly so the assassin had a shot at him.

    And, unlike Kennedy, this murder precipitated WWI, which made WWII inevitable also destabilizing Russia which was the source of the communist revolution which brought us the cold war.  One lucky shot resulted in a hundred million or so deaths, and the most bloody century ever.

    The conspiracy theories of that assassination went on for decades, just like JFK.

    •  There is nothing theoretical about this book (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep, ozsea1

      If you had read it you'd know that.

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:19:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do they name names, give details.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bob Love

        Certainly any president gives reasons for people to hate him.  There is a great distance between such hatred and plotting an assassination.

        The principle of Occam's Razor applies.  You have an individual with a severe personality disorder, who just happens to be a trained sharpshooter.  His mental illness was indicated in his shooting at a general previously.

        He happened to get a particular job about five weeks before Nov 22 that happened to overlook a particular street.  You then must believe he was placed there by the conspirators, who then arraigned for the parade to go to that exact spot.  Who made the arrangements for the parade?  As this person was had to have existed.  And he would have known that after the event, he would have been suspect.

        We have a simple explanation, that those with Oswald's history would do exactly what he was accused of doing.  He had enough megalomania to make this reasonable in this mind. His life was a refutation that he was an ineffectual loser.  So, he did something that made his name live in history, exactly what he wanted to do.

        This fits the facts, the rough facts, not all the loose ends that occurred in the confusion of the catastrophic event with mistakes made in reporting by many people.  

        In 1914 one unknown 20 year old changed the course of history.  In this case it was a conspiracy of an organization called the "black hand."  And it came out based on the evidence.  A conspiracy, if it had existed, would have been exposed in Kennedy's murder also.  

  •  The Dolly Shoe Company. (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, The Dolly Shoe Company.

    This is where it all starts.

    "Hey, with religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:26:55 PM PST

  •  Conspiracy Universe (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, ozsea1, Gatordiet, Jerry Melton

    There have been about a gazillion books written about the JFK assassination. As each one comes off the press, it is touted as the definitive work on the subject.
    Let's assume that each new book is indeed the definitive work and that each new "revelation" builds on "fact" and brings us closer to the ultimate truth. Then, we must assume there is overwhelming evidence that JFK was murdered by the Russians, the Cubans, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Joint Chiefs, the Mafia, Lyndon Johnson, Far Right Burchites, anxious Industrialists, the Catholic Church, a cabal of jealous girlfriends and a partridge in a pear tree sporting a high-powered rifle. Perhaps one of these theories is essentially correct - or perhaps the truth has yet to be recorded - or maybe we knew everything from the moment Oswald was captured.

    Forgive me if I sound like a hopeless skeptic - I'm really not. I personally remember that day all too well. Few of us ever forget where  we were after receiving terrible, Earth-shaking news.  We tend to remember horrific details easier and more accurately than we remember joyous occasions.  It's just the nature of the beast. Still, none of us know enough of the unwritten details to speak for Lee Harvey Oswald's motivation. I didn't want to believe that some dismal loser nobody had taken the life of our young and vibrant President. Sure, the Warren Commission report was sorely flawed. The Commission's very inconclusive conclusions served as justifiable fodder for every conspiracy theorist with a semi-fictional book plot in his mind. Unfortunately, what the Commission's evidence ruled out was nothing - including the possibility that Oswald just may have acted alone.

    Over his 2 years and 10 months in office, John Kennedy's average positive approval rating was 70%.  No President has had a higher average approval percentage - at least since this particular polling was initiated during the Truman Presidency. Of course, a leader with high public approval is likely to be a leader who has pissed off a few powerful people in trade-off.  That leader is also likely to set off more than a few nobody lunatics who seek to share the public spotlight.

    Yeah, I believe that some people somewhere may have put that pathetic social miscreant in motion and sent him on his murderous mission.  Then again, that's what I want to believe.  Had one of those nobodies taken a shot at candidate Obama as a result of Sarah Palin's relentless attack on his patriotism, who really would have been responsible for the attack? It doesn't take much of a push - especially these days. The rise of hate groups, and hateful individuals capable of committing violent acts, seldom, if ever, occurs in a vacuum. Yet, it's just too damned painful to accept the possibility that one small man's psychotic episode changed World history, and permanently damaged the soul of America. But for those of us who lived through that fateful day in November, everything did change.

    I fear we'll never know the truth, and I seriously question whether any great epiphany on the subject awaits us, now, or in the future.
    Ambrose Bierce once said, "If you leave your mind sufficiently open, somebody will come along and throw some garbage in it."
    So I suppose I remain a skeptic while I also believe the collective book should never be closed. But the story needs to remain off the fiction shelves.

    •  So any serious history becomes impossible? (5+ / 0-)

      Please explain how that works.

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 01:00:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To chronicle any historical event... (0+ / 0-)

        the historian must have facts.
        The Kennedy assassination is chock full of factoids - but critically devoid of the facts that go to the very core of the event.
        We know it happened, and in the aftermath,  a vast storehouse of information, and misinformation, was generated.
        Still, conjecture far outweighs the body of evidence.

        145 years have passed since Lincoln's assassination, yet we still cannot declare, beyond doubt, that a desperate Confederate government wasn't the force behind Booth and his co-conspirators. The Kennedy assassination left far more fundamental questions unanswered. Sadly, the investigation was, by almost universal agreement, sloppy, badly organized, splintered, pre-judged and predictably, a bureaucratic nightmare.

        In general, the passage of time is not favorable to adding clarity to flash events, like assassinations. There is no millennia's worth of evidence to dig up and reconstruct. No Tutenkhamen's tomb preserved in the dry desert sand or Dead Sea Scrolls hidden in a dark cave. The paper trail leading up to an assassination plot is not quite that formidable, and the author is more likely to burn the evidence rather than bury it for posterity.  It is far more difficult to name an assassination plot short on conspiracy theories then one short on controversy. It's the nature of the beast.

        In direct answer to your question, I never used the word "impossible" in describing the quest for truth about the Kennedy assassination (or history , in general).  However, I don't believe any great epiphany on the subject is forthcoming at this point, and that the probability becomes more remote with each passing year.
        I simply stated that, "I fear we'll never know the truth."

        Of course, history is only as accurate as its chroniclers.  Its future validity relies heavily on meticulous, contemporary information gathering. Unfortunately, our current Mass Media is composed of a 24/7 stream of mis-information, mal-information and non-information. In short, it thrives on its own bullshit and wantonly disregards veracity. Our Main Stream Media seems to believe that "facts" belong to the person or group shouting the loudest or spending the most money to buy their version of events. That alternate reality often becomes the public record for future historians to peruse and reconstruct.

        Conspiracies exist, and no doubt, some are so subtle as to go unnoticed by everyone. But, IMO, conspiracy theorieson the Kennedy assassination have approached farcical levels. The lamentable result is the devaluation of science and pseudo-science alike.  Considering the multitude of conflicting finger-pointing, somebody out there with their 900 pages of "facts" has to be full of shit.  Sooner or later, I suppose somebody was bound to declare that the entire World shot the President and quote every other conspiracy theory book as the basis for that conclusion.

        Admittedly, I haven't been reeducated enough on the topic to to make pronouncements as to the validity of any new theory, crazy or conceivable, nor am I likely to read any new conspiracy books. Been there - done that!
        Nothing personal - I'm still trying to forget that God awful day.

        •  That's a well-argued "agnostic POV on this (0+ / 0-)

          And, while I would like to "move on", the black ops world in the US has just continued its exponential growth. We now spend over $60 B a year (total of all military and intelligence "black budgets"). We have Bush funding pundits to shill for his programs, and army special ops guys working for CNN.

          Given the time since Dallas, people have grown more, not less, suspicious of events that touch the shadow world of intelligence. I have always thought the fact that Oswald "defected" to Russia at the height of the Cold War, and then came back a year later with no punishment (or even an FBI grilling) STANK TO HIGH HEAVEN. We have all kinds of sworn statements from his contemporaries in the Marines that he was some kind of spook.

          I recognize that you can shred a lot of documents, destroy a lot of evidence, and let a lot of people just die in 45 years. So, I, like you, doubt we will ever get the truth about this (short of a revolution in the US that opens the CIA files to the public BEFORE there is a chance to shred them). But I have lived with the results of the 60s assassinations for too long to think that three lone nuts just happened to get "lucky" three separate times.

          The point is never to lose sight of the fact that the CIA and the entire intelligence community slipped from public control in the aftermath of Dallas. To me, to malign people who try to make that point is self-destructive to what little is left of government control over the intelligence/covert ops apparatus.

  •  I am mid-book (6+ / 0-)

    It is worth a read.

    www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:09:48 PM PST

  •  There are some parallels... (0+ / 0-)

    The same John Birch society elements stirring up the deepest hatred of Kennedy are now at the forefront of Kennedy conspiracy theories.

    Likewise, the Alex Jones/ron paul conspiracy theorists busy stirring up hatred of Obama by calling him a zionist will be the first to blame the zionists if someone tries to kill Obama.

    So I do see parallels...just not the ones you want.

  •  More interesting reading: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira

    http://www.publiceye.org/...

    How far right white supremacists woo the left.  See, e.g. JFK conspiracy theories.

    Enjoy.

    •  i think that is the point.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lefty Coaster, Terra Mystica, ozsea1

      the far right actual exploit the truth further by creating such lunacy CTs that a well researched expose is then automatically labeled as CT. THAT IS EXACTLY what bothers me here. That they, the right wing radicals, are always one step ahead of us with controlling our access to information ... they create such mayhem, most of us would not recognize the truth if it slept next to us and woke in front of our very own eyes each morning. We continue to be bamboozled. Ad they know what they're doing and that's why they keep doing it. Cause it works. It works so damn well.

      Well never get to the bottom of it cause they create so many damn  lies ....

      Now you can't even be skeptical about vaccinations without being called a CTer because the right is claiming ownership of that whole subject .... we forget that there ARE reasons to be skeptical about vaccinations that have nothing to do with quacky ideas about population control etc but more to do with quality control .....

      "And the dream lives on" Edward M. Kennedy

      by boatsie on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 01:02:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No sure it's just the right. Any agenda-driven (0+ / 0-)

        PR effort seeks to obscure facts and/or change the subject.

        "I'm mean in the East, mean in the West. Mean to the people that I like best. ... I push folks down, and I cause train wrecks." Woody Guthrie

        by Terra Mystica on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:06:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  it is just such a damn shame (12+ / 0-)

    that it is no longer possible here to write a review of a well researched book without being hit from all sides as a nutcase. Are any of you people who regularly ready Lefty Coaster's diaries, because if so, I would expect you to treat his presentation here with a little more respect.

    The right has so successfully twisted and manipulated everyone's thinking by owning the CT meme and thus making it a putdown which the left then associates w/the right and accuses anyone who questions just about anything that they hold sacred as a CT.

    I have done extensive research on both Kennedy assassinations. I have read all of this before. Nothing here is new to me. It is a fact that JFK, much like Obama, had little say in who he could pick for his cabinet or to head the CIA. He had managed to get rid of most of them .. and when it fired Dulles there she wrote. Dulles ended up playing a major role in the Warren Commission.

    In my opinion, all of this name calling is so typical of individuals who refuse to consider the 'pablum' which has been fed the plebes for centuries. One only has to read Naomi Klein's book to realize what fools we have been taken for. Yet, somehow it is okay to cite Naomi Klein.

    Oh and by the way, Kennedy's assassination like the Archduke's also paved the way for a long, deadly war which made millions for our military industrial complex.

    "And the dream lives on" Edward M. Kennedy

    by boatsie on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:52:02 AM PST

  •  Ding Ding Ding !! (4+ / 0-)

    Oh and by the way, Kennedy's assassination like the Archduke's also paved the way for a long, deadly war which made millions for our military industrial complex.

    Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.....

  •  Oswald pulled the trigger (0+ / 0-)

    but had a long involvement with certain elements in the CIA and the Mafia. He was anything but left wing. There are plenty of other credible books that detail this.

    Dream, that's the thing to do (Johnny Mercer)

    by plankbob on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 04:39:36 AM PST

    •  Oswald... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      semiot, Lefty Coaster, arendt

      ...was a patsy, as he said to reporters the day of the assassination.  The CIA had other "Oswalds" ready to be "set up" in places like Chicago and Miami, should the murder of JFK had occurred in either of those cities.

      Anyone who thinks Oswald killed JFK never has handled or seen a 6.5 mm Italian Carcano rifle, the purported murder weapon owned by Oswald (ordered from KLein's mail order gun shop in Chicago under the alias "A. Hidell").  I handled half a dozen of those hunks of junk while working in my family's sporting goods store in the mid-1960's.  The bolt action mechanisms on all of them were rough and difficult to work.  The manufacturing of the ammo made for that gun ceased after 1940.  All that ammo was made according to the Geneva Convention Rules for Warfare, i.e., the bullets were full metal jacketed, non-expanding types, not the kind that would have done the kind of damage to JFK's head that occurred.

      Wilber  

      •  The detail about ammo is new to me... (0+ / 0-)

        The manufacturing of the ammo made for that gun ceased after 1940.  All that ammo was made according to the Geneva Convention Rules for Warfare, i.e., the bullets were full metal jacketed, non-expanding types, not the kind that would have done the kind of damage to JFK's head that occurred.

        Can you give me a summary of how this issue has been dismissed by the conventional wisdom?

        Thanks.

        •  Easy (0+ / 0-)

          The media in this nation is not "free."  They serve their masters in the Military-Industrial Complex.  Purposeful omission of facts is standard fare in the so-called Mainstream Media.  They are there to prop up the status quo.

          Wilber

  •  Am reading this book... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    ...right now, and it is fascinating.  I've read many other books about the JFK assassination (from the viewpoint that it was a conspiracy and not the act of a "lone nut"), and most of them were good and well-documented.  But this one by far is the best, and I'm only a third of the way through it.

    For those with open minds about the crime that forever changed the course of this nation, I highly recommend reading it.

    Wilber

    •  This was the first book on this subject I read (0+ / 0-)

      I'm glad I chose the best of the bunch to read.

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 07:23:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read Douglass's book a little over a year ago, (4+ / 0-)
        and I was deeply impressed by it.  My feeling was that Douglass had essentially proved what Oliver Stone and Fletcher Prouty had been trying to say.  While I was far from convinced by Stone's movie JFK that JFK was killed by the CIA and the military-industrial complex, with LBJ playing some kind of obscure role in the conspiracy, in order to launch the Vietnam War and to keep the Cold War going, I felt, after reading Douglass, that he had proved the Stone/Prouty case.

        I should add that, since then, the five-volume work Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, by Douglas P. Horne, former Chief Analyst for Military Records of the Assassination Records Review Board, has appeared.  While I have so far only read the fifth of the five volumes, which has Horne's conclusions, I would have to say that the additional evidence Horne brings forward nails the Stone/Prouty/Douglass case shut.  I don't think there can be doubt any longer that they are substantially right.  They still leave open the question of the precise identity of the shooters, but that is a matter of secondary importance.

        I understand Douglass plans to follow up his book on JFK with two further books on the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King.  I cannot wait to read those books (just as I cannot wait to read the next volume of Robert Caro's biography of LBJ, which I think has to deal with the JFK assassination.)

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 07:42:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let us know if the book provides any proof, (0+ / 0-)

      not just credible connections, not just interesting evidence, but actual proof.

      I've asked leftycoast for proof, but he keeps claiming the entire book is full of proof, which indicates to me that he simply doesn't understand the difference between proof, evidence and argument.

      [message deleted] - Barack Obama

      by Bob Love on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 06:18:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My opinion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    I was 14 when Kennedy was assassinated.  I grew up in a very racist family which didn't shed too many tears over his death.  Most of my relatives are still extremely conservative and speak (obnoxiously) openly -- and optimistically -- about the possibility of Pres. Obama being shot -- something they are quite certain will eventually happen.

    Here's my take on what is going on inside their warped brains . . .

    Now, is nothing -- it's what comes after the coming war between cultures and races (think Sarah Palin and the "Raptures" -- or whateverrr the hell it's called).  The reichwingers are gearing up for who's going to rule things after everything's blown up.  The crazies out there really don't give a shit about anyone or anything but their own selfish interests -- which are themselves, period.

    So what? (as Dick Cheney is so fond of saying) if millions of people have to die?  It's the afterlife that matters -- and they intend to be in charge of it.  And we criticize the Taliban et al for their brand of terrorism and the 72 virgins . . . ?

    It's time for the sane to do something other than stand on the sidelines watching the psychopaths parade by like Pied Pipers, taking the rest of humanity with them over the cliff . . . unless that's really our destiny.

    We let them murder a president and stage a coup d'etat, said nothing, and did less.  How disgusting.

    •  This Week just ran a JFK clip (0+ / 0-)

      where JFK takes responsibility for accepting bad intelligence from the CIA right after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. JFK saying "I am the responsible government officer."

      After the Bay of Pigs Kennedy remarked he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds¨.

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:45:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  When Ray McGovern says he is convinced by (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster, arendt
    Douglass that JFK was done in by "a cabal comprised of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, parts of the CIA, the FBI, and even the Secret Service," he of course speaks with knowledge of the CIA and the very different cultures in the Directorate of Operations of the CIA (that part that does covert activities, and now operates under the new name National Clandestine Service) and the rest of the CIA, including the Directorate of Intelligence, where analyst Ray McGovern worked.  Counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, who there are strong reasons for connecting with the plot to kill JFK, was in the Directorate of Operations, as Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counter-Intelligence.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:56:25 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site