Tuesday Reads

Good Morning!!

Yesterday was the 47th anniversary of the murder of President John F. Kennedy. Many Americans are unaware that a great deal of archival information on the assassination and on Kennedy’s administration has become available at the National Archives in the recent years.

A number of important, even scholarly, books have now been published based on that new information. Unfortunately, more records–especially CIA records–remain hidden, but it seems clear that, as a Congressional Commission affirmed years ago, it is highly unlikely that Oswald acted alone. In fact, elements of our government were probably complicit in the assassination of a U.S. President. Here are some of the best of recent books dealing with the JFK assassination.

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, by James W. Douglass

The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by David E. Kaiser

The Kennedy Detail: JFK’s Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence, by Gerald Blaine and Lisa McCubbin

Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK, by John Newman

Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, by David Talbot

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years by Russ Baker

Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA, by Jefferson Morley

Yesterday, the Atlantic published a piece by Jefferson Morley (the last author on my list): The Kennedy Assassination: 47 Years Later, What Do We Really Know?


…for all the crazy ideas out there, there remain sober and careful alternative views of the assassination. These theories may or may not ultimately be right, but they represent the continuation of serious discussion of the subject.

He then debunks “five common myths about the state of the debate itself.” It would be very hard to excerpt anything from this article, you really need to read the entire thing. But here is just a taste:

Myth 3. No one high-up in the U.S. government ever thought there was a conspiracy behind JFK’s murder.

Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commissions conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately, LBJ told many people, ranging from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that he did not believe the lone-gunman explanation.

The president’s brother Robert and widow Jacqueline also believed that he had been killed by political enemies, according to historians Aleksandr Fursenko and Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that William Walton — a friend of the First Lady — went to Moscow on a previously scheduled trip a week after JFK’s murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a Russian diplomat who had served as a back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October 1962 crisis: RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that “despite Oswald’s connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents.”

In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of Louisiana both rejected official accounts of the assassination. In the executive branch, Joseph Califano, the Secretary of Army in 1963 and later Secretary of Health Education and Welfare, concluded that Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy. In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to President Richard Nixon, wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wasn’t interested.

Please read the whole thing. IMHO, 1963 is the year when everything started to go to hell for our country. The murderers were allowed to go free and even stay within our government, and today we are living with the results of allowing corruption to run rampant without any accountability.

I know not everyone likes Chris Hedges’ writing as much as I do, but please read his latest column at Truthdig if you can. It is depressing reading, I admit, but I believe Hedges is right and should be heeded. Again, a brief excerpt can’t do the piece justice, but I’ll include one anyway.

There is no hope left for achieving significant reform or restoring our democracy through established mechanisms of power. The electoral process has been hijacked by corporations. The judiciary has been corrupted and bought. The press shuts out the most important voices in the country and feeds us the banal and the absurd. Universities prostitute themselves for corporate dollars. Labor unions are marginal and ineffectual forces. The economy is in the hands of corporate swindlers and speculators. And the public, enchanted by electronic hallucinations, remains passive and supine. We have no tools left within the power structure in our fight to halt unchecked corporate pillage.

The liberal class, which Barack Obama represents, was never endowed with much vision or courage, but it did occasionally respond when pressured by popular democratic movements. This was how we got the New Deal, civil rights legislation and the array of consumer legislation pushed through by Ralph Nader and his allies in the Democratic Party. The complete surrendering of power, however, to corporate interests means that those of us who seek nonviolent yet profound change have no one within the power elite we can trust for support. The corporate coup has ossified the structures of power. It has obliterated all checks on corporate malfeasance. It has left us stripped of the tools of mass organization that once nudged the system forward toward justice.

Obama knows where power lies and serves these centers of power. The tragedy—if tragedy is the right word—is that Obama, after selling his soul to corporations, has been discarded. Corporate power doesn’t need brand Obama anymore. They have found new brands in the tea party, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Obama has been abandoned by those who once bundled contributions for him by the millions of dollars. Obama and the Democratic Party will, I expect, spend the next two years being even more obsequious to corporate power. Obama clearly loves the pomp and privilege of statecraft that much. But I am not sure it will work.

I highly recommend reading the whole thing. We are approaching the point of no return–we may even have passed that point, as Hedges argues.

This morning I came across this op-ed from a PA newspaper. I think it really expresses what we saw in Obama early on, and what so many other people seemed not to see.

Above all others: Obama’s arrogance, by Ralph R. Reiland, associate professor of economics, Robert Morris University

Reiland argues that Obama’s inflated self-esteem is a huge problem. You’ll recognize the quotes, but Reiland ties them all together nicely. Here is just one:

Patrick Gaspard, former community organizer, ex-lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union and now director of Obama’s Office of Political Affairs, is quoted in a 2008 New Yorker article describing what Obama said to him during his job interview: “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

As much of the world is now beginning to understand, Obama’s opinion of himself is not very accurate, and unfortunately he has surrounded himself with sycophants who reinforce his false self-image to the detriment of our country.

Long-time media sycophant Marc Ambinder presents the White House case for gate rapes (h/t Emptywheel) at The National Journal:

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security indicated today that they won’t yield to demands to amend new airline passenger screening rules that have been decried as wildly intrusive.

On the contrary, administration officials are quietly and aggressively defending the policies against what they see as a media frenzy of distorted information. For instance, the administration noted that fewer than one half of one percent of the 34 million passengers who traveled on airplanes in or to the U.S. last week were subjected to crotch-area pat-downs.

They also disputed the very notion of a public backlash, even as those words played ubiquitously on news tickers and as video parodies of the Transportation Safety Administration were being emailed around the globe. Before press coverage of the new rules reached a roar late last week, TSA received only 700 complaints nationwide about its procedures, an administration official said. The official insisted on anonymity because the information was not intended for public release. The issue is sensitive because physical space intrusions are just about the last thing an administration cast by Republicans as prone to governmental overreach needs.

Talk about clueless. I can’t imagine how Obama and his Chicago gang actually believe he can be reelected with such tone-deaf strategies.

At FDL, Emptywheel is doing yeoman’s work on the TSA story. Here’s a bit of her latest post: White House: Only 170,000 People Have Had Genitalia Groped by Complete Stranger in Last Week

The White House has started a pushback campaign on gate rape that is reminiscent of “Recovery Summer” or “Mission Accomplished” for its credibility.

It consists of a number of things, in addition to the inevitable army of talking-point-people using the word “enhanced” the same way Cheney did.

She is particularly angered by Obama’s claim that naked body scanners and crotch gropes are the only techniques that can prevent attacks like the one attempted by the underpants bomber:

Um, no. You see, after the underwear bombing, we had a whole bunch of studies that examined what went wrong and what might have been effective against the underwear bomber. And the answer–in the face of clear fuck-ups by the NCTC and CIA (and to a much lesser degree, the FBI for which John Pistole then served as second-in-command)–the answer was to stop fucking up and start sharing information. To claim that junk-touching is the only thing that would be effective at stopping the undie bomber, when we know that the intelligence community had already identified Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab but failed to stop him, is an out and out lie.

Mind you, crotch groping might be effective if al Qaeda or another terrorist organization decided to launch the same type of attack, this time from within the United States. Or it might be effective against another sort of attack we haven’t yet thought up. Then again, it pointedly wouldn’t be effective against an attack by an organization that has proven itself capable of adjusting and exploiting new weaknesses–that is, the organization we’re fighting.

If only fighting terrorism were the real goal of these police state tactics. Unfortunately, the goal (IMNSHO) is to scare the bejesus out of innocent American citizens to soften them up for even more invasive tactics to come.

Remember how Obama acknowledged that he doesn’t have to go through the nightmare of naked body scanning like the “small people”? Ian Welsh reminds us that most rich people don’t have to deal with this crap either–it’s just us serfs.

If important people don’t have skin in the game, things don’t get fixed and the quality of whatever experience they don’t experience doesn’t get better. Everyone, most especially the rich and powerful, must fly on the same planes, must be subject to the draft, must have their kids go to the same schools and so on. Only then will the general quality be high.

To the extent possible the rich have created an entire alternative structure: they don’t fly on the same planes, their kids don’t go to the same schools, they don’t fight in the wars, they have hotels that you will never enter (can you afford 50K a night?) They live in a system parallel to that of ordinary people.

The rich must never, ever, be allowed to opt out of the shared social and economic experience. Fly first class? Sure, but not on private jets. Drive in a limo? Sure, but not fly in a helicopter avoiding congestion. Get a room to themselves in the hospital? Sure, but not jump the queue for treatment in front of anyone.

Too late, that ship has sailed.

Okay, I’ve probably thoroughly depressed you, and I’m sorry for that. But still, where there’s life, there’s hope. Maybe you guys can find some cheerful news even though I couldn’t. What stories and blogs are you following today?

56 Comments on “Tuesday Reads”

  1. Sima says:

    Well, yes, it was a depressing, but needed, roundup. Thank you.

    My very first memory, ever, is of JFK’s assassination. I was 1 year and almost 1 month old. I remember my mother crying, just sobbing. I remember seeing a paper (we had no TV) of with a picture of the funeral and his son saluting. I remember the shock, the panic. I don’t remember much else until my sister was born, when I was 3. And then after that, I remember RFK’s assassination.

    Dismal, to think of my early childhood that way.

    I’m usually one to scoff at conspiracy theories, but I too think Oswald was not a lone gunman.

    About the gate rapes. I’m worried that this ‘technique’ will spread to things like… going into a court room. Entering a police station. Getting stopped at the border, either of the country or between states. I expect if they try it, the nation’ll erupt in revolt though. It’s just going too far.

    • bostonboomer says:

      Wow! It’s amazing that you remember so much from when you were a year old. That is very unusal.

      • Branjor says:

        I remember the helplessness of infancy, some of my thoughts and feelings, way prior to my first birthday.

        • Dario says:

          Most of us don’t have a vocabulary before one is a year old, hence our memories before language is developed is mostly emotional. My psychology professor explained that’s why it’s very difficult for most of us to verbalize why we have certain likes and dislikes. Certain circumstances can trigger those memories all over again only on an emotional level. We know what we feel, but at the same time we don’t understand why.

          • Branjor says:

            I didn’t have much of a vocabulary at the time, but I’ve put words to some of my feelings since. For instance, my world was populated by “supercompetent titans” (grownups). I really didn’t have those words at the time but they describe very well how my parents seemed to me.

          • Sima says:

            I think this is why I remember Mom crying and the picture and the feelings that I got from the adults.

  2. TheRock says:

    Not so much depressed as pissed off at the obots that put us in this mess.


    Some agencies are awake..


    More of that messaging problem….


    Et tu, Ireland?


    And finally, its added salt in the wound to win without even trying…..


    Enjoy your day!

    Hillary 2012

  3. bostonboomer says:

    Tom Brokaw is on MSNBC right now talking about how he has had to remove a cast from his leg for the TSA in airports. That’s kind of amazing. You’d think he would get special treatment.

  4. janicen says:

    November 22 (2010) is also the day my Aunt Connie passed away. I’ve been away, spending her last days with her. She was 96 years old, and I’m so glad I could spend those days with her. She was a really amazing woman. RIP Connie.

    About the Kennedy assassination, many years ago, before TIVO, I saw a very interesting special on PBS that said that a lot of Nixon’s paranoia was a result of the Kennedy assassination. He felt that Kennedy was killed because the CIA and the military industrial complex feared he would pull out of Vietnam. According to this show, Jackie was pressuring JFK about Vietnam, she thought we should not get involved there. The show also claimed that the Watergate break-in was somehow linked to the Kennedy assassination (remember, some of the people involved were also involved in the Bay of Pigs incident’ and possibly the assassination). Does anyone else remember the PBS special? I haven’t found anyone else who saw it, and I haven’t seen it aired since.

    • bostonboomer says:

      I’m sorry for your loss. It’s wonderful that you could spend that time with your aunt.

      I don’t remember that special, but Kennedy did plan to pull the “advisers” out of Vietnam. He was angry that he had been used by the CIA and ended up embarrassed by the Bay of Pigs. The CIA also hated Kennedy because he refused to send U.S. troops to Cuba to back up the anti-Castro forces.

      There are very strong connections between the Kennedy assassination and Watergate–many of the same players were involved with both, including George H.W. Bush and quite a few others. The book I recommended above by Russ Baker is very helpful for that background. But the connection had been made by previous writers.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Eisenhower had been conned by the CIA also, and his warnings about the military-industrial complex were obviously very precient. Unfortunately, no one in government heeded those warnings.

    • paper doll says:

      sorry about Aunt Connie! …but glad you were with her…that means alot .
      As to the JFK assassination…what I find remarkable is who was involved in the cover up…we don’t have to know who did it to know powerful forces on the highest levels were just fine with it..which is telling enough

    • Sima says:

      I’m sorry to hear about your Aunt. 96 years old. Wow, she saw and knew a lot.

    • Minkoff Minx says:

      janicen, I also want to send my sympathies, I am very sorry for you loss.

      When Kennedy came to visit Tampa, FL (before he went to Texas) my mother, who was in high school, says that she went to see him drive by…and that she wore black because she felt something was going to happen to him. She says that she felt like she was going to his funeral…

    • BxFemDem says:

      November 22 was my Dad’s birthday. He did not have a good birthday in 1963. Also, Jackie died on May 19, my mom’s birthday, two unusual coincidences…….

  5. affinis says:

    Re JFK
    Well – one thing that’s good – the past year saw Gerald Posner (possibly the most widely cited supporter of the Warren Report) discredited as both a plagiarist and fabricator. E.g.
    In addition to apparently making up nonexistent interviews with a JFK autopsy pathologist, it seems that Posner also entirely fabricated an interview with James Tague (a witness lightly wounded in the JFK assassination, whom Posner purports to quote in his book Case Closed).
    After having been busted in the journalism scandal, Posner popped up in Afghanistan – representing the corrupt Karzai brothers:
    At least one of the brothers in on the CIA payroll – so representation by Posner (long speculated to be on the CIA payroll himself) seems apt.

  6. grayslady says:

    Always love your roundups, BB. You’ve clearly done a lot of reading on the JFK assassination so I’d be interested in your theory (theories?) of who was responsible.

    Where I take issue with Chris Hedges is on the unions. The unions still have large numbers of bodies that can be mobilized, and, as they proved in the Blanche Lincoln primary, they are willing to put their money where their mouths are. If we have any hope at all of turning around our country, I think it will come from two things: creating a workers’ party, in concert with the unions (something I think we should be working on ASAP), and obtrusive government actions, such as the airport pat-downs, that are sufficiently threatening to civil rights that ordinary people start to resist the intrusions through positive action.

    • bostonboomer says:

      The trouble is that the government has made union organizing nearly impossible. The media is strongly anti-union also. It just a very unfavorable environment for organizing, and union leaders often sell out to the highest bidder too. The rank and file need to fight back. But now unions are voting to allow new workers to get lower pay and fewer benefits. That doesn’t do much for solidarity.

      • grayslady says:

        Of course the media is opposed to unions, for any number of reasons, and, yes, it is difficult to organize these days, but how is that different from when unions first began? Unions still have the most knowledge about organizing large groups of people, and they still have millions of members as a starting base. Power will always corrupt, even within unions, but I’m suggesting that unions still represent that segment of our population which shares the same kind of concerns with non-union workers. There is still some political independence in the unions, but it may not last for long unless the rest of us seize the moment to unite. No, it’s not perfect, but the French and the Brits have a lot more say-so in their governments than we do simply because of union power and people power. We need to replicate that here.

        • bostonboomer says:

          Well the big difference from the early days of union organizing is that we don’t have much industry anymore. More unions will have to be organized among white color workers and retail workers.

          I was involved in trying to organize a clerical workers’ union at MIT back in the ’70s and ’80s, and we ran into a great deal of resistance. People in the US have been brainwashed to dislike unions–it’s crazy, but true.

          The big universities fix wages and benefits with each other across the country, and they hire union busters just like big business. In the end, we were never able to get enough people signed up to hold a vote. The workers at BU were successful in getting unionized and they ended up with better wages and conditions. The Harvard workers also failed.

          Unfortunately, I think things are going to have to get even worse economically before a lot of Americans wake up to what is happening.

          • janicen says:

            That’s interesting, BB. I worked for M&T Bank for just a few months in the late seventies. I remember being “befriended” by someone who invited me to her house for drinks. She brought up the idea of unions and I foolishly said I would support organizing the bank. I was stupid to trust her, because my life at the bank became miserable right afterward. Even the janitor was questioning why management seemed to be setting me up to fail. I quit after just a few months because I knew it just wasn’t a good fit for me. I’ve always believed that the woman who invited me to her house was befriending new employees to find out where they stood on unions so she could report back to management.

          • janicen says:

            Oh, I’m sorry. I just reread your comment and I realize that you said MIT, and I read M&T. Oops. I should start wearing my glasses when I’m online!

      • paper doll says:

        Thank you for pointing this out. One of the biggest under reported stories of the last twenty five years is how established unions…legacy unions if you will….are like legacy parties…increasingly the more than willing handmaidens of the powers that be. There are few strikes these days because the unions officers won’t call for them…. They are too busy strong arming their members to keep giving back to capital. And the sad part is even if they did call for one…members might not comply.

        Great round up BB!

        • bostonboomer says:

          Most unions have bargained away the right to strike. That’s the last thing they should give up, but they do it anyway.

    • bostonboomer says:

      I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure who was behind the assassination. I think there were many people who hated JFK and wanted to get rid of him–including the CIA (he threatened to break them up after the Bay of Pigs disaster), Wall Street (JFK wanted to tranfer the powers of the Fed to the government), the military (He fired generals and emphasized the need for civilian control over the military), and the mafia, which was being used by Hoover and others (including unions) in those days.

      Bobby Kennedy was also a problem because of his efforts to fight corruption in the Teamsters and to fight the mafia.

      Joseph Cannon has written some very good posts on the assassination of JFK.

  7. Joanelle says:

    Sorry for your loss, Janicen.{{{}}

    I remember the Nov. 22, 1963 vividly. I was teaching 4th grade when our principal came to my door and told me they’d contacted parents and were sending the children home because of the assassination.

    We had a tv in the classroom and after the children had gone I turned it on – I was heartbroken, we did live in Camelot during his administration.

    My mom always believed it was someone(s) in our own government who was behind it all.

    I agree with Hedges, we can’t get there from here anymore. Just this AM when I got up I was thinking that we need a coup or something big to shake things up because if we keep going the same thing we’ll keep getting the same. We need a drastic change, perhaps an upheaval of some kind to move to the next level.

    Thanks for this BB – good roundup and great list of books!

    • bostonboomer says:

      The trouble is a coup would probably involve the military, and then we’d really be living in a police state.

    • Branjor says:

      I was just short of 11 years old when Kennedy was assassinated. It wasn’t announced in my class. I heard other kids talking about it after we were let out. A girl said we still had Lyndon Johnson and I thought “Who?” I didn’t know the name of the VPOTUS.

  8. bostonboomer says:

    Taliban leader in secret talks was an imposter

    For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

    But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

    “It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”

    American officials confirmed Monday that they had given up hope that the Afghan was Mr. Mansour, or even a member of the Taliban leadership.

    NATO and Afghan officials said they held three meetings with the man, who traveled from in Pakistan, where Taliban leaders have taken refuge.

    The fake Taliban leader even met with President Hamid Karzai, having been flown to Kabul on a NATO aircraft and ushered into the presidential palace, officials said.

    • Sima says:

      Are our people that dumb? Yes, they are. Ok.

      Can we just get the hell out of there? Please? Pretty please?

  9. purplefinn says:

    BB, I believe that our political circumstances are as dire as you have outlined. But nothing stays the same forever. So while the outlook is gloomy, being part of the resistance is still a viable path and may eventually lead to a shift toward the public welfare – just not in my lifetime.

  10. bostonboomer says:

    Joseph Cannon has a new post up about Chertoff and the CIA.


    • paper doll says:

      Thanks for the link…indeed…if the current Bush 2 government ( which we are still under frankly) looks like it knows what it’s doing in a crisis…. nine times out of ten , it is because it is doing it . Bank on it

    • Thanks. I like to think that there is a relationship between the new post and the JFK controversy, even though that idea may strike some people as odd.

      Not many people know that it has been firmly established that, at the time of Oswald’s trip to the USSR, the CIA’s James Jesus Angleton was running a fake defector program. It’s pretty clear that Oswald was one of these bogus defectors, and that his alleged conversion to Marxism was really the establishment of a legend.

      There are many, many indications of this. For one thing, he never had any left-wing friends or associates. No-one (not even Vince Bugliosi) can explain how he got the money to travel to the USSR. No-one can explain why he was allowed to re-defect without being debriefed. Back in this country, he got a job at a CIA-linked photo lab. His associates were all spooks, right-wingers and anti-communist Russian emigres. And he handed out “Fair Play For Cuba” pamphlets from an edition that had been sold, in its entirety, to the CIA.

      James DiEugenio discovered this last point, which he describes in his book “Destiny Betrayed.”

      If you track down the John Newman book, make sure that you find the most recent edition. The additional material — which can be read separately from the body of the book — demonstrates conclusively that Angleton was in charge of Oswald’s CIA file. Basically, Angleton was running the guy.

      The connection to the current TSA scandal is not, I think strained. You can’t understand the scandal without going back to last year’s “crotch bomber” story. I argue in my most recent piece that the would-be bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was not a genuine convert to Al Qaeda-style fanaticism. I argue that he was an infiltrator, and that a “legend” was built up around him.

      Call him Farouk Harvey Oswald.

      If you find the idea risible — well, before scoffing, take at look at the evidence I present.

      • bostonboomer says:


        I’m so glad you are writing on line again. I know I don’t need to remind you that no one knows where Obama got the money to go to Pakistan either.

  11. Pat Johnson says:

    Just finished reading the new Clint Hill book about Jackie Kennedy. He goes into detail regarding the day of the assassination and it clearly shows Jackie’s “grace under pressure”.

    She was “class” all the way.

    • paper doll says:

      Indeed PJ, Jackie’s example kept the US together for those three days.
      I remember that clearly. That’s leadership

  12. B Kilpatrick says:

    Even if he was assassinated, we should avoid deifying him like some people do.
    Kennedy revisionism is a growth industry for a reason.

    • bostonboomer says:

      I’d say the revisionism tends to be more toward blackening his reputation–quite successfully–and trying to make sure people buy the ridiculous Warren cover up.

      Not sure what you mean by “if he was assassinated.” The man was shot on a public street, no “if” about it.

  13. RSM says:

    Yet another sign of the impending apocalypse:


    God’s going to punish us.

  14. I don’t understand why every generation has to “prove” who killed Kennedy. The French figured it out in 1965. Then New Orleans DA Jim Garrison interviewed all the witnesses who were still alive – including one of the sharpshooters – for his grand jury investigation. This is all still in Parish of New Orleans Records – and fortunately perserved in Wm Torbitt’s “Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal” published in 1970 (currently on Amazon, as well as being widely circulated in hard copy). Then the House Committee on Assassinations proved in 1978 that Oswald wasn’t a lone gunman. And Oliver Stone had to prove it all over again in his 1991 movie JFK. What really makes me sick is that this is all public information – available in most public libraries.

    The reality is that it wasn’t a secret CIA, Mormon, Jewish, Mason cabal that killed JFK. It was a pro-corporate conspiracy (Garrison has also carefully documented who financed it – a bunch of defense and NASA contractors and oil executives) that was executed at the highest level of government: the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Collaboration with Johnson and Hoover. I am really pleased to see someone of Ventura’s prominence take it up again.

    I write how my own life changed totally in 1984 – when I made the acquaintance of a JFK assassination witness – in my recent memoir THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY ACT: MEMOIR OF AN AMERICAN REFUGEE (www.stuartbramhall.com). I currently live in exile in New Zealand.

    • bostonboomer says:

      Interesting, I have never heard of a Mormon, Jewish, or Mason cabal theory. I don’t offer a theory in my post–certainly not one of those.

      I also haven’t heard that younger generations are trying to “prove” what happened. I’m from the generation that lived through the assassination and was forever changed by it. Most of the interest is still among my generation, I think. Jesse Ventura may be a bit younger than I am, but I think he’s a baby boomer.

      You’re being a bit condescending, especially for someone who apparently isn’t interested in information that was unavailable to early researchers like Jim Garrison. It may be satisfying to condescend to people, but it’s not a very good method to gain readers for your memoir.