Gannett’s USA Today began publishing its daily newspapers in Washington, D.C., and I have always been proud of the publication and have praised it. I believed it was one of the finest newspapers in the United States, if not the world; and I have been pleased with its success. I have encouraged friends, business associates, and acquaintances to read it because of what I believed was objective reporting, or certainly very close to it.
However, I was rudely awakened by its recent series of articles about John F. Kennedy and his family, which were a travesty and a lie.[2] Sadly, USA Today has become a participant in the deliberate distortion of history. There was not merely one isolated article about the Kennedys, but it was an unprecedented series—which made matters far worse and even more irresponsible. Whoever approved the series should be fired immediately. Wholesale distortions of history by a mainstream publication such as this one warrant and, in fact, demand nothing less.
John F. Kennedy was a fraud, pure and simple. When he died, his “image” was frozen in time, but the truth is grotesque. To lionize him like USA Today has done is a crime, and unconscionable. The once-excellent and seemingly objective USA Today has reached new lows by publishing this series about Kennedy—which is the moral equivalent of running a praiseworthy series of articles about Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin.
USA Today failed to mention that John F. Kennedy was possibly the most morally corrupt and reckless president in American history, who came tragically close to bringing about a “nuclear winter” that might have destroyed the United States and other parts of the world. Also, he plunged America into the Vietnam war. USA Today’s entire series would fall like a “house of cards” if the truth about Kennedy and his family had been told, instead of repeating the factual distortions that have been spun since he was assassinated in Dallas.
There have been two outstanding books written about Kennedy and his life, and that of his family: American historian Thomas C. Reeves’ “A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy”[3] and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh’s “The Dark Side of Camelot.”[4] First published in 1997, Hersh’s book is a companion to Reeves’ equally fine book, which was published in the same year. To have two truly outstanding books introduced at the same time, on the same subject, is interesting unto itself.
Like Reeves, Hersh laid bare the myth of “Camelot” for all to see. The Kennedy family and its sycophants have attempted to perpetrate that myth since the day Kennedy was shot—as well as myths surrounding the entire family, which is surely the most dysfunctional family ever to achieve significant political power in American history. Indeed, after reading both books, one wonders whether there was anything decent or moral about the family, certainly the male Kennedys.
Unlike Reeves, Hersh does not mention Ted Kennedy’s culpability in the tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969, just as she was about to celebrate her 29th birthday, and the ensuing Kennedy cover-up. Similarly, Hersh makes scant mention of Marilyn Monroe, with whom both JFK and, after him, Bobby Kennedy had affairs, nor does Hersh discuss the possibility that she was murdered. Instead, he discusses JFK’s long-time relationship with Judith Campbell Exner, as well as his affair with an East German “prostitute” by the name of Ellen Rometsch.
Kennedy’s reckless affairs with women were only outdone by his irresponsible and dangerous relationships with mobsters such as Chicago crime boss Sam Giancana. These two character flaws merged when both Kennedy and Giancana had sexual liaisons with Exner, who was used as their go-between. Indeed, it is doubtful whether Kennedy would have become the president-elect in 1960 if the Mob had not helped him in Illinois and West Virginia—and Giancana claimed credit for that. Kennedy was the son of a bootlegger, and the apple did not fall far from the tree, with respect to all three Kennedy brothers who entered national politics.
The thread that runs through the writing of Reeves and Hersh, and through JFK’s life, is utter recklessness—which not only endangered his life, but the lives of those with whom he came into contact, and every American. Perhaps the most vivid example is the “Cuban Missile Crisis” that Hersh documents in considerable detail, which might have been averted if JFK and Bobby had used their back-channel communications effectively with the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev and the Kremlin.
Those Americans who believed in JFK, as yours truly did[6]—and to a lesser extent in Bobby—were deceived and disillusioned with respect to almost every issue. The public perception bears almost no relationship to the actual facts. Indeed, thirty-four years after his death, the American people finally learned the truth about JFK (and his “hatchet man,” Bobby) from these two books and other sources. Even then, as Hersh describes in considerable detail, Kennedy operatives may have destroyed large amounts of historically-important documents.
Vast numbers of documents are still held by the Kennedy Library with respect to both JFK and Bobby, which have never been made available to the public. This is a scandal unto itself. Not the least of these are medical records about JFK’s health, which have only been reviewed by a handful of Kennedy “sycophant-like” writers. Almost 50 years after Kennedy’s death, the full extent of his life-long medical problems is still being withheld from the American people and conservative scholars, and Reeves recounts many of those problems.
The failed “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba, where Fidel Castro humiliated JFK and “the Kennedys,” led to almost 50 years of enslavement for the Cuban people, and repeated attempts by the two Kennedy brothers to have Castro assassinated. This fiasco has potential relevance today—with respect to the presidency of Barack Obama—because, as Hersh describes, there was a “prevailing sense that Kennedy could do no wrong.”[7] In fact, the Kennedy brothers ignored advice from the CIA and the military; and like Lyndon Johnson vis-à-vis later stages of the Vietnam war, they ran the “show” themselves and then tried to blame others when it failed colossally.
Ample mention has been made of JFK’s perpetual “thirst” for women. Indeed, the three Kennedy brothers, Jack, Bobby and Ted, trashed what was sacred in their Catholic religion, such as the sanctity of marriages. For them, nothing seemed sacred, ever. Hersh uses statements from Secret Service agents to describe the president’s penchant for prostitutes, and how they and other women were “procured” by Dave Powers and some of Kennedy’s other “New Frontiersmen.” Jackie Kennedy’s travels were carefully monitored so that she would not return to find the president and women “frolicking” in the White House swimming pool or in the family quarters.
What went on in hotels and private homes, wherever JFK traveled, is described as well. The book also discusses JFK’s venereal disease(s)[8]; and the risks that he and Powers took by cavorting with women who had been waived through routine Secret Service checks without prior clearances, and who might have carried weapons, listening devices, drugs or something similar.
There is no question that Kennedy launched this nation into Vietnam; and his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, was the architect of that lost war and the enormous suffering that it produced. Almost 60,000 brave Americans died, some of whom were my friends; and it impaled this nation’s honor on the horns of a tragedy that still haunts policy makers and citizens alike. What was not known generally until Hersh’s book is that JFK “had a chance in 1961 to disengage from an American involvement in South Vietnam.”[9] Instead, he chose to go to war, and to spend the blood of young Americans. Hersh states, again emphatically: “Whatever Jack Kennedy’s intentions were, Vietnam was his war, even after his death.”[10]
Hersh describes the constant pressure especially on CIA operatives, which was brought by JFK and Bobby, to have foreign leaders such as Castro killed. Mob operatives were used with Bobby’s knowledge and involvement, even though as the U.S. Attorney General he was ostensibly prosecuting the Mob. The family patriarch Joseph P. Kennedy’s ties to the Mob are detailed, as well as his ruthlessness and penchant for women. JFK’s first marriage to Durie Malcolm is also described, and his father’s efforts to expunge the record.
Hersh discusses how Bobby and Jackie believed that JFK was struck down by a “domestic conspiracy,” probably involving Mob boss Giancana or others.[11] However, Hersh states: “Robert Kennedy did nothing to pursue the truth behind his brother’s death [in 1963]. . . . The price of a full investigation was much too high: making public the truth about President Kennedy and the Kennedy family. It was this fear, certainly, that kept Robert Kennedy from testifying before the Warren Commission.”[12] Aside from prostitutes and other women, and close Mafioso ties and health issues, and the presidential election in 1960 that was stolen from Richard M. Nixon, Hersh details “cash payments” that JFK requested and received—which monies were ostensibly used to buy Ellen Rometsch’s “silence.”
A footnote in history, perhaps, but a very important one is that JFK hurt his back cavorting in a West Coast swimming pool. He was “forced to wear a stiff brace that stretched from his shoulders to his crotch.” As Hersh concludes: “The brace would keep the president upright for the bullets of Lee Harvey Oswald.”[13] Hence, JFK’s sexual escapades may have contributed to his tragic death.
Today, Kennedy is not someone to look up to, much less deify, as many of us thought when he was president. That conclusion was reached reluctantly by lots of Americans, years ago, with a sense of sadness rather than anger. Like the potentate in Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the myth about Kennedy and his feet of clay have become clear for all to see with the passage of time.[14]
Greatness is often achieved in times of war, and Kennedy never won the war with Cuba, much less the Vietnam war that he started, nor did he win the Cold War—which Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush won. Kennedy was a tragic Shakespearean figure who may be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history, in no small part because of the question of character that both Reeves and Hersh described brilliantly in their terrific books.
USA Today’s series of articles extolling the virtues of Kennedy and his family are shameful, and constitute the gross distortion of history. Indeed, they seem to represent yet another attempt by America’s discredited Left to glorify its politicians, regardless of how corrupt and immoral they may be.
Few young Americans even know who John F. Kennedy was—or care about him—because less than a handful of his positive accomplishments had any lasting significance. Like former President William McKinley before him, the fact that an assassin cut short Kennedy’s life and presidency might be all that Americans recall about him 50 years from now.[15]
© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele
[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com
[2] See http://specials.usatoday.com/jfk/
[3] See http://www.amazon.com/Question-Character-Life-John-Kennedy/dp/0029259657/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0 and http://www.amazon.com/Question-Character-Life-John-Kennedy/product-reviews/0029259657/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R2SDUMI20EEA8Z
[4] See http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Camelot-Seymour-Hersh/dp/0316359556 and http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Camelot-Seymour-Hersh/product-reviews/0316359556/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R3Q8NBIYKP5W01
[5] See Seymour M. Hersh, “The Dark Side of Camelot,” p. 343.
[6] Although I was not old enough to vote for him, I was in the Los Angeles Coliseum and watched while he delivered his acceptance speech at the close of the Democrats’ convention in 1960. Also, despite growing up in a “devoutly” Republican family, I registered to vote as a Democrat when I was able to do so, largely because of him.
After law school at Berkeley—where I had walked out of one of my classrooms to learn that he had been shot in Dallas—I spent two years at the Pentagon and had an excellent offer to return thereafter to a wonderful law firm in San Francisco, for which I had worked briefly before entering the Army. Instead, I went to work on Capitol Hill, in no small part because of Kennedy and the call to government service that his words engendered (e.g., “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country”).
In short, Kennedy had changed the course of my life, which is why the truth about his life—and the fraud that was “Camelot”—needs to be exposed, not covered up or papered over as USA Today has done so irresponsibly.
[7] Id at 202.
[8] Id at 230.
[9] Id at 265.
[10] Id at 437.
I know an outstanding reporter with impeccable, world-class credentials who is based in Washington, D.C. This person covered the Vietnam war and other wars up to and including the present day. I admire and respect the person’s experience, opinions and judgment greatly. In an e-mail message that I received on July 29, 2010, the person wrote:
Tim, [w]e won the Vietnam war – and Congress lost it.
Let me explain.
Last US soldier left Vietnam March 29, 1973.
Saigon fell April 15, 1975.
ARVN – South Vietnamese army – did very well on its own for two years with US military assistance, but no US soldiers, not even as advisers to ARVN.
Then Congress, in its infinite wisdom, cut off all further military aid to Saigon.
ARVN saw no point in continuing to fight, stabbed in the back by the US Congress.
Gen. Giap, in his memoirs, says Hanoi was taken by surprise by what Congress did because they thought that taking Saigon would not be within their reach for two more years.
So Giap improvised an offensive – and Saigon fell without a fight.
I have no reason to believe that this person’s assessment is inaccurate in any respect. I will not disclose the person’s identity while he or she is alive, certainly without permission to do so.
[11] Id at 450.
[12] Id at 456.
[13] Id at 439.
[14] See, e.g., http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Emperor’s_New_Clothes
[15] See also Timothy D. Naegele, “Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy: A Question of Character”—http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character/
You are correct Timothy, they certainly made Kennedy “King” when they made him president, and they kept the aura after he died. Too bad it took this long for the crown to be taken off, but it’s better late than never.
I hope you take Obama’s “crown” off much quicker.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings on the guy. As a Cuban-American who was removed from Miami at a fairly young age and integrated with American children in VA and AZ, I was always surprised when people glorified JFK. I had always been told by the Cubans in Miami (who believe very strongly in democracy) that he was a traitor, liar, gangster, and pretty much despicable. His father’s Cocaine trafficking business is still legendary in Miami.
I am no fan of Obama, and I have mentioned before that his announced withdrawal would be a betrayal to the Iraqi and Afghan people who support Democracy, and are willing to die for it, much like our soldiers. I see some stunning similarities here to JFK’s policies toward Cuba.
Yes, I agree completely, which is why I wrote the following comments about the failed “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba that appear in the article above:
Unlike John F. Kennedy and Johnson before him, Obama never served in the military, and only actually served in the U.S. Senate for a brief period of time because he was campaigning nonstop for the presidency.
He is a former “community organizer” who has ignored the advice of America’s military leaders and fashioned his own Afghan strategy, which I have been told—by at least one true expert—is tragically doomed to failure. Assuming that happens, he will blame the military and everyone else, or so I believe, even though he will be responsible for the deaths and injuries of countless brave Americans.
You speak of a deliberate distortion of history concerning JFK; a common but effective way to prepare your audience to accept your own distortion. While no Josef Goebbels, you have learned the technique of the big lie.
I would address your rant item by item, but that would be tedious, and you have supplied a surplus of tedium already. Suffice to say, I have rarely read such an unbalanced, dis-informative, crudely crafted article.
You vilify a man many times your stature, your intelligence, and your courage. As Lloyd Bentsen said to Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate,”You’re no Jack Kennedy”.
Thanks so much, Tom, for your comments.
Needless to say, you have engaged in name calling, but you did not rebut one point contained in the article, because it is impossible to do so. Again, Kennedy is the most despicable president in American history, and is without any peers.
I recently read Hersh’s book and you accurately represent its contents and its import.
Your confidential informant is also quite correct. Frank Snepp’s Decent Interval also makes clear that we achieved a military victory only to have it stolen by the Democrats. Giap apparently persuaded the politburo to allow him to attempt a cross-border operation, from which he assured them he would withdraw if Nixon reacted. He could not and the rest is history. We paid a high price for our national morality play, “Watergate,” and have continued to pay through the nose in the form of the 60s radicals infecting our schools and the Democrat Party.
Tom, I have read countless books on the Kennedy’s and the Kennedy Presidency throughout my lifetime. Some of the authors no doubt admired Kennedy by way of a close personal relationship and others did not. Nonetheless, from my readings and knowledge, everything that Mr. Naegele has written is true and well documented in other sources. In fact, it’s one of the best summaries of the Kennedy Presidency that I have read.
Thank you for your very kind words.
USA TODAY SHOULD BE BOYCOTTED!
See http://specials.usatoday.com/jfk/
As indicated in the article above, the once-fine and seemingly objective USA Today has reached new lows by publishing a series of articles extolling the virtues of John F. Kennedy and his family that are shameful, and constitute the gross distortion of history. Indeed, they appear to represent yet another attempt by America’s discredited Left to exalt the virtues of its politicians, regardless of how corrupt and immoral they may be.
See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character/
OK, you want rebuttal?
Let’s begin with your assertion that Kennedy “plunged America into the Vietnam War”.
Our involvement in Vietnam began in 1950. Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group to assist the French. In 1951, he authorized 150 million in aid to the French.
In 1960 when Kennedy first took office, he did continue the bi-partisan, anti-communist foreign policies inherited from the administrations of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower. But by 1962, JFK said to Walter Cronkite that the war may be unwinnable, and that it was ultimately a Vietnamese war, not an American war.
Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam. He had planned for a complete withdrawl by 1965. The following is an excerpt from Kennedy’s National Security Action Memorandum 263, ” 2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.”
On November 26, 1963, just 4 days after Kennedy was assassinated. LBJ signed NSAM 273 completely reversing Kennedy’s plan to withdraw American troops from Vietnam, and committing our forces indefinitely.
On August 4, 1964, Johnson claimed that the USS Turner Joy had been fired upon by the North Vietnamese. This prompted retaliatory air strikes, and prompted Congress on August 7, 1964, to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
This resolution gave LBJ authority, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of military force in Southeast Asia. It authorized the President to do whatever necessary in order to assist “any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective”.
An undated NSA publication declassified in 2005 revealed that there was no attack on 4 August. But LBJ used this non-incident to gain the power to escalate the war in Vietnam without a declaration of war. I see you were a Captain.
On 8 March 1965, 3,500 United States Marines were sent to South Vietnam. By December, the number increased to nearly 200,000. This was the beginning of the American ground war which eventually caused the death of 60,000 troops.
In the beginning of Kennedy’s administration he did continue the U.S. foreign policy of previous administrations in Southeast Asia . This was with the overwhelming support of the American people, who at the time believed in stopping the “Domino Effect” of Communism in the area.
But Kennedy realized we had no business in Vietnam, and he developed an exit plan to be completed by 1965.
Obviously you hate JFK. He had moral failings, to be sure. But don’t we all? Who are you to cast stones? I suspect the cause of your hatred is something you are unwilling to share. I see you served as a Captain in the Army Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon. Kennedy, as you well know, fired Allen Dulles and began dismantling the CIA. It is no secret he was intensely hated by the agency. Could your associations with the intelligence community possibly influence your opinion?
Regardless of why you hate JFK so intensely, (I can’t believe you compare him with Hitler and Stalin), you cannot, in good faith blame him for the national disgrace that was the Vietnam War. You say he is possibly the “most morally corrupt President in American history”?
You have only to look at his successor to find the one deserving that distinction.
Thank you again, Tom, for your comments.
You might wish to read the two outstanding books cited in footnotes 3-4 of the article above. Hersh discusses Vietnam more than Reeves does; however, you might wish to compare your views of history with theirs. Obviously, many other books have been written about that war.
It is pure conjecture as what Kennedy might or might not have done if he had been spared an assassin’s bullets. We will never know for certain. However, we must never forget that his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, was the architect of that lost war and the enormous suffering that it produced. McNamara continued under Johnson, as you know; and together they took the war to new levels.
Please read footnote 10 of the article too.
My feelings about Kennedy, and the origin of such feelings, are set forth in this article and my other article about Reagan and Kennedy, which is cited in footnote 15 above. There are no hidden feelings or agendas. Like many other Americans, I felt betrayed by Kennedy, and still believe strongly that he was a fraud.
My comments about Hitler and Stalin go to the despicable nature of them as human beings, and the suffering that they produced. Kennedy came very close to bringing about a “nuclear winter” because of his recklessness that put the lives of millions of Americans at risk—and potentially the lives of millions of other people elsewhere in the world—which might have equaled or surpassed what Hitler and Stalin did.
None of my work in intelligence has influenced my views, to the best of my knowledge. I was a Kennedy believer who became sadly disillusioned; and this disillusionment has increased over time as more and more of the truth has come out about Kennedy. I have zero doubts that more is to come.
With respect to Johnson, you may not know or recall but there were bumper stickers on cars in Washington, D.C. when I was an Army officer serving at the Pentagon, which said: “Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that we really need him?” He was hated—which is among the reasons why he did not run for reelection in 1968. However, I believe Kennedy was worse, both as a human being and as a demagogue and narcissistic “leader.”
You have not offered any proof of your assertion that Kennedy was responsible for our tragic involvement in Vietnam. I used verifiable facts to show that 1. Kennedy inherited a long-standing and gradually escalating involvement. 2. Public opinion was in favor of the containment of Communism in Southeast Asia. 3. By 1962 Kennedy realized the blunder of our protracted and hopeless efforts to help the South Vietnamese. 4. He issued NASM 263 which proves his intention and desire to get out of the war. 5. Johnson signed NASM 273 which completely nullified Kennedy’s efforts to withdraw, and committed our forces indefinitely. He did this only FOUR DAYS after Kennedy was assassinated, waiting only for his burial. 6. Johnson used the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a ruse to launch air strikes, and eventually to gain power from Congress to wage a full-on war without any declaration. 7. The ground war started in 1965 when Marines were first sent in.
You criticized me for offering no rebuttal, yet you have not even challenged any of the above assertions, assertions which if true, prove conclusively that your claim of Kennedy ‘s responsibility for the war is unfounded.
Instead of disputing my facts, you suggest I compare my “views of history” by reading two books about what a fraud Kennedy was! Then you try to shift the focus from Kennedy to McNamara. Which one are you blaming now?
Let’s hear some facts to back up your assertion. Tell me which of the seven assertions I made are false.
Thank you, Tom, for your additional comments.
Again, I respectfully suggest that you read the two books mentioned above, and specifically Hersh’s discussions about Vietnam. He “nails” Kennedy; and both books can be read at your leisure. Also, there is no point in incorporating those discussions in this blog thread, when its readers can refer to the original sources, as you can.
Who was culpable? The two Kennedy brothers, Jack and Bobby; McNamara; Johnson; members of Congress; and others. There was plenty of culpability to go around—which resulted in the deaths of almost 60,000 Americans, some of whom were my friends.
Mr. Naegele
You are a man of great success and position. I admire men like you who are capable of such accomplishments in life. I believe, however, that you are somewhat disingenuous in your posture as an unbiased presenter of fact and promoter of honest debate.
I am sure you are familiar with the concept that morality dictates theology. You seem to preach only to the choir. You base your statements on two books, both of which support your belief that JFK, a man who made more people proud to be Americans than any President in recent history, was in fact a degenerate and a scoundrel.
I would expect to see plenty of dissent in your blog, given the high esteem in which JFK is held by so many, but all I see are a few brief and ill-reasoned agreeable comments.
When challenged on your facts, you say there is no point in “incorporating those discussions in this blog thread”. Basically, you like to do all the talking and don’t want to be interrupted by questions.
JFK was physically assassinated in 1963. You sir, are conducting a character assassination 47 years later. In doing so, you do not demonstrate the dignity that your resume suggests.
Thank you again, Tom, for your thoughtful comments.
My reasoning was not based simply on two books, which happen to support my positions. I have read extensively about John F. Kennedy and his brothers. In fact, when I worked in the U.S. Senate, our offices were located next to those of Teddy, whom I believed was the best of the Kennedy brothers, notwithstanding his culpability in the tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne.
You have argued with respect to the origins of the Vietnam war; and I have cited the conclusions of Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh, as set forth in his book “The Dark Side of Camelot.” If you differ with them, I respectfully suggest that you take issue with him. His fine book is extensively researched, and you are free to dispute his sources—some of which you may agree with ultimately.
The Kennedy “myth” has been spun for years, and it does Americans an immense disservice to have it continue. Among other things, there are documents held by the Kennedy Library that should have been released years ago. Other documents were destroyed by the Kennedy “faithful.” My guess is that John F. Kennedy’s “legacy” will only get worse as the years pass, until finally he is largely discredited at least by most scholars.
I wish you well in your quest for the truth.
Thank you for recognizing that my objective is the truth. I acknowledge that historical truth is often difficult to determine, and sometimes impossible. Time will tell, as they say. Unfortunately it does not always tell us everything. You and I will have to agree to disagree on this subject, at least for now.
I apologize that my tone was often less than gracious. It was never my intention to be insulting or disrespectful. Maybe I am overly passionate about certain subjects, JFK being one of them.
I am angry, not so much that JFK was assassinated, even in such a brazen manner. I am furious at the total lack of honest investigation into the public murder of an American President, and the farce of the Warren Commission’s findings. It leads me to the conclusion that elements of our own government were complicit in his death.
In any murder, motive is the key question. Who stood to gain? In Kennedy’s case, so many powerful and ruthless forces were aligned against him. He fired Allen Dulles and was dismantling the CIA, the Mob wanted him to oust Castro so they could get their casinos back, he was taking the power of fiat currency from the Federal Reserve, and LBJ wanted the Presidency almost as much as he hated Kennedy. If you judge a man by who his enemies are, Kennedy looks like a great President.
Thank you again, Tom, for your thoughtful comments.
Yes, I understand and appreciate your passion. We may never know the truth behind his assassination. My article above describes what apparently Bobby and Jackie thought. It is too bad that Bobby did not testify, but he had his reasons.
What is perhaps most profound, as fate would have it, is that JFK might not have died except for the stiff brace that he was wearing, which held him rigid and upright. I have been to Dallas and the site; and I was struck by how small it is. History was changed that day, as we know.
See also http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscawech.htm (Testimony Of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht in 1978 before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, disputing the single-bullet theory that is the essence of the Warren Commission report’s conclusions)
USA TODAY AND ALL OTHER GANNETT BUSINESSES SHOULD BE BOYCOTTED!
See http://specials.usatoday.com/jfk/
As indicated in the article above, the once-fine and seemingly objective USA Today has reached new lows by publishing a series of articles extolling the virtues of John F. Kennedy and his family that are shameful, and constitute the gross distortion of history.
See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character/
The travesty of this series, as well as the gross distortion of history that it represents, have been brought to the attention of the highest echelons of Gannett and USA Today—including Craig A. Dubow, Gannett’s Chairman, President & CEO (who can be reached at cdubow@gannett.com), and David Hunke, USA Today’s Publisher (who can be reached at dhunke@gannett.com)—but the newspaper keeps touting the series on the homepage of its Web site.
See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/documents/USATODAY.comhomepage-10-18-10.pdf (series logo appears in the upper right-hand corner of USA Today’s homepage)
Thus, the series does not merely constitute editorial irresponsibility, but it taints the entire Gannett organization, and demonstrates bias and distorted media coverage on the part of one of the largest media conglomerates globally. The series represents another attempt by America’s discredited Left to exalt the virtues of its politicians, regardless of how corrupt and immoral they may be.
If Americans cannot trust Gannett and USA Today anymore to provide fair and balanced news, they should be boycotted!
Here is a list of Gannett businesses and their addresses (see http://www.gannett.com/about/map/address.htm), as well as a listing of the locations of Gannett daily newspapers and TV stations that should be boycotted (see http://www.gannett.com/about/map/propmap.htm)—certainly until both Gannett and USA Today issue formal written apologies for and retractions of their shameful series of articles, which constitute an irresponsible and gross distortion of history.
Good evening. I am following up on this blog as you have piqued my interest here. Actually, I found your site via your comments on the Air Craft Carrier providing assistance to the Carnival crippled ship. Could not agree with you more……don’t we have better things to do with all this money??
Anyway, just a note here as I went to find the books you have referenced (3 and 4) and found that in fact, the Reeves book was published in 1991 while the Hersh book was in 97 as you state. Hopefully you are not at this point rolling your eyes, but you do make a specific point, commenting “To have two truly outstanding books introduced at the same time, on the same subject, is interesting unto itself.” While it certainly does not in any way change any conclusions one will draw from the books, the timing of those conclusions now is, if nothing else, suspect. Just my opinion.
Love the flame war with Tom. Great entertainment.
Thank you, Larry, for your comments.
The copyright for the Reeves book states:
See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/documents/Amazon.com-AQuestionofCharactertheLifeofJohnFKennedy.pdf
The 1997 copyright apparently applies to the “Paperback edition,” while the 1991 copyright applies to the earlier “Hardcover edition.” It is not clear whether there were any differences between the two editions; and if so, exactly what they were. Thus, you are correct; and I am correct too—at least with respect to the “Paperback edition.”
GANNETT AND USA TODAY CONTINUE TO SPEW LIES, AND MUST BE BOYCOTTED
Unchastened and unrepentant, and clearly aware of the fact that their series of articles about John F. Kennedy and his family distorts history beyond all recognition, Gannett and USA Today continue to tout the series on the newspaper’s homepage.
See http://www.naegele.com/documents/USATODAY.com-10-11-11.pdf (series logo appears in the upper right-hand corner of USA Today’s homepage)
One single “fabricated” article is not the issue, nor even the whole series of shameless articles, but the repeated touting of this series long after it was published originally compounds the journalistic travesty that Gannett and USA Today are perpetrating on the American people and their readers worldwide.
See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/#comment-836 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/#comment-855
Clearly, none of Gannett’s publications nor its flagship USA Today can ever be trusted again. The series represents a pathetic effort to increase readership, and yet another attempt by America’s discredited Left to glorify its politicians, regardless of how corrupt and immoral they may be.
I’m sorry, and this might be me just picking at loose ends, but Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush won the Cold War? I’m sorry, but the “victory” (which really seems a strange word to apply here) should not be accredited to them. Just because they were Presidents when the U.S.S.R. fell does that mean a thing. The Cold War was won, first and foremost, by the inability of Communism to fundamentally last in an overly Capitalistic world. And I don’t remember many containment projects done by these two fellows, although you could argue that Reagan perpetuated Capitalism by his Reaganomics approach (which I wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole). But still, nothing they did could be argued as “winning” the war. The war was won essentially once the Cuban Missile Crisis ended. After that escalation of nuclear threat and the subsequent backing-down of the two superpowers, it was pretty obvious neither country would “destroy” the other. So by simple logic and knowledge of what is Communism, it was obvious we’d win the war back in the ’60s, not to say we knew it then of course. So please, don’t take a historical article (which I did find intellectually stimulating as I now would like to research more than I already know about JFK) about one time period and shamelessly plug in completely unrelated nonsense to propagate Republican idols. Even though you easily are a right-wing individual, it definitely portrays yourself as less informative and more close-minded and bigoted. But I did enjoy the rest of the article; I do not know more about JFK than the deified president that I was taught briefly in school. It definitely makes me want to learn more about him -objectively of course- and be able to thoroughly understand your article’s main points.
Thank you, Patrick, for your comments. Every once in a while, a compliment was thrown in, which I appreciate.
First, it is commonly acknowledged that Reagan won the Cold War, inter alia, because his “Star Wars” arms race triggered massive military expenditures that contributed to the country’s collapse. I do not have time to bring up the articles on this subject for you, but a Google or Wikipedia search might prove beneficial.
The Berlin Wall came down, and the country actually collapsed on George H.W. Bush’s watch; and I was in Berlin shortly after the collapse took place. Russian troops were selling their uniforms, and stealing plumbing fixtures from their barracks, which could be sold too. They were going back to “tent cities” in the dead of winter, because there was not adequate housing for them, until the West Germans paid the Soviet Union “reparations”—which may or may not have gone to housing for them.
Second, communism as an economic and social system was decaying for years, as you point out. The “Ten Year” and other plans were pure nonsense, and fabricated to keep the leaders in power.
Third, the Cuban Missile Crisis did not end the risks to America, which still exist today—and have never gone away. They have merely changed forms.
See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-voices-of-stalin’s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao’s-chinese-holocaust/
Fourth, I have no interest in “propagat[ing] Republican idols,” nor in doing the same with respect to Democrats. I am an Independent, and proud of it.
Fifth, to the extent that you have been taught that Kennedy was a “deified president,” I assume it was by Leftist professors at schools throughout the country. I am liberal on some issues, and conservative on others, but mostly moderate—or so I believe. Left-wing or right-wing ideologues and fanatics are not my “cup of tea.”
The Travesties And Tragedies Of The Shameful Kennedys Continue Unabated
The lies and distortions of history continue as members of the Kennedy family work behind the scenes to kill a new eight-part TV miniseries on the History Channel about John F. Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy, which was set to air in the U.S. later this year. Maria Shriver and Caroline Kennedy are reported to have lobbied hard for the History Channel to pull the plug on the series.
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1345860/Disappointment-Katie-Holmes-axed-Jackie-Kennedy-series.html and http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/caroline-kennedy-maria-shriver-helped-69764
In a UK Daily Mail article—which is entitled, “‘It’s the truth’: Producer defends JFK mini-series after it’s cancelled ‘due to pressure from Caroline Kennedy’”—it is reported:
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346292/Its-truth-Producer-defends-JFK-mini-series-cancelled-pressure-Caroline-Kennedy.html
As the article above states clearly and unequivocally, John F. Kennedy was despicable and a fraud; his infidelities with prostitutes and other women trashed his marriage and were often perverted; and his father was every bit as bad if not worse. The History Channel should be boycotted for its actions.
See also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9062444/John-F-Kennedys-mistress-details-their-affair-in-new-book.html (“John F Kennedy’s mistress details their affair in new book“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096770/JFK-took-virginity-White-House-intern-Mimi-Alford-19.html (“He took me into Jackie’s room… I was powerless to resist: Ex-White House intern, 19, describes ‘passionate 18-month affair with JFK’“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099498/Mimi-Alford-The-day-JFK-took-virginity-wifes-White-House-bed.html (“In [the UK Daily Mail's] first extract from a memoir that’s shocked America, a former intern reveals the cold-hearted truth about a predatory president who cynically exploited her innocence . . .“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100256/JFK-tried-make-abortion-How-President-Kennedy-forced-teenage-intern-drugs-feared-hed-pregnant.html (“JFK tried to make me have an abortion: How President Kennedy forced a teenage intern to take drugs and feared he’d made her pregnant“)
You lost all hope for convincing me here with your first sentence about how usa today is anything but a heap of populist, cotton candy trash, with or without the kennedy article. Do you read US weekly too?
Thank you, Chris, for your comments.
I respectfully suggest that you read the rest of the article, as well as my comments beneath it; and I believe you will find that I agree with you—to a large extent. Sadly, this is not what USA Today used to be, or what it should be.
Sarah Palin Under Attack
The UK’s Daily Mall is reporting:
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347418/Arizona-shooting-Spike-death-threats-Sarah-Palin.html
The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer was correct: the Tucson massacre was not a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin or anyone else. It was the work of a deranged killer, similar to the men who killed John Lennon in New York City, and Yitzhak Rabin in Tel Aviv.
See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/sarah-and-todd-palin-the-big-winners/#comment-1279
Also, it is tragic to think that politicians, other public figures, or anyone with whom we might disagree would be targeted by anyone else for death.
In an article of mine entitled, “Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It,” I mentioned the vitriolic climate of hate and personal destruction in Washington today, which is far beyond anything that I dealt with when I worked in the U.S. Senate on Capitol Hill.
See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/
I did witness the “politics of personal destruction” though, when senators, congressmen, and their staff members went after political “targets” who were seeking Senate confirmation. There was a conscious effort to find “dirt” on the people and destroy their reputations to prevent the confirmation process from going forward. It was unseemly when I first encountered it; and it is not the American way.
In my article, I referred to Peggy Noonan’s use of the word, “Enraged,” and I described Barack Obama’s detractors and opponents as being “angry, livid, galvanized and motivated.” Also, I wrote:
And I described Washington as “a corrupt, politically-polarized toxic city.”
Charles Krauthammer is correct: many Americans use the metaphors of war to describe sports, politics and daily discourse in this great country; and rereading my words, I realize that I am just as guilty of this as anyone.
I believe Obama is leading America in the wrong direction, for all of the reasons that I have discussed in my articles; however, I do not wish him ill in terms of his physical safety or that of his family. Quite to the contrary, people often become martyrs when they are struck down, which is what happened to John F. Kennedy who has been “deified”—and wrongly so, in my opinion—since he was assassinated in Dallas just before Thanksgiving in 1963. History has been distorted, and continues to be, right up to this day.
See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/
I was stunned when Kennedy was shot; and I will always remember when I learned about it, walking from my law school class at Berkeley—before it was announced that he had been killed. People worldwide remember the moments when John Lennon and Yitzhak Rabin were killed too.
Finally, Reagan Is Honored—Belatedly And In A Second-Class Fashion
After running an entire “special” series of articles for many months now, distorting history with respect to John F. Kennedy and his dysfunctional family—which is still being published online to this day—USA Today has belatedly honored Ronald Reagan as his 100th birthday approaches on February 6, 2011.
Compare http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Historical+Figures/Ronald+Reagan with http://specials.usatoday.com/jfk/
As I concluded in my article about the two American presidents:
See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character/
. . .
The boycott of USA Today and other Gannett businesses must continue!
See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/#comment-836 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/#comment-855 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/#comment-952
Hello Timothy … I’ve arrived here from your link regarding our friend Tiger
The Woods saga is a “comedy” compared to this subject matter … nonetheless, you do manage to “stir the pot” over there with those guys and it’s really fun whenever you post a blog … keep it up ! Anyhow, I have to say that I find your writings about Kennedy to be very interesting and no doubt quite factual. Though I’m younger than yourself (ie: I was only four years old in ’63), I like many others, continue to be fascinated with this period in American history. I don’t know exactly why that is, as we’ve since had the ’70′s, 80′s, 90′s, etc, and all that those decades entailed politically ? Maybe it’s just because of the old black & white TV images ? 
But seriously, no one can deny your assertion that Kennedy created a “sea” of detractors around himself through his various deeds and actions, whether right or wrong. So what I would like to ask you … if I may be so bold … is whether or not you subscribe to the “single bullet” theory ? Do you think it was Oswald acting alone ? … or do you think it was a coup d’etat ? Your response would be of great interest to me and it will be much appreciated … thank you … Kelvin
Thank you, Kelvin, for your nice comments as always.
Yes, you are correct: one of the goals of this blog is to “stir the pot,” and stimulate discussions and debate.
See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/about/#comment-861
With respect to the theories surrounding Kennedy’s death, I remain open-minded and doubt we will ever know the answers definitively. So many people who might have shed light on this are dead now (e.g., Bobby and Jackie Kennedy, who had their theories; mobsters who may have been involved). If someone said that I had to decide, I would choose the “single-bullet” theory.
As to whether Oswald acted alone, I have never reached a definitive conclusion about that either. It would be easy to “shoot from the hip”—no pun intended—and come down on the side of one theory or another, but again I believe we will never know for certain. 2,300 years after the death of Alexander the Great, there are still a variety of theories about what caused his death.
See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/alexander-the-great/
Thank you Timothy for your reply. I hope that I didn’t put you on the spot here, by asking you about Dealey Plaza, etc ? Regardless, your views are very interesting and much appreciated. You’re correct in pointing out that so many have now passed who could have shed light on this subject … not to mention the many documents still being withheld, including autopsy reports, military briefs, etc. Personally, I lean towards the coup d’etat theory. This is based purely on the laws of motion and physics, as seen in the Zapruder footage. But as you say, we will likely never know the truth, even though future generations one day might. What happened that day happened … and nothing we do today will ever change that. But getting back to your argument that “Camelot” was a contrived notion, etc … I’m compelled to reiterate that many people fail to remember that the stationing of US missiles in Turkey in 1958, is what precipitated Kennedy’s so-called Cuban Missile Crisis … what followed must have indeed been a game of Russian Roulette … and thank god that nothing happened ! You’ve also referenced the “decency” of Ronald Reagan … a man who was then viewed as a hawk, but ultimately proved to be the greatest dove in recent memory. Do you know that he was reputed to have “never” removed his jacket while working in the Oval Office, due to his reverence for the office that he held ? Take care and please know that I’m now reading through your various articles with great interest.
Thank you again, Kelvin, for your comments.
You are correct about the amount of documents that were destroyed already, and those that are still withheld by the Kennedy Library, which should have its federal funding terminated. As my article above stated:
This is a travesty, which needs to be corrected. Also, as I mentioned above, 2,300 years have passed since Alexander’s death, and we still do not know the truth. Thus, the passage of time may not clarify the facts surrounding Kennedy’s death at all.
Thank you for the rest of your comments, with which I agree; and thanks again for your very kind remarks.
Your argument about Kennedy being responsible for the Vietnam War is bogus, since Lyndon Johnson made up the nonsense about the Gulf of Tonkin. It is the same bogus made-up Weapons of Mass Destruction argument by the bush Administration. It will be a cold day in hell if you can ever convince me of the responsibility of Kennedy for the Vietnam War. This was a country just itching to get into another war–so we made up some bogus reasons just to run our war machine–just like we did in Iraq. You can find plenty of people who might historically argue that Kennedy was responsible, but I was right there when it happened, right there when history was happening, so it will be difficult to pull the wool over my eyes.
Thank you for your comments, Richard.
First, I suggest that you read the two books that are cited, which are terrific, as well as the sources cited in my article’s footnotes and the comments beneath it. The books are well written and researched; and the authors’ credentials are impeccable. Among other things, Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winner.
Second, as he states, Kennedy “had a chance in 1961 to disengage from an American involvement in South Vietnam,” but didn’t. Hersh adds emphatically: “Whatever Jack Kennedy’s intentions were, Vietnam was his war, even after his death.”
However, as I wrote in the article:
I blamed Johnson, as you do; and I ceased to be a Democrat because of him—and the war.
Lastly, you have your opinions and I have mine. Plenty of people agree with each of us.
Johnson wasn’t a Democrat–he was a Republican by today’s standards. I lost plenty of my friends in that war as well. If you are looking for original cause, then you have to go back to Eisenhower and Truman, both supporting the Vietnamese situation. I think you want to put the blame on Kennedy because of your moral judgment of him. I’ve read your comments about him, and you are going to have to take that moral judgment to the door of all the presidents who exercised infidelity. Unfortunately, that includes several significant presidents.
Thank you again, Richard, for your comments.
Like you, I was a Kennedy “believer,” as my article states. Like you, I lost friends in that war, and I blame Johnson and McNamara more than I blame Kennedy. They kept it going, and expanded it beyond all reason.
As I stated in a comment above relating to Johnson:
See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/#comment-838
I respectfully disagree: Johnson was very much a Democrat. In fact, he embodied his party. He had been a leader in the House, and a “disciple” of Speaker Sam Rayburn; and he was its leader in the Senate. He was every bit as much of a hard-line, thoroughly-partisan Democrat as Nancy Pelosi is today.
Next, the article and my comments beneath it summarize my views about Kennedy. He was a fraud and, yes, despicable; and my views do not turn on his infidelities.
Kennedy would have NEVER left Vietnam because there were over a million fellow Catholics there. Do you think that blue collar Catholic democrats would have voted for him, knowing that he left them to be murdered by the Communists? That was an issue coming up in 1964. Would the US leave Catholics to be killled by the Reds? Would the Vatican have stayed silent? It seems that in all the lies about Kennedy “getting out of Vietnam” this is the biggest! So Kennedy had no plans to leave, and the myth of him leaving has endured to this day!
Thank you, Frank, for your comments.
Yes, I recall that point of view too. You may be correct.
The Kennedy Curse
This is what Greek shipping heiress Christina Onassis believed John F. Kennedy’s widow Jacqueline brought to the Onassis family when her father Aristotle married the widow.
The UK’s Daily Mail has added:
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051442/Scavenging-rubbish-bins-desperate-times-pushed-Olga-Onassis-riches-poverty.html
JFK’s Mistress Killed?
The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132334/Book-claims-JFKs-mistress-assassinated-CIA-wanted-pursue-peaceful-solution-Cold-War.html (“Book claims JFK’s mistress was assassinated by the CIA ‘because she knew too much about his assassination’”); see also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146646/Mary-Kennedy-death-Family-sues-Robert-Kennedy-Jr-prevent-burial.html (The Curse of the Kennedys Continues: “Kennedys at war! RFK Jr wins court battle over ex-wife’s body as her family sues to prevent burial ahead of funeral taking place today”) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207946/Revealed-JFKs-stabbing-generals-mocked-President-battled-avoid-regarded-trigger-happy-Americans-lost-Berlin.html (“John F Kennedy’s top generals were . . . bad-mouthing him behind his back”)
Fifty years ago—just months before his assassination—John F. Kennedy celebrated his final Christmas with a mistress in the wings
In a UK Telegraph article, Sarah Bradford—who is author of “America’s Queen: The Life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis”—has written:
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9767502/The-Kennedys-Last-Christmas.html
As I have written in the article above:
I have read the “Dark Side of Camelot” and I consider it an excellent book. Note 2 things: 1) how LBJ blackmailed and strongarmed his way onto the 1960 Demo ticket 2) how RFK was on the verge of destroying LBJ with a Senate Rules investigation into LBJ’s corruption, as well as a coordinated media campaign (the latter not reported by Hersh).
Ok – Now read these books/articles relating to the JFK assassination:
1) LBJ: Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination by Phillip Nelson
2) JFK and the Unspeakable:Why He Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass
3) Brothers: the Hidden History of the Kennedy Years by David Talbot
4) The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh
5) Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty by Russ Baker
6) Power Beyond Reason: The Mental Collapse of Lyndon Johnson by Jablow Hershman
7) Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III by Peter Hounam (LBJ engineered the attack on the USS Liberty)
8) Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board Volume 5, by Doug Horne
9) Watch “The Men Who Killed Kennedy – the Guilty Men – episode 9″ at YouTube –
best video ever on the JFK assassination; covers well Lyndon Johnson’s role
10) Google the essay “LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK” by Robert Morrow
11) Google “National Security State and the Assassination of JFK by Andrew Gavin Marshall.”
12) Google “Chip Tatum Pegasus.” Intimidation of Ross Perot 1992
13) Google “Vincent Salandria False Mystery Speech.” Read every book & essay Vincent Salandria ever wrote.
14) Google “Unanswered Questions as Obama Annoints HW Bush” by Russ Baker
16) Google “Did the Bushes Help to Kill JFK” by Wim Dankbaar
17) Google “The Holy Grail of the JFK story” by Jefferson Morley
18) Google “The CIA and the Media” by Carl Bernstein
19) Google “CIA Instruction to Media Assets 4/1/67″
20) Google “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence” Harry Truman on 12/22/63
19) Google “Dwight Eisenhower Farewell Address” on 1/17/61
20) Google “Jerry Policoff NY Times.” Read everything Jerry Policoff ever wrote about the CIA media cover up of the JFK assassination.
Needless to say, this is a “mouthful.”
The logical question, Robert, is what have you concluded about the JFK assassination, after distilling all of the findings from these sources?
In sum, Lyndon Johnson and his Texas oil executive inner circle used their CIA/military connections to murder John Kennedy for many reasons both personal & ideological. Cuba policy was a major factor in the JFK assassination, much more so than Vietnam. Btw, I happen to be somewhat of an expert on the sex lifes of JFK, LBJ & Bill Clinton. They were all equally sexually unhinged. And I can tell you some dark things about GHW Bush as well.
Back to LBJ. Lyndon Johnson was a completely depraved man and a murderous psychopath with the exact same mentality and “behavior” as Adoph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Kennedy was an angelic choir boy compared to LBJ. Eventually I will give you all my files on the JFK assassination and Lyndon Johnson, but I don’t want to overload you right now.
LBJ also engineered the Israeli attack on the USS LIberty on June 8, 1967 … but that is a story for another day.
JFK Was A Smooth Criminal
In a UK Daily Mail article—entitled “JFK secretly freed rapists, drug dealers and Mafia hitmen to kill Castro and curb threat of Communism, claims explosive new book”—it is noted:
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279155/JFK-secretly-freed-rapists-drug-dealers-Mafia-hitmen-kill-Castro-curb-Communist-threat-claims-explosive-new-book.html