Book Description
Broadcast journalism came of age in the Kennedy Assassination crisis and helped to hold a mourning nation together. Four reporters on the scene relate their experiences.
Customer Reviews:
A worthy contribution to history free of myth and full of facts.......2007-04-03
There are so very few books that convey a sense of "being there" when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. This outstanding book takes the reader back to that fateful weekend of November 22nd 1963 in Dallas, Texas and does so in an open, honest and compelling manner.
"When the News Went Live" is written by four journalists who were in Dallas on that day covering the presidential visit. Bob Huffaker and the other three newsmen share many interesting stories that you will not find elsewhere and that have been untold for many years no doubt to all but their personal friends. This is why the book is such a valuable contribution to the historical record. Such first hand observation regarding not just those few seconds in Dealey Plaza, the murder of Officer Tippet and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, but how in fact the entire story unfolded, makes fascinating reading.
As an aid to anyone interested in the assassination, this book is a must have. I would emphasize - rarely do you find first hand knowledge like this - much of what is written on this subject is written by people many steps removed from the event where fact and fiction merge into one. Not so here. A fabulous book which is refreshingly free of the conjecture and myth that is so common in the Himalayan pile of work on the Kennedy assassination and is highly recommended.
Two Shortcuts To Becoming A Lone-Assassin Believer: Watch The 11/22/63 Real-Time Live TV Coverage....And Then Read This Book.......2007-01-02
"With three shots from a mail-order rifle, Lee Oswald set off a worldwide tragedy that developed too fast to print. .... Broadcast journalism came of age in that crisis of grief and uncertainty, and as it drew its mourning audience, it helped to hold the nation together." -- Bob Huffaker; From the Preface of "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963"
----------------------
"When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963", published in 2004, paints a vivid word picture of many of the incredible events that surrounded President John F. Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963, as seen through the eyes of four journalists -- Bob Huffaker, Bill Mercer, George Phenix, and Wes Wise -- who covered those events as they happened for CBS affiliate KRLD-TV and Radio in Dallas.
President Kennedy's shocking and appalling assassination on November 22, 1963, was the very first really big "Watch It Unfold Live On TV" news event of the television era, with four full commercial-free days being devoted to nothing but exclusive assassination-related coverage by all three major TV networks (with KRLD's on-the-scene Dallas reporters frequently feeding CBS-TV headquarters in New York).
And the four reporters whose intriguing stories unfold within this 224-page hardcover volume were right smack in the thick of things during the rapidly-developing events -- from the initial sketchy bulletins that told of the President being shot in Dealey Plaza during a motorcade drive through the city of Dallas -- to the announcement of JFK's death at Parkland Hospital -- to the capture of the accused assassin (Lee Harvey Oswald) in a nearby movie theater -- to Oswald's very own murder on live TV (with Bob Huffaker reporting live from the basement of the Dallas Police Department, where the single gunshot from Jack Ruby's pistol added yet another hard-to-believe chapter to the weekend's nightmarish story).
It was a mesmerizing weekend in American (and television) history, to say the least. And those days are re-lived with clarity in this engaging book by way of the recollections of four men who lived through and reported on those events when they were occurring.
"When The News Went Live" contains several excellent black-and-white photographs, too (some of them I haven't seen published elsewhere).
On a personal level, I have had the pleasure of communicating (via e-mail) with Bob Huffaker several times. He has been very cordial and gracious whenever answering the questions that I had for him. His personal insights into the events revolving around JFK's death are fascinating glimpses into the past, and are insights that I have enjoyed reading immensely.
A sample e-mail excerpt from Mr. Huffaker:
----------------------
"David, you're right about the presidential visit and motorcade being the main attraction that all Dallas media were covering, of course. But all our stations had limited capabilities for doing mobile TV, which then demanded either cables or microwave dishes--as well as a receiving dish within line-of-sight beaming or bouncing.
Hence the pool TV arrangements, limited to three planned locations. The local TV stations did live TV from the FTW {Fort Worth} breakfast, Love Field, and the Trade Mart. But this was, indeed, the day the news went live on television, unplanned.
WBAP-TV in Fort Worth had a non-running TV van, which they had towed all the way from Cowtown to Dallas Police headquarters, and we sent both of our KRLD-TV vans into duty--the Bread Truck at DPD and the Blue Goose on the 24th to the county jail, etc.
This was the first time in TV history when on-the-spot news suddenly demanded to go live from the scene. Before that, radio news on-the-spot descriptions such as ours that day were common (like the Hindenburg broadcast--radio only), and live TV was usually reserved for major speeches, sports, etc.
Bob" -- E-mail to this writer; May 30, 2006
----------------------
Relating to the subject of "WHEN THE NEWS WENT LIVE", I'd like to offer up the following observations as an extension of this book review.....
To those JFK conspiracy theorists who seem to favor the Oliver Stone-like or Robert Groden-promoted assassination scenarios (that feature a minimum of three gunmen and anywhere from 6 to 10 gunshots being fired at President Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963) -- I always suggest to them that they ought to dig up some of the originally-aired "As It Is Happening" live TV or radio broadcasts from that dark Friday in American history.
After performing that exercise of watching a few hours of the November 22 television coverage of the assassination (in real time), or listening to some of the radio broadcasts in real time (which works just as well) -- I challenge anyone to then arrive at the same conclusion that was slapped up on the big theater screen in 1991 via Director Oliver Stone's blockbuster, conspiracy-laden motion picture "JFK".
Watching the day's events unfold "live" in front of you (or listening to them unfold on the radio as it was happening) should, in my opinion, provide everyone with a good general idea of how utterly impossible a task it would have been to have "faked" so much stuff that was being IMMEDIATELY reported to the world on live television and radio within minutes and hours of the President's assassination (and within a very short space of time following Police Officer J.D. Tippit's murder as well).
Via those original live TV/Radio broadcasts, you're not going to hear a SINGLE report that resembles anything close to the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison-endorsed nonsense of:
"Three gunmen fired six shots at President Kennedy's motorcade today here in Dallas!!"
What you will hear, instead, is live coverage, as it happened, of a ONE-GUNMAN assassination taking place from where the majority of witnesses said it took place (the Texas School Book Depository Building), with no more than three shots having been fired by the SINGLE SHOOTER, which is a shot count that over 91% of the witnesses concur with -- including the small percentage of witnesses who heard only one or two shots, who are witnesses that certainly don't do Mr. Stone's "6-shot ambush" theory any favors.
Upon evaluating virtually all of the TV networks' live assassination footage from November 22nd, 1963, there is no possible way that a reasonable person could arrive at a conclusion that JFK was shot by three assassins, firing from both front and rear. Let alone arriving at an even more-cockeyed "8-to-10-shot" shooting scenario, as purported by Mr. Groden and some other CTers, which is an outlandish conspiracy-flavored scenario that has John Kennedy and John Connally being shot by way more than just the two Warren Commission-backed Mannlicher-Carcano bullets from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.*
* = And Mr. Groden's theory (that sports from 8 to 10 gunshots) also features an additional hunk of lunacy, in that Groden thinks it's very likely that NONE of these eight to ten shots came from the "Oswald window" in the Book Depository! (I'm not making this crazy stuff up here. I promise. Anyone who owns a copy of Robert Groden's 1993 book "The Killing Of A President" can check out Groden's preposterous theory for themselves, on pages 20-40.)
The bottom line is -- Very nearly all of the information being reported on TV and radio that November day favored a "Lone Assassin" shooting scenario (including the info concerning the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff), with very little evidence and information being broadcast that would support any type of a "conspiracy" whatsoever; and certainly no "conspiratorial" evidence that has ever panned out and "proved" that a multi-gun plot ended JFK's life in Dallas.
This is quite a telling "One Killer" fact. Because, in my view, if a vast conspiracy and subsequent "cover-up" had been in place on November 22nd (given the immense amount of TV and radio coverage, with reporters scrutinizing everything coming across their desks and digging hard for any type of case-solving clues during those first hours and days after JFK and J.D. Tippit were killed), I think that at least SOME pieces of the conspiracy would have leaked through to the sweeping television and radio coverage surrounding the two Dallas murders.
And I'm guessing that every reporter and newsman in the country (including Messrs. Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix, and Wise) would have loved to dig up some "conspiracy"-proving angle during that weekend in November of '63. Being the person who uncovered such a huge story would certainly be a feather in that reporter's cap, to be sure. But, as it turned out, nothing of that nature occurred....and has yet to occur all these many years later.
To think (as many theorists do) that these conspirators were so smart and so quick to have had the capabilities to immediately eliminate virtually every last scrap of information leading to a conspiracy plot of some kind, making sure that none of the "multi-gunmen shooting event" details seeped through to the media (multiplied by TWO separate murders as well, counting Tippit's!), is to think that any such evil-doers had powers similar to "Superman".
For example -- Almost every one of the initial reports concerning the number of gunshots heard by witnesses stated "3 shots". And while it's true that the very first report of the shooting from UPI's Merriman Smith (which was broadcast over all the television networks) stated "Three shots were fired...", it's also worth noting that Smith's initial bulletin was not the ONLY "three shots" account that was reported during those early hours just after the shooting.
For instance, Jay Watson of ABC affiliate WFAA-TV in Dallas (who happened to be in Dealey Plaza during the shooting and nervously reported the first bulletins to the unaware Dallas TV audience) is heard multiple times on November 22nd saying he heard "3 shots" fired.
Plus, several other members of the media are also on record stating their own PERSONAL beliefs that exactly three shots were fired by the assassin, including Robert MacNeil, Jack Bell, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes, and Pierce Allman, among still others.
Some of the other "Three Shot" witnesses who were riding right in the Presidential motorcade itself include -- Photographers Tom Dillard, Robert Jackson, Mal Couch, and James Underwood. Plus, both John and Nellie Connally, who were riding in the same car with President Kennedy.
In addition, Presidential aides Ken O'Donnell and David Powers, who were both riding in the Secret Service follow-up car directly behind JFK's limousine, can also be added to the lengthy list of witnesses who heard precisely three gunshots.
And then there's also amateur filmmaker Abraham Zapruder, who took the most famous 26-second home movie in history when he captured the entire assassination with his 8mm Bell & Howell movie camera -- Zapruder showed up on live TV about 90 minutes after the President's murder took place and gave a graphic account of the horrifying event that had taken place in front of his very eyes.
Mr. Zapruder told the WFAA-TV viewing audience that he had heard two or three shots (but definitely no more than three), and he also demonstrated on live television where on the President's head he had seen the effects of the fatal gunshot. Zapruder puts his hand over the right-frontal portion of his own head to demonstrate where he saw the blood coming from JFK's head.
That's pretty amazing "LIVE" stuff from Mr. Zapruder's own lips (within approx. an hour-and-a-half of the assassination). And it's especially incredible and amazing if there had actually been many more than just two or three shots fired at the President, and if the fatal shot had actually (as many CTers believe) caused a huge hole in the BACK of John Kennedy's head, instead of the location where Zapruder placed it on live television -- i.e., the RIGHT SIDE AND FRONT portion of the head.
How could the so-called "conspirators" have possibly gotten THAT lucky with respect to Abraham Zapruder's live "on-the-air" WFAA-TV statements and head-wound "demonstration"? How?
And -- Could these ultra-clever conspirators have somehow managed to "manipulate" several reporters who were relaying the news live to the world immediately after the event, and have them ALL report on hearing just "three shots" (or, in a few cases, hearing only TWO shots, which is a number that certainly does not favor a "Multi-Shooter Conspiracy Plot")?
Or did the plotters just happen to get really, really LUCKY (again) when virtually all of the news reports favored the "Three Shots Fired" conclusion? With this 3-shot scenario matching the precise number of bullet shells that were found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository after the shooting; and also perfectly matching the exact number of shots heard by TSBD witness Harold Norman, and also perfectly matching the precise number of bullet shells (3) that Norman heard hitting the plywood floor directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Depository.
Which, per Oliver Stone's movie, would mean that a full 50% of the ACTUAL number of gunshots were somehow inaudible to the enormous majority (91%+) of the earwitnesses! And, remember, Oliver has NONE of the shots within his movie's six-shot assassination ambush being "synchronized" in order to merge together with the sound of some of the other shots.
And yet, per Mr. Stone, we're supposed to actually believe that approximately 9 out of every 10 witnesses somehow missed hearing HALF of the gunshots fired that day! A reasonable thing to believe....or not? I ask you.
Were these so-called conspiratorial shooters so good that they could make 4 to 10 shots sound like only three to the vast majority of witnesses scattered all throughout Dealey Plaza? Highly doubtful, to say the least.
Again -- I'd advise all conspiracy theorists to sit down and watch the live TV footage....or listen to some of the surviving 11/22/63 radio tapes....and then try to find a "Multi-Gunmen Conspiracy" lurking within ANY of those original broadcasts. If anybody finds proof of a conspiracy via those means, please let me know. And let the world know too.
David Von Pein
December 2006
January 2007
Out of the Past.......2006-04-04
We have become accustomed (yea, verily, some would say desensitized)to horror unfolding before our eyes in our very own living rooms. Bob Huffaker's book brings us back to a time before the desensitization, when we could scarcely believe what our eyes were telling us. I recommend this book highly to those who were there, watching as I was, and even more so to those who were not there. The young, raised in an era of suicide bombers, need to understand that it was not always thus.
very good press reporting.......2005-07-30
1963 nov 22 brought to life again but with more professionalism.some very interesting facts that confirmed my own thoughts .
JOURNALISM CLASSIC AND INSIDE SCOOP.......2005-05-07
I stayed up all night reading when my copy of When The News Went Live, Dallas 1963 arrived. This book is a classic and should be included in the curriculum of every journalism and political science classroom in America.
Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix and Wise have written the Texas story of the Kennedy assassination, the inside scoop on Oswald's murder and the history of the evolution of modern journalism. These four men were Dallas television reporters, on the scene and on their own, in the middle of the news story of the century.
It is a salute to their training and their integrity as newsmen that their coverage under duress stands today as a compelling rendering of those fateful moments. I am glad they were the early ones on the scene, for they were the ones who broke the news to me in my elementary classroom. The story gives their perspectives more fully; all these years later, this book helps me understand the events and how they affected Texas and the nation.
Bob, Bill, George and Wes were there in Dallas with their Southern sensibilities. They weren't easily pushed around or manipulated that dark day and still aren't. They were taught to tell the truth as objectively as possible, and they reverted to that training and their good common sense when placed in positions lesser men might have blown or exploited. These four men cared about truth and justice and fairness and still do. I hope all young journalists will read this and learn about balanced reporting.
Customer Reviews:
Grace and courage under fire!.......2007-07-09
Now, maybe some people aren't interested in Mr. Garrison's point of view - but I am. And so are many others who repeatedly give On The Trail Of The Assassins a deservedly high mark. He was there in New Orleans and KNEW PERSONALLY most of the major players. How many investigators can say that? His overall conclusion of conspiracy is the same as many, many other independent researchers and the conclusion of 75 percent of the general public - only he was way ahead of his time. Had he known nothing of the truth surrounding the assassination, the CIA would never have bothered to smear his character or try ruin his investigation of JFK's murder by stealing his files for the trial of Clay Shaw. And yet it is Garrison who is accused of not playing fair. That's right... black is white, and white is black.
This book is one of my favorites in the assassination canon. It is brilliantly written, soulful, human, and full of observations about gov't and how it sometimes changes without the people being invited to the party. He knew of Oswald (murdered by Ruby), Ferrie ("suicide"), Bannister ("heart attack" in 1964) and Shaw (no autopsy ever done) - and had most of them not died under conspicuously strange circumstances, Garrison would never have been placed in the position of being the Lone-Nut scape goat for their lack of honesty and insight into this murder investigation - an investigation that is still continuing, though with little help from some of the people who should have known better after all these years.
Garrison's investigation and the trial of Clay Shaw were the inevitable result of the corrupt Warren Commission cover-up. Had the Warren Commission done its job and followed up leads in the first place, Garrison would never have ended up in the position of being the whipping boy for the Oswald as Lone-nut contingent. It was only through the efforts of Garrison that the Zapruder film ("back, and to the left") was viewed for the first time and the public began to see how dishonest the Warren Commision and the CIA were in lying to the American people about at least one more shooter.
Recent revelations about secret CIA assassinations plots can no longer be denied and now are out in the open in recent news events. It's your country. You might think of the 40-year tailspin the country has been in since our president was killed and the efforts of private citizens who've tried to expose the CIA skullduggery during the Kennedy years and beyond. Garrison took on these covert agencies in the name of justice, and had not Clay Shaw lied his head off under oath during his trial, it's conceivable that Garrison would have won and Shaw end up on a chain-gang where he belonged. In a conversation with Oliver Stone, Judge Haggarty, who presided over the Shaw trial, said that he himself never believed a word Shaw said. (This is discussed on the JFK special features dvd.)
The people of the country know all too well that Oswald didn't act alone - that is, if he shot anyone at all - and they're not about to let this conspiracy investigation end until the Federal gov't comes clean with what it knows. Every year more is being found out about certain participants, such as H. Howard Hunt's involvement, or David Morales, who was quoted as saying he was involved with the assassination of both JFK and RFK. Such revelations farther vindicate Garrision's conclusion that the CIA was involved in the murder of Kennedy. Hunt and Morales (a man Hunt mentions) were both CIA. Gee, there seems to be a pattern here unless one has been playing ostrich with these recent CIA revelations.
In the meantime, those who continue to smear Garrison are only making themselves small in comparison. They're not worthy to shine the shoes of this great man - a hero in every sense of the word in this sordid tale of political corruption, murder and media cover-up. Ten stars for On The Trail Of The Assassins and Jim Garrision. ZERO stars for the now documented CIA interference of Garrison's investigation and the perjury on the witness-stand of Clay Shaw. Even certain pro-conspiracy researchers wrongly denegrate Garrison and they should be ashamed of themselves now that Garrison's conclusions are being vindicated. They haven't half the courage of a Garrison, and no one other than he and Mark Lane have ever had the balls to take any of these politically criminal bastards to trial (H. Howard Hunt by Lane) for lying about their complicity in the murder and cover-up of Kennedy's assassination. And I'm not the only citizen who feels this way. For more information on the coup d'etat in Dallas, read District Attorney Garrison's revealing book and witness courage under fire.
Oh. Grow up, America!
Edit
Not a rehash of "A Heritage of Stone.".......2007-01-27
I avoided reading this book when it was first published thinking it was but a mere rehash of Garrison's earlier book "A Heritage of Stone." However, thirty years on, I have pleasantly discovered that I was greatly mistaken. "On the Trail of the Assassins" is not a rehash, but stands quite sufficiently on its own.
More than anything else, it is first a devastating critique of the Warren Commission's Report; perhaps the best there is so far. Second, it is written by a first-class legal mind. And whatever else one might say about Jim Garrison, it is difficult to ignore the fact that he has one of the best legal minds in this nation. Third, it is a summary report of the Garrison investigation, which again, it is difficult to ignore that Garrison, on a shoe string budget, and with a handful of mostly volunteers, did a much better job investigating the JFK assassination than all of the nation's institutional police and intelligence machinery combined. And finally, the book is Garrison's own defense of the case he lost against the only man ever to be charged with JFK's assassination, Clay Shaw.
As a critique, Garrison attacks the slipshod way in which federal and Texas investigations pursued (or failed to pursue) the evidence and suspects -- other than the "carefully prepared patsy" Lee Harvey Oswald. Among these ways is the fact that Oswald was interrogated for more than 30 hours without a transcript; that the three tramps found in the rail car a few feet from the grassy knoll were released without even recording their names; and the general lack of curiosity on the part of the FBI and Dallas police authorities in following leads, protecting evidence, and in interrogating witnesses.
Garrison's legal astuteness is on display in a number of ways in the book: in the way he corralled information from informants; the way he collated and peeled back his evidence to attain maximum courtroom effect; the way he shaped theories based on where the evidence led; and in the way he parried defense moves and the counter-moves against him made generally by the federal authorities, who curiously always viewed him as a threat and hindrance to their limp but "predetermined" investigation.
With only a handful of investigators, researchers and contributors, Garrison fell just short of cracking the crime of the century. One must wonder out loud what would have happened if, instead of trying to derail and undermine his investigation, the government would have supported him?
It seemed clear even to Garrison, that his case against Clay Shaw was a lost cause even before he entered the courtroom. However, if one looks carefully at the theoretical framework Garrison constructed, in which Shaw was just one of a number of important elements, it is clear that Garrison was on the right track; and that Shaw's acquittal was more about the lack of witnesses to confirm Garrison's evidence, than it was about Shaw's guilt or innocence. That is why after forty years, a great deal, if not all of Garrison's theory has been borne out.
.Whether you believe Garrison's theories or not, this book is a report on investigative, legal, and police work of a very high order. Five Stars.
Not the best........2006-09-24
Up front, I will say I have not read this book - however I would like to suggest reading Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy by Michael Collins Piper. Piper makes a powerful case that the Israeli Mossad orchestrated the assassination of President Kennedy because of his effective blocking of Ben Gurion and his fellow Zionist's Samson complex fear of preserving their Zionist state with nuclear weapons of mass destruction with the aid of France. Once LBJ took over, all obstruction of Israel's nuclear ambitions ceased. If you think that is far-fetched, look up the USS Liberty and see how that was covered up by LBJ.
The Assassin "Trail" Stops At The Feet Of One Murderer -- Lee Harvey Oswald.......2006-02-22
The late Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was in large part the basis for Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK", which is a film containing so many lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations of the facts surrounding John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, it's literally difficult to keep up with all of them.
I cannot watch one single scene of Oliver Stone's film without finding some distortion of the evidence in the real JFK or J.D. Tippit murder cases. Some are small things being distorted; and some are great big ones. One example (among dozens) being: Oliver Stone's version of shoe clerk Johnny Brewer's testimony re. Lee Harvey Oswald's manner of dress when Brewer encountered Oswald shortly after Oswald had shot and killed policeman Tippit.
Stone, in his film, has Oswald (Gary Oldman) wearing a jacket as he enters the Texas Theater and is seen by Brewer....and in one of the movie's "Deleted Scenes" (on the DVD version of the film), Kevin Costner (playing Garrison) even does a voice-over (lie) re. Brewer's testimony, with Costner saying "Brewer said the man was wearing a jacket".
Brewer, in reality, said exactly the opposite during his Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. BELIN -- "Will you describe the man you saw?"
Mr. BREWER -- "He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all. ... And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out."
Mr. BELIN -- "Any jacket?"
Mr. BREWER -- "No."
Another interesting part of the Tippit portion of the movie "JFK" is Oliver Stone's Audio Commentary during this part of the film, which is riddled with inaccuracies. Stone has the audacity to spout the following lie re. the Tippit shooting on the DVD's Commentary soundtrack:
"Not one credible witness has really identified Oswald as a single shooter {of Officer Tippit}. In fact, the only significant testimony applies two to three shooters." -- O. Stone
Therefore, per Mr. Stone (and Garrison said pretty much the same thing years earlier), the "only credible" witness must have been Acquilla Clemmons, who, as far as I am aware, was THE ONLY witness who ever said there was more than one person involved in the Tippit slaying.
Stone, like Jim Garrison before him, would simply rather believe his OWN version of events, rather than the multiple witnesses who never saw more than one shooter (with that one single shooter being positively identified as Oswald by said witnesses).
It's interesting, indeed, that Stone thinks the "only significant testimony" re. the Tippit crime came from Clemmons. Whereas, people like Markham, Tatum, and Scoggins (who were all closer than Clemmons to the scene of the murder) are deemed less "significant", merely, no doubt, because they don't fit into Stone's (or Garrison's) "CT Landscape" surrounding the murder.
I wonder if people realize just how many outright lies are contained in Oliver Stone's 3-hour, 15-minute motion picture? The number is simply staggering. And that number of distortions is increased considerably on the DVD version of the film, when the Audio Commentary Track by Mr. Stone and all of the "Deleted and Extended Scenes" are included as well.
And a great deal of this deliberate misinformation put forth on the movie screen came directly out of this book authored by Jim Garrison.
Another great place to see more of Mr. Garrison's skewed views of the JFK case is to read Garrison's 1967 "Playboy Magazine" interview. Like Stone's movie, that Playboy article will keep you busy as you try to keep up with the inaccurate things Garrison keeps saying in that lengthy piece. The whole interview can be read here:
www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
Selected examples of Mr. Garrison's paranoia and loony-toon conspiracy talk, taken from that Playboy interview, are provided via the quotes below. My own rebuttal arguments follow each quote:
"Though he {Oswald} may not have known why he was instructed to do so, this was undoubtedly why he got the job at the Texas School Book Depository Building. The conspirators knew this would place him on the scene and convince the world that a demented Marxist was the real assassin." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
The above Garrison gem totally distorts (or just flat-out ignores) the true and documented facts about how Oswald got his job at the Depository in mid-October of '63. It was suburban Dallas housewives Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine who were directly responsible for placing Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD, by way of ordinary garden-variety happenstance.
Garrison must, therefore, believe that Mrs. Paine, who arranged Oswald's job interview with Depository boss Roy Truly, was one of the main "conspirators" who was setting up Oswald to take the fall for JFK's murder the following month (which would also have to mean that Paine had detailed knowledge of the President's motorcade route more than a month before November 22). Garrison must also think that Roy Truly was a big part of the patsy plot, because it was Mr. Truly who actually hired Oswald (even though nobody was holding a shotgun to Truly's head forcing him to hire Lee).
The commonly-held belief that Lee Oswald was "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository by evil plotters prior to 11/22/63 is a desperate attempt by CTers like Mr. Garrison to attach unprovable and unsupportable conspiratorial "strings" to a random event that involved several individuals...individuals whose collective and synchronized actions could not possibly have been foreseen and controlled by a group of behind-the-scenes conspirators.
---------------
"Anyone who takes the time to read the Warren Report will find that of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who were able to assess the origin of the shots, almost two-thirds said they came from the grassy-knoll area in front and to the right of the Presidential limousine and not from the Book Depository." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
This is pure nonsense. There were, indeed, several witnesses who said they heard shots coming from in front of JFK's car, but Garrison has severely skewed the stats to support his claim of Knoll shooters. His "almost two-thirds" figure is not even close to being accurate when talking about the number of witnesses who said they heard frontal shots. And even amongst other CTers, virtually no other pro-conspiracy author has ever rigged those stats in such an out-of-whack manner.
The fact is that more than half of all earwitnesses heard shots coming from the direction of the Book Depository, and not from the Knoll. And an even more illuminating statistic reveals that less than 5% of all earwitnesses heard shots from more than just a single general location (front vs. rear). That stat speaks volumes....because even CTers admit to SOME rear shots.
An interesting tabulation of this data can be found below:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
---------------
"The second shot struck the President in the back; the location of this wound can be verified not by consulting the official autopsy report, but by perusing the reports filed by two FBI agents who were present at the President's autopsy. Both stated unequivocally that the bullet in question entered President Kennedy's back and did not continue through his body." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
Therefore, Mr. Garrison is, in essence, saying that he is much more likely to trust the word of FBI agents (who, of course, were not doctors and were not conducting the President's autopsy) rather than take the word of the three physicians who each signed the official autopsy report. After all, why believe the autopsy doctors when you COULD just trust as Gospel the word of a bystander? ~sarcasm alert~
Plus: Why didn't these two FBI agents get the conspirators' memo which, if CTers are right about the success of the Patsy Plot, must have been passed out to nearly everyone in Officialdom on 11/22, a memo that probably said: "Attn. All Agents -- We're framing Oswald tomorrow; so remember to falsify as much evidence as humanly possible to ensure conviction of patsy".
Evidently some people who needed to see it never received that important document.
---------------
"We have also located another man who was not involved in the shooting but created a diversionary action in order to distract people's attention from the snipers. This individual screamed, fell to the ground, and simulated an epileptic fit, drawing people away from the vicinity of the knoll just before the President's motorcade reached the ambush point." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
Yet another outright lie from the lips of District Attorney Garrison. The man who had the so-called "simulated epileptic fit" was fully identified by the FBI on May 26, 1964. His name was Jerry Belknap, a man who had a history of epilepsy since childhood. Belknap also proved to the FBI that he had paid the ambulance bill ($12.50) after he was taken to Parkland Hospital.
---------------
"President Kennedy was killed for one reason: because he was working for a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro's Cuba. His assassins were a group of fanatic anti-Communists with a fusion of interests in preventing Kennedy from achieving peaceful relations with the Communist world." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
Any solid, verifiable proof of such accusations, Mr. Garrison? Any physical evidence whatsoever that shows JFK was killed by more than one gun? .... The answers to those two questions are: No and No.
But the lack of physical evidence never stopped a hard-boiled CTer....that's been proven over and over again by a vast assortment of conspiracists who have more theories up their sleeve than a dog has fleas.
---------------
"In summation, there were at least five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no more than a spectator to the assassination -- perhaps in a very literal sense. James Altgens snapped a picture that shows a man with a remarkable resemblance to Oswald, standing in the doorway of the Depository. The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been shooting Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the motorcade. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
It seems as though these devilishly-clever conspirators forgot one important thing when they were setting up LHO -- they forgot their brains. For, who WITH brains would allow their lone "Patsy" to casually drift outside and be photographed and seen by countless witnesses when the plotters need to have Lee Harvey on the 6th Floor at 12:30? Per Mr. Garrison's account of Oswald possibly being "Doorway Man", evidently the real assassins were indeed brainless and lacked the common sense to keep Oswald where he wouldn't be able to establish a credible alibi for his 12:30 whereabouts.
Just think about these Garrison remarks for a moment longer too -- "At least five or six shots were fired at the President from front and rear ... by at least four gunmen".
Doesn't a "4-Shooter, 6-Shot, 1-Patsy" assassination plot seem a bit unlikely to anyone else but this writer? Would any professional killers actually attempt to "frame" a lone fall guy in that type of overkill fashion? In my opinion, no pro hit men would go about the complicated task of setting up Oswald (or anybody else) in such a needlessly-reckless way.
A single "pro" hit man could have easily killed JFK with one or two shots (probably just one) from Oswald's "nest", without the need to clog the works with needless back-up gunmen hiding all around Dealey Plaza.
There is no possible way the conspirators could have ensured the success of a multi-shooter plot to frame JUST Oswald in the minutes during and after the shooting. No way. There are way too many uncontrollable factors that could block the success of that One-Patsy venture that Jim Garrison placed his faith in.
"Uncontrollable" items such as:
1.) A frontal shooter might very well have been seen by witnesses (and to think that EVERY witness under the sun could be easily "bought", "taken care of", and/or coerced by these plotters is, again, just too much wishful thinking on the conspirators' part, IMO).
2.) A frontal shooter might strike other occupants in the car, or strike somebody else in Dealey Plaza. But even if ONLY Kennedy is hit by a frontal gunman, there are massive problems to be "corrected" by the conspirators....bullets to be hidden and, of course, who knows how many obvious frontal wounds on the victim to be (somehow) eliminated -- and eliminated immediately before any non-conspirators can spill any beans. .... Only a person straight out of the booby hatch could believe that anyone, regardless of "power" or "pull", could get away with such a thing. It's just plain loony.
3.) The one "Patsy" (Oswald) could have easily, by pure accident and happenstance, established a perfect alibi for himself at the time when he was supposed to be on the 6th Floor shooting the President (as Mr. Garrison apparently DID think occurred, with Oswald being seen in a photo taken as the bullets were flying; even though all reasonable researchers know full well that "Doorway Man" was actually Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald; Lovelady even testified to that effect in 1964). ....
Plus -- If Oswald had really been in that doorway at 12:30, WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T HE SAY HE WAS THERE?! If he's got an ironclad alibi like that, why wouldn't he use it? Instead, he says not a word about being outside on the steps at 12:30, and even tells the police a provable lie re. his whereabouts (the lie about "having lunch with Junior {Jarman}" at the time of the shooting). How much sense does that make if Oswald had really been in the Depository doorway? ....
And the very fact that Oswald did NOT have a usable, provable alibi for exactly 12:30 PM is absolutely remarkable IF he had really been wandering around on the lower floors of the Depository (or was outside the building), as many CTers firmly believe; and even the most rabid of conspiracy theorists have got to admit, that from the "CT/Patsy" POV, Oswald's not having a usable/believable/solid alibi is certainly, by far, the biggest piece of LUCK in the whole "Patsy Plot". ....
These amazing Patsy Plotters just lucked out, evidently, in that Oswald was not seen by a single person inside or outside the TSBD at precisely the time of the assassination -- except by Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, and Robert Edwards, of course, who saw Oswald or a nicely-arranged Oswald "imposter" in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 or just seconds before 12:30.
4.) And the likelihood that all of the non-TSBD bullets are going to somehow get swept under the rug is extremely remote, especially in a Bob Groden-like scenario. Mr. Groden (per his book "The Killing Of A President"), incredibly, has ZERO of the shots coming from the Oswald window, and a total of up to TEN shots being fired...and ALL OF THEM coming from rifles other than the one rifle these idiot plotters are going to attempt to frame Oswald with! Could Groden's scenario BE any more reckless and preposterous?! I doubt it.
5.) And a biggie, that most CTers evidently don't think could have ever happened before 12:30 on November 22nd -- The one Patsy (Mr. LHO) could "get wise" to the plot that is brewing all around him and take measures to guarantee he could never be blamed for the actual assassination of John Kennedy.
When thinking about any "Frame Lee Oswald As The One Patsy" plan, I just cannot visualize any professional assassins (even for a minute) contemplating the use of multiple shooters; let alone some gunmen firing from the Grassy Knoll, i.e., the exact opposite direction from where their single dupe is supposed to be located.
---------------------
As the previously-mentioned quotes from the mouth of Mr. Garrison amply demonstate, if anyone has a desire to set out "On The Trail Of A Lunatic Conspiracy Theorist" -- look no further than Earling Carothers (Jim) Garrison.
a good "read" and an above-average book.......2006-01-16
Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books used as the basis for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" (the other was Kim Marrs' "Crossfire"). On that basis alone, highly recommended (for it led to the JFK Act and the ARRB). That said, this is a very good but not a great book. I would put James DiEugenio's book ON Garrison ahead of this one. Still, a good "read" with some good moments.
Vince Palamara
Book Description
John F. Kennedy Jr. remains one of the most fascinating and controversial politicians of the 20th century. This bestselling first volume of Nigel Hamilton's biography has caused unprecedented controversy by its frankness and its overturning of myths. But whether or not family and the political establishment like it, it is the nearest we will ever get to the JFK story from JFK's own point of view. Reckless Youth is based on a wealth of hitherto unpublished material from JFK's closest surviving friends, from FBI, Navy college and National Archives records, as well as new material in JFK's own words.
Customer Reviews:
Where is the 2nd Volume????.......2005-04-29
Excellent book...Still waiting for Mr. Hamilton to come out with his second volume. I highly recommend the movie starring Patrick Dempsey. Mr. Hamilton we are still waiting for volume 2...
Great Insight.......2004-10-27
Our fascination with JFK continues. Even now, there are still aspects of his life and career which remain hidden from public view.
This book relies on meticulous research and avoids speculation. It acquaints us with a brutal and psychotically competitive family, an aloof and cold mother of too many children who accomodates her husband's self-centeredness by a peculiarly Catholic form of emotional abandonment. This remove, however, strikes her own children as collateral damage from her intended assault on her husband.
A family of highly competitive people, with singular ambition. The theory is not hard to establish: the ambition is to attain mom's love (which is unattainable) and to impress dad.
The story is archetypal of American in the mid-20th century. We achieved so much because of qualities of competition, ruthlessness and self-interest. We also learned to worship glamour and celebrity. Wasn't Kennedy the best-looking president by far?
I never understood him better than after reading this book. I also believe that he was addicted to sex, and that we knew way too little about how to treat that addiction back then.
Why we love John Kennedy.......2004-09-16
Anyone who truly loves John Kennedy (as I do) owes it to themselves to delve deeper into the formation of the character of this fabulously flawed human being. Nigel Hamilton's minutely-detailed "JFK: Reckless Youth," which recounts Kennedy's early through his first run for Congress, is one helluva place to start.
The myth of Camelot has suffered death by a thousand cuts -- shredded by the disclosure of presidential affairs, murder plots and political machinations. But while other celebrities have generated renewed interest and sympathy by openly airing dirt and scandal, the Kennedys have endlessly recycled the Camelot myth of the heroic young president slain before his time. Hamilton's book is the antidote to this pious tripe, serving up a John Kennedy fighting against (and sometimes embracing) forces that should have destroyed him. Young John Kennedy suffered from a mystery ailment that landed him in the hospital countless times. He courted disaster and scandal with a string of amours. He chose to fight the Japanese on a "plywood coffin" known as a PT boat rather than sit out the war in a safer place. He was saddled with a father whose pre-WWII appeasement policies undercut the national interest. Kennedy, from a young age, was one familiar with the knife's edge between life and death, learning to skate the blade with grace and aplomb. Hamilton exhaustively chronicles these episodes using interview material and an extraordinary trove of personal letters to and from Kennedy himself.
It's a shame that the Kennedy family blocked Hamilton's access to additional JFK material. The next volumes would no doubt have shown the moral excesses and almost suicidal risk-taking increasing as JFK grew older. While this material might have threatened the maudlin serenity of Camelot, I would have welcomed the change. Paradoxically, my love and admiration for John Kennedy did not wane as I read the incredible details of his life. Instead, I was amazed that such an extraordinary, compassionate and visionary man arose from the chaos of a life lived as a constant roll of the dice.
Simply the best JFK bio anywhere ..........2003-08-24
JFK RECKLESS YOUTH has only one drawback: It covers only the part of his life up to his election to Congress. Hamilton has promised two more volumes, but they have so far not appeared. That said, it is the only negative that can be said for this remarkable volume, for my money the best JFK bio anywhere (including the new but hardly impressive JFK: AN UNFINISHED LIFE by Robert Dallek). There isn't an aspect of Kennedy's life that goes unexplored. Hamilton, however, did not have the access to JFK's medical records that Dallek did -- therefore he probably did not realize how very serious JFK's health issues were. (Of course, he is writing about JFK's early life, when he was obviously a lot healthier than he was later.)
What is made painfully clear here is that JFK became president not because of his parents, but frankly, in spite of them. It was the force of his intellect and personality, more than his father's money, that made him who he was. Hamilton spends a lot of time in comparisons between Joe Jr. (the heir apparent) and Jack, the second son. According to him, Joe Jr. was ponderous, prejudiced, hardworking but abrasive and often nasty, and in general, simply did not attract people to him as Jack did. Jack, on the other hand, for all his natural rebelliousness (almost certainly fed by his parents' endless hectoring and marital issues), had enormous charm, warmth and endless humor. Hamilton even uncovers evidence of a surprisingly tender heart and his attempts to hide his concern for his friends with sarcasm and wit. His friends note that he constantly looked for new friendships and never lost a friend, even when the friends treated him with less than kindness and respect. He was loyal to a fault.
Hamilton does reserve tremendous ire (and who can blame him?) for JFK's parents, two of really the most awful parents it's possible to imagine. Rose was a mother who constantly went off and left her children with the help, never home even when her oldest children were babies, and was never, never affectionate or even perhaps very interested in them, due to her unending though silent opposition to her husband's abuse and philandering. While she inspected them daily for missing buttons or loose threads, she was completely uninvolved in their interests, games and problems. Their father Joe was, as Hamilton makes clear, good at only one thing: manipulating stocks in order to steal himself a fortune. Every other thing he tried, including banking, shipping, movies, politics and diplomacy, was a failure. (Joe was so unscrupulous that even during his stint as Ambassador to the Court of St. James, he had people buying stocks he had inside information about. It says something that when FDR appointed him the first chairman of the newly formed Securities and Exchange Commission, and FDR's cabinet protested vigorously, FDR's answer was, "Set a thief to catch a thief.") What made Joe rather insidious (and this only in comparison to Rose) is that if he did have a good point, it was his genuine love for his children, misguided as his childrearing experience was. Unfortunately, he taught them to win at any cost and that women were to be treated with contempt and used like tissue. But because he expressed affection and care for them, even dropping his own work schedule to appear at their schools when Rose wrote letters but never bothered to visit her sons even when Jack was deathly ill in boarding school, Joe comes off as, ironically, the much better parent. He was loving and affectionate, though his affection came with a price: That they think as he thought and do as he did, which Jack simply rebelled against.
Hamilton has to be commended for his sense of balance. While never shirking his responsibility to point out Jack's flaws, he is careful also to show from where they sprang -- the terrible, dysfunctional union of his parents and their awful sense of what raising a family meant. The children were socially isolated (partially because of his parents' desperation to enter Boston's WASP society while being Irish Catholics themselves), turning to each other for comfort and thus becoming close, but then separated when Rose decided she couldn't handle them anymore and sent them to boarding school, some as young as age eight.
There is so much in this book that has value, but what I personally appreciate the most is Hamilton's constant underlying (though silent) thesis that Jack's gifts were so many that had he been born to different parents, he still would have been remarkably successful, yet probably been a less tormented and far less complex personality. For Hamilton sees his sexual yearnings as nothing less than looking for the love he missed in his mother, yet unable to express his need for it because of her coldness during his formative years and what that coldness did to his ability to express and receive affection.
I could go on and go (actually, I have), but I do heartily recommend this. It's an absorbing read about the formation of a remarkable and pivotal personality in American history. I'd love to see the next volume -- imagine what he'd do with the marriage of Jack and Jackie? -- but must wait till he gets there. Meanwhile, this volume is a five-star, fifty-carat gem. Don't miss it.
One of a kind!.......2002-09-28
It is now virtually impossible to find a good biography of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Most are interested less in telling about his life, every aspect of it, than about his love life. But Nigel Hamilton returns some honor and polish, eschewing sensationalism for the sake of actually writing a book about his life.
This book recounts JFK's life until his election in Congress, beginning years before his birth with accounts of his grandparents and parents and what drove Joseph Kennedy to obsess on politics. While it includes JFK's assorted premarital affairs, there is also a great deal of complicated and in-depth information on his Navy service, his health, his political life, his family life, and the things that would affect him when he later became president of the United States.
Hamilton manages to pull more material -- only a portion of Kennedy's life -- into more pages than most Kennedy biographers could if they tried. He does this by incredibly in-depth investigation into just about everything in Kennedy's life. This approach not only gives much-needed depth to Kennedy himself, but to other people in his life. While his parents are no more sympathetic here than they ever were (meaning that they probably were as they seem), people that he interacted with (and in some cases, slept with) are given new attention. For example, his first serious lover Inga Arvad is explored in greater depth. Here she is not a promiscuous gold-digger or a clingy adulteress, but a woman who is willing to give up her love for his own good. Her Nazi sympathies and marital status are not downplayed, but her emotions and feelings are presented to the readers to make us realize what she was like.
And Hamilton's skill as a writer shows in how he is able to include all this detail and all these anecdotes without boring the readers silly. The eight-hundred-plus pages fly by like those of a book half its length, sprinkled with occasional pictures of JFK, his parents, "Inga Binga," Lem Billings, and others. These pictures are relatively few and far between, but make up for it in quality rather than quantity.
If you read one Kennedy biography, make sure that it's this one. Nigel Hamilton's "Reckless Youth" is written with style, class, and skill. Definitely worth the read.
Book Description
"This is a book about that most admirable of human virtues-- courage. 'Grace under pressure,' Ernest Hemingway defined it. And these are the stories of the pressures experienced by eight United States Senators and the grace with which they endured them."
-- John F. Kennedy
During 1954-1955, John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. Senator, chose eight of his historical colleagues to profile for their acts of astounding integrity in the face of overwhelming opposition. These heroes include John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, Thomas Hart Benton, and Robert A. Taft.
Awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1957, Profiles in Courage -- now reissued in this handsome hardcover edition, featuring a new introduction by Caroline Kennedy, as well as Robert Kennedy's foreword written for the memorial edition of the volume in 1964 -- resounds with timeless lessons on the most cherished of virtues and is a powerful reminder of the strength of the human spirit. It is as Robert Kennedy states in the foreword, "not just stories of the past but a hook of hope and confidence for the future. What happens to the country, to the world, depends on what we do with what others have left us."
Customer Reviews:
DO TODAY'S SENATORS HAVE THE SAME COURAGE AS JFK?.......2007-09-25
It's the 50th anniversary of the publication by John Kennedy of the book `Profiles In Courage' and its subsequent winning the Pulitzer Prize for Biography. The non-fiction political tome features Kennedy's interpretation of eight U.S. Senators who placed the interests of the country and what was morally right regarding some momentous decision over the wishes of their political party and own potential self-advancement to higher office.
Is there anyone presently in the Senate with presidential aspirations who can offer the same courage and moral convictions to do what's right in the manner the eight figures from history the future 35th president chose to write about to further the public trust at the risk of their own political career?
Kennedy began the book in 1954 while in his first term as a U.S. Senator but undergoing convalescence from a surgery on his back to relieve stress from the injuries he received in combat during World War Two. There's still debate on how much of the book was actually written by Kennedy or what part was researched and prepared by underlings of his staff. But most experts agree that the senator supervised the editing of the material and selected which of those who were to be profiled.
The book was positively received and it helped place Kennedy into national prominence. The Massachusetts senator used that notoriety to offer his name as a vice-presidential candidate at the 1956 Democratic Party convention. He then became one of that party's frontrunners for the 1960 presidential election which he ultimately won.
It's apparent that when JFK served in the Congress he had contempt for the workings of the political patronage system when trying to obtain a consensus to solve the nation's problems as a congressman, then as senator. Most historians agree that he disliked the `good ol' boy' networking that future running mate Lyndon Johnson used as the Senate Majority Leader in making deals to please all sides on a matter and wanted those in that legislative body to take the moral high ground when debating the issues facing the nation to get legislation passed. That's why Kennedy decided to write the book for the next generation of politicians who would come after him to feature those who had taken a courageous stand as an inspiration to the succeeding groups of leaders.
Kennedy acknowledges the responsibilities felt on any politician, especially one who is a senator, to keep everybody happy. He cites three specific pressures put on all leaders, including himself, to keep everyone satisfied.
He writes that all senators want to be liked by the voters, they have a desire to be re-elected and feel the enormous pull of special interest groups seeking legislation that is favorable to their specific cause that can adversely affect the tough decisions they must make.
So who did Kennedy select as standing up for principles and not continuing the status quo that ultimately wrecked their own political aspirations for the betterment of the country?
They were John Quincy Adams for breaking away from the Federalist Party, Daniel Webster for speaking in favor of the Compromise of 1850 that delayed the start of the Civil War, Thomas Hart Benton for staying in the Democratic Party despite his opposition to slavery and Sam Houston for opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
Also included were Edmund G. Ross for voting against the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Lucius Lamar for his attempt to mend ties between the North and South during Reconstruction, George Norris for coming out against arming U.S. merchant ships before the U.S. officially entered World War One and Robert Taft for criticizing the Nuremberg Trials that prosecuted high-level Nazi war leaders under what he considered ex post facto laws that were forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
It's obvious the eight senators Kennedy selected decided to make a courageous, yet unpopular choice on an issue to put the interests of the nation and world over their own political aspirations at a time of crisis. How come we don't have any leaders like those eight today?
The United States Senate is called the last great place for oration and debate as the issues facing the nation and world are discussed by one hundred of the nation's political elite. But can a U.S. Senator be elected from that office today directly to the presidency by taking a potential career-ending stance on today's hot button matters? No one has successfully done so since John Kennedy did in 1960.
That doesn't bode well for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, Barrack Obama and any other potential future candidates from that legislative body as we approach the 2008 presidential election. Many have tried since JFK's triumph and all have failed, the most recent being John Kerry in 2004.
It's going to be extremely difficult for this current brood of senators, be they male or female; Republican, Democrat or independent; to exhibit the same virtuous characteristics of those Kennedy profiled to get elected as our next president under our current political structure of stalemate government gridlock that forces them to refrain from taking any courageous stand on the issues that need immediate resolution.
That's a loss for all of us.
An example to all politicians.......2007-08-08
What President Kennedy shows in this book is a series of examples to all our modern politicians. It's a book to read and keep in mind.
I was shocked!.......2007-06-11
Profiles in Courage is a book I have heard of many times but never read, nor browsed. What a shock upon finally picking the book up to discover what a hodge podge of quotes and this's and that's the book is. And now, upon a little research, to discover that there was much debate as to whether Kennedy even wrote the book. At best Profiles in Courage would get a B if turned in as a high school senior thesis paper.
I am not anti Kennedy and actually until reading Profiles in Courage have always held him in high regard. Who of the right age can forget - "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." This making the exposure to Profiles all the more bitter.
I now must admit I have not read the whole book. I don't know if I have the stomach to. I have only read through the Chapter on Daniel Webster and although I am one to read to the end no matter what, I am not sure I can.
The most irksome quality of the book is the incessant quotes pertaining to the definition of words which I suspect were used to lend this missive an air of scholarship. This claim of scholarship is echoed by the dropping of terms here and there, like Gresham's Law. When the discriminating reader encounters such it always invokes the opposite of its intention.
I also object to the major tenet of the book that when someone is elected to public office to represent the views of his constituients it is considered courage to once having reached office to change his stripes and decided to do whatever one wants instead of representing the people who elected him. A better view of courage is to have those that when they find they can no longer do what they were voted in to do, resign from, what Kennedy considered the most prestigious of private clubs, public office, and then do whatever it is that they fell so strongly about. Has this ever happened? I am unsure.
In short, Profiles in Courage, is propaganda supporting a privileged class. If you must go to the library and give it a once over. It is an easy read. But it is certainly advised that you do not financial support this error by purchasing it.
Only the courageous will be able to keep alive the spirit of individualism and dissent which gave birth to this nation........2007-01-05
Politicians are constantly being accused of compromising their principles when in reality they "are engaged in the fine art of conciliating, balancing and interpreting the forces and factions of public opinion, an art essential to keeping our nation united and enabling our government to function."
If this is true then John F. Kennedy's supported the civil right act because he was carefully orchestrating a decision based on beliefs of the voters, who put him office and kept in office. JFKs support of the civil rights act suggested the voters wanted change and they wanted change to come in the form of more equality and justice for ethnic minors. These voters also wanted more governmental policies and governmental agencies to administer these sweeping changes and solve the social problems burdening the disparate. The government bureaucracies were to be designed with the aim of "ending the vices of racial disproportionate inequality" because the voters believed that government was the Messiah providing deliverance from their Egyptian oppressors.
In the life of a politician, public opinion matters. Politicians must understand the powerful forces of public opinion as it relates too key social issues and correctly interpret, a calculated governmental response. Sometimes a politician will be forced to change his position to align with public opinion; when this happens, media criticism exposes this inconsistency and becomes the self-appointed authority of public condemnation decrying "shame on you"; the politician must press forward and have the courage to align his governmental policies and action inline with public and popular opinion.
Government exists because the people want and value the services and protections that are provided. If government functionality aligns with public opinion then harmony and value is maintained and the people are content and happy with government, otherwise people revolt. The modern fallacy is that government believes they can control by force, but in reality they can only lead by example and do the bidding of the people. For example, Vietnam ended because the people wanted it to end, period. Politicians must market war to the people, but when the people don't want it; the politician must withdraw troops and end the conflict.
"In public life we expect individuals to sacrifice their private interests to permit the national good to progress." Great, remove the special interest groups from Washington that are using money to influence the decisions of the politicians. Often, big money controls politicians by putting him in a "win-win" scenario, "money or money". Money pressure confuses issues by converting the issue into a commodity that can be bought or sold for a price; the buy or selling of opinion directly affects the politician decision-making process. Big money desires directional control of government policies; often this control allows big money to profit from stable margin advantage from these policies. The money-changers should be driven OUT; they corrupted the house with their influences and commerce and the result has become the pollution of public driven governmental policies and transformed into special interest groups governmental policies, the exact opposite of the ideal.
Change can occur. More politicians are beginning to take courage and listen to the letters and voices of the voter and the Senator decides too cast their vote in alignment with the majority voice. "The third source of pressure that discourage political courage in the consciousness, of the Senator...is the pressure of his constituency ... the interest groups, the organized letter writers, the economic blocs and even the average voter." Other wise, the Senator would not be accountable for their decisions and the "mean-end" nexus resulting in the betrayal and confidence of his constituencies and economic blocs and the average voter.
The Senator must be able to balance all the forces and make the decision that will "best advancing his career" and at the same time weight out how much he is willing too sacrifice in the form of personal interests too promote the good of the people. These risks to his career can be a difficult and soul-searching process. However, the bottom-line principle remains, the Senator's primary responsibility is to "represent the views of his state". The Senator must diligent uphold this responsibility and have "faith in the wisdom of the people and their views".
People are not general destructive and malicious in what they want; the wisdom of the crowd is accurate, complex, and important. "The concept of democracy put to little faith in the people." Politician must not embrace that doctrine that the people are ignorant, non educational, and incapable of understanding; instead, the politician must have more faith in the people and their desire to prosper, live virtuous and moral life; and promote the common good. People have faith in their ultimate sense of Justice, faith in their ability to honor courage and respect; skill in making rationale judgments; and faith that in the long run they will act unselfishly for the good of the nation.
"In the day ahead, only the very courageous will be able to take the hard and unpopular decision necessary for our survival in the struggle with a powerful enemy". "Only the courageous will be able to keep alive the spirit of individualism and dissent which gave birth to this nation." God Bless JFK!
An excellent reminder of the importance of our Constitution!.......2006-12-05
John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize winning book is a must read for all Americans interested in the importance of statesmanship and the courage to place principles above personal profit. Each chapter details the works of a U.S. legislator who made a significant impact on the credibility of the United States Constitution, often putting his or her career on the line to defend the foundations of the American republic. Many of these legislators are rarely spoken of today, but the continuing tradition of the democratic process of this nation owes a deep sense of gratitude to these statesmen.
At a time when many of us are questioning the character and the ambitions of our political leaders, this book is a worthy reminder to us that a few good people can make the difference. This book is timely and pertinent when cyncism abounds in the minds of many voters and taxpayers.
Average customer rating:
- Give it a pass
- Marcello vs. Kennedys.
- who killed the Kennedy's?
- Oswald, Ferrie, and Marcello: 3 Can Keep a Secret if 2 are Dead
- Can't Live with Him, Can't Live without Him.
|
Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
John H. Davis
Manufacturer: Mcgraw-Hill
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 General
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Criminals
| Specific Groups
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Kennedy, John F.
| ( K )
| People, A-Z
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Criminology
| Crime & Criminals
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Sociology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
| AIDS
| Abuse
| Adults
| Aging
| Children
| Class
| Communities
| Culture
| Death
| General
| History
| Leisure
| Marriage & Family
| Medicine
| Men
| Occupational
| Race Relations
| Religion
| Research & Measurement
| Rural
| Social Groups
| Social Situations
| Social Theory
| Suburban
| Urban
| Women
True Crime
| True Accounts
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0070157790 |
Customer Reviews:
Give it a pass.......2007-09-06
I can practically read anything on the Mafia . . . except this book. I could barely finish it. It was so boring. The first 50 pages were good. It was actually focused on late Louisiana Mafia boss Carlos Marcello. Then, it happened. Nonstop writing on the assassination of President Kennedy. Again, it is nonstop and the author continually asks the reader questions that I don't think he ever conclusively answered. (By the way, I have never seen some many questions presented to the reader before in ANY book; my guess would be a couple hundred questions the author poses to his readers.)
I swear about 500 pages is just going over the same points in the assassination again and again. Oswald knew this guy. This guy knew this guy. Jack Ruby knew this guy. All these connections go back to the Marcello organization. I GET IT! ENOUGH!
You read about a page and half on Marcello and you think, yes, he's finally back on track. He's actually writing about Marcello now. But no, all of the sudden it gets back to the Kennedy Assassination. I have rarely rolled by eyes while reading a book except for this one -- and I am continually rolling my eyes. Not because the author states that Marcello was probably involved in the Kennedy Assassination, but because he has to hammer his points over and over again and again (nonstop).
Now, if you are looking for a book on the Kennedy Assassination, you got it here. But if you are looking for a book about Carlos Marcello, then skip it because you are just going to get mad with the author barely touching on Marcello past the first 50 pages without his throwing in some Kennedy Assassination angle.
This should not be called "Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of President Kennedy." It should be called "The Assassination of President Kennedy: The Assassination and Some Mob Boss Named Carlos Marcello." Very little is about Carlos Marcello and his secretive organization. It's all about the Kennedy Assassination and Marcello's possible connection to it.
The last part of the book is on the FBI operations in the late 1970s that finally brought Carlos Marcello down. But it's only about 50 or so pages long, too. In short, there is maybe a hundred or so pages dealing with Carlos Marcello, and what you have left is the author trying to link the Marcello organization to the President's assassination, and nailing his one-tracked hammer on the same points time after time, page after page.
What a waste! Had this book been nearly 700 pages on Carlos Marcello and his organization it would have been perhaps one of the best, groundbreaking books on the underworld in the history of the American Mafia being there is very little actually known about the man and his organization other than the basics. Instead, we get a 100 pages on Marcello and 600 pages on his possible connection to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Sorry if I hammered my point over and over again about this book, but I was giving you a preview of what you will experience if you buy and read this book. As the mob would say, "Give it a pass."
Marcello vs. Kennedys........2007-03-16
This book is dated,but I'm not so sure that any other book on the subject is better.
Mr. Davis exposes the numerous links the Marcello family had to other key conspirators in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.Lee Harvey Oswald,Jack Ruby,and David Ferrie all knew each other and had Marcello family connections.
Another highlight of this book is the contrast of the New Orleans mafia and other families.They operated quite differently than say,the New York or Chicago mob.The culture of that area was much like Sicily.
Mr. Davis gives details on the extent of the corruption and political power enjoyed by Carlos Marcello.The transcripts of recorded conversations from the sting by the FBI reveal a lot regarding who was bought.Some major political figures are mentioned.
The details of Carlos Marcello's deportation clarify the animosity between the mafia and the Kennedy brothers.The egos on both sides of the law were factors in the eventual assassination.
The monumental part that J. Edgar Hoover played in the coverup and possible motivation for doing that are explained very well in this book.
In the end of the book Mr. Davis briefly covers some of the books that were contemporary with his.
The only thing he doesn't do is name the actual trigger men.
This book is available and inexpensive.It's a book I highly recommend for anyone wanting to study the assassination of JFK.
who killed the Kennedy's?.......2007-02-17
This book has been around for a few years but I've only read it recently.
The author, John H Davis, certainly convinces me that, regardless of who pulled the triggers, the shootings of John F Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were mob hits ordered by New Orleans mobster Carlos Marcello, while the truth was kept from the American public through the connivance of the FBI whose hands were far from clean.
The Kennedy's dared to bite the hands that fed them. John Kennedy used the Mafia in his rise to power & then not only turned his back on them but declared war on them with the assistance of Robert Kennedy as Attorney General.
Robert Kennedy had a long history of failed attempts to deport Carlos Marcello which included kidnapping him & dumping him (literally) in a deserted backwater of Honduras. The Mafia & Marcello in particular hated the Kennedy's so intensely it was only a matter of time.
Consider this:
The unstable and unemployed Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy of the Mafia & the FBI. Oswald's uncle & surrogate father Charles Murret, aka Dutz, was a bookmaker in Marcello's gambling operation in New Orleans. In the summer of 1963 Oswald who was living in Dallas came to his uncle for financial help & did not go away empty handed.
The FBI, headed by the megalomaniacal J Edgar Hoover, was so riddled with corruption itself by this time that any investigation done by them was bound to be a whitewash as it would expose the FBI's connections to the New Orleans underworld. Hoover had a long history of friendship with mob boss Frank Costello & stubbornly insisted that the Mafia did not exist. When presented with a report of the infamous crime conclave of 60 mafia heads in upstate New York in 1957, Hoover ordered all copies destroyed. When Robert Kennedy became Attorney General he identified organised crime -- not Communism -- to be the greatest menace to American society; he also earned Hoover's enmity by putting a stop to Hoover's hitherto direct access to the President's office, ordering Hoover to report instead to the attorney general, ie, him.
Jack Ruby, who has been portrayed as a Patriot distressed by the death of his idol, had underworld connections & was at that time suffering from terminal cancer. He owed large sums of money to certain Mafia figures & he executed Oswald to shut him up & to redeem his own Mafia debt. Ruby died in prison of cancer.
The Robert Kennedy assassination is murkier. It was blamed on Sirhan Sirhan, although there is evidence at least one other gun was used in the shooting. Sirhan perpetually owed gambling debts & often did odd jobs for low level crime figures. He hung around California race tracks whose betting operations were connected to Marcello; he also worked as a groom for horse ranch owner Desi Arnaz who was a known friend of LA mobster Mickey Cohen . Cohen's penchant was for secretly filming movie stars in sex setups & blackmailing them - Lana Turner & Marilyn Monroe were victims. Jack Ruby and Mickey Cohen were old friends too: it was all one big extended family
There is evidence suggesting Robert Kennedy's real killer was Thane Cesar, the security guard who escorted Kennedy through the hotel kitchen where he was shot. Cesar was not the hotel's usual security guard; he was temporarily hired to fill in for the day of June 5; he had strong ties to a San Diego mobster (later imprisoned for skimming race-track revenues) & associate of Mickey Cohen. The Ambassador Hotel was partly owned by investors connected with organised crime. Not long after the shooting, the Hotel's director of security disappeared.
The Kennedy brothers were undoubtedly touched with greatness and vision, but with such flaws of character and judgement and hubris that it brought their downfall. Meanwhile the public has been content to be fed a load of crap rather than have the Kennedy name & legacy tarnished. False gods usually have feet of clay.
Oswald, Ferrie, and Marcello: 3 Can Keep a Secret if 2 are Dead.......2006-11-12
I would recommend this book to anyone familiar with the political history of New Orleans and Louisiana in general. A fine book to discuss while having dinner at Mosca's or La Louisiane or somewhere like that. For those of you who know nothing at all about New Orleans, don't bother with this book, because you will never understand it. You almost have to be from Louisiana to understand this book at all. If you're not, go ahead and learn about the history of New Orleans, especially in the twentieth century, before attempting to understand this book. Davis is pretty much right on the money with his writing, though. A nice investigation of the CIA-Mafia alliance that once existed. Also includes a nice look at other wiseguys like Trafficante, Costello, Hoffa, etc... A very good read.
Can't Live with Him, Can't Live without Him........2006-01-27
I have, for a long time been very interested in the history of America's oldest Mafia Family. I have, however, had a very difficult time finding reliable information about the history and activities of the New Orleans Combine. Mr. Davis published this book after sifting through literally thousands of pages of government files. While I imagine that this would confuse anyone, Mr. Davis seems to have entirely lost his grip on reality. The idea that the JFK assaination was the result of a conspiracy is taken for granted in his book rather than questioned. I repeatedly found myself very annoyed by his tendency to pontificate about his JFK conspiracy theories when the story I REALLY wanted to hear, the rise and fall of the New Orleans Combine, was thrown by the wayside. On the other hand, there is no where else that the reader can go to find accounts of Carlos Marcello's rise and fall unless one is willing to slog through trial transcripts and government wiretaps. I did enjoy the section on Operation BRILAB, the FBI sting that brought him down. Marcello boasted about which politicians were gambling at his casinos, sleeping with his prostitutes, and acting as co-conspirators in his criminal activities. But a lot of information has come out since this book was published, including wiretaps of Marcello griping to his Dallas Underboss about the accusations of his involvement in the JFK assassination. "Yeah," said the Underboss, "You wouldn't know Jack Ruby if the [expletive] were to uh, walk into your room." One thing is clear as far as the assassination is concerned; Marcello screamed and howled about the Kennedys, but when JFK was murdered, he was just as devastated as the rest of America. Mr. Davis just needs to get his facts straight.
Customer Reviews:
There's still POWER in his words.......2003-01-04
Born after his death on the opposite side of Pacific, I cannot clearly imagine what America had been like during administration of JFK.
Soviet Union threatning US with nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba. Black young men actually denied to enter his university. West Berlin in blockade. Ok, it's impossible for us to compare difficulties of those with the threats today's US faces but for sure the one of JFK's can never have been easy.
One of the greatest abilities (personalities) in JFK is to encourage people, in their difficult times, with his absolute power, vitality and sincereity of abundance. As Sorensen pointed out, perhaps sometimes his words conveyed messages of what was beyond or above people, couldn't be achieved as it's simply too difficult.
Nevertheless in my opinion, statesmen have to tell LONG vision, things people don't want to hear but need to while politicians merely telling what people want to hear. He's supposed to have made "a step" in many subjects, which later leads to one "thousand miles" as he always said.
Recently I watched movie "13 days" and, very impressed with his decisiveness, I just happened to want to go through his speeches all over again to have bumped into this book on Amazon.com. With it in mind that the author, Ted Sorensen, was a speech writer of JFK, I believed this was the one. I wasn't wrong.
The book is very organized, subject by subject, which makes it easy to find what you need in this book although I read this from cover to cover. With statements and interviews included, let alone all important speeches, you can have a clear picture for creeds of JFK's.
Far more complicated and different as is the current world, simple and direct application of his wisdom might be not so realistic but, again, his power, vitality, sincerity and whatever are all in this book, which definitely moved world citizens at that time, and for sure could, in our time.
It might be different from reader to reader or from his social position to position, what impression you'll have from this book. One thing for sure is you'll find SOMETHING impressive, this I guarantee.
I, for one, am proud of this book being in my shelf from now on. Unfortunatelly the book seems to be out of stock for now, so just pick it up in market place, hard-cover version recommended, it endures.
A Career, A Society, and How We Have Changed........2000-12-04
Whether you love John F. Kennedy or hate him, "Let the Word Go Forth" is a rewarding read for anyone interested in the 35th President or the America from which we are not very far removed. This book consists of excerpts from over 100 speeches made by John F. Kennedy during his political life. These is not a collection of quotations but a public career as portrayed in largely and totally complete speeches and statements. In these pages we are reminded of the lofty ideals, the wit and, a bit of the parochial politician which was John F. Kennedy.
For me, much of the value in this book lies not in what it tells us of Kennedy, but what it tells us about the country in which he lived. The things which were said, and which did not need to be said, and the language used tell us of an America different from the one in which we live today. To illustrate this I will discuss four of the speeches.
We begin with the Inaugural Address, probably Kennedy's most famous statement. The speech, which gave us several remembered lines, the most famous of which is "Ask not what your country can do for you,-ask what you can do for your country" is most notable for what it does not say. Read this speech from start to finish and you will find no mention of social security, health care, education, poverty, civil rights, highways or any of the domestic concerns which have held such center stage in recent public debate. It deals exclusively of foreign policy. What President since Kennedy would start his administration which such a challenge?
The second speech to which I would direct the reader's attention is the address to the Houston Ministerial Alliance on September 12, 1960. The purpose of the speech was to refute allegations that a Catholic would have a divided loyalty or would be subject to orders from the church hierarchy. The way in which Kennedy responded to the problem is felt by many to have done a great disservice to Catholic politicians. It is believed that Kennedy established the standard that, in order to be considered for office, Catholic candidates must establish that their religious beliefs will not be a factor in their decision making process. At the end of the speech, Kennedy was specifically confronted with a request that he request approval from the Vatican for his statement supporting the separation of church and state. What politician since then has been confronted with such a question?
The third speech to be considered is entitled "The City Upon a Hill" and was given to the Massachusetts legislature on January 9, 1961. In this speech Kennedy draws on the history of Massachusetts in establishing the code of conduct for those serving the Commonwealth. He lists four questions by which public servants will be judged: "were we men of courage...were we men of judgement...were we truly men of integrity...were we men of dedication." As one reads these stirring question with their elaborations, a realization dawns on the reader: There were no women in the Massachusetts legislature in 1961. I am sure that the wording would be different today.
The last speech which I would suggest for consideration is the acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, entitled "The Opening of the New Frontier." I bring this speech up because of the oft stated lament that the public is losing its sense of history, its ability to relate current conditions to conditions of the past in order to help us separate the principle from the pragmatism and the important from the trivial. In that speech, the nominee tells his listeners: "just as historians tell us that Richard I was not fit to fill the shoes of bold Henry II-and that Richard Cromwell was not fit to wear the mantle of his uncle {sic}-they might add in future years that Richard Nixon did not measure to the footsteps of Dwight D. Eisenhower." Overlooking the fact that Richard Cromwell succeeded his father and not his uncle, what contemporary candidate would trust his listeners to understand the reference to long gone English leaders? Is it the draining of the general fund of knowledge of our citizens which has lowered the level of our public discourse from the deep, rich speech of the Kennedy era to the shallow sound bites of today?
At the conclusion of "Let the Word Go Forth" one has a greater respect for the communication skills of our 35th President and an appreciation for the things which we, as a society have gained, and a longing for the things which we have lost.
Book Description
A uniquely intimate portrait of John F. Kennedy, Jr., from his closest friend
For twenty-five years, William Noonan and John F. Kennedy, Jr., were best friends. Sharing an adolescence in Hyannisport, Massachusetts, the two frequented beach bonfires and the Monday night yacht-club dances, took road trips, shared albums, sneaked cigarettes on the widowÂ's walk of JohnÂ's house, and scored beer together. And as they grew older, John and Billy never lost the connection they forged in the Kennedy compound as two young boys who had both tragically lost their fathers.
A humble and touching memoir, Forever Young uncovers the private John F. Kennedy, Jr., from the matchless vantage point of a longtime childhood friend. Forever Young is packed with never-revealed details of John and Carolyn BessetteÂ's courtship and wedding, the launch of George, JohnÂ's unusually close relationship with his mother Jackie, and the heartbreaking aftermath of the plane crash off MarthaÂ's Vineyard that killed John, Carolyn, and CarolynÂ's sister. Noonan also shares the more ribald episodes, including JohnÂ's many famous conquests, skirmishes with paparazzi, and his stint as PeopleÂ's “Sexiest Man Alive.” The definitive story of the son of Camelot, Forever Young is a touching and revelatory tribute to a friendship between two men—and a life cut devastatingly short.
Customer Reviews:
Great Reading.......2007-10-13
I Love the books written by JFK JR friends because it gives you a more honest picture of a person then a myth.It makes the person more real.This book actually had me laughing at times.
an excellent book.......2007-08-25
FOREVER YOUNG IS AN EXCELLENT BOOK. IT IS A WELL WRITTEN AND ENGAGING ACCOUNT OF THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN KENNEDY JR, AND THE AUTHOR, BILL NOONAN. IT IS A WONDERFUL AND POIGNANT DESCRIPTION OF A DYNAMIC AND MOVING CONNECTION BETWEEN TWO FRIENDS AND THE EBBS AND FLOWS OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP THAT UNFOLDS IN THE HIGH PRESSURER WORLD OF THE KENNEDY AURA, TRADITIONS AND DARK SIDE.
WHILE THE BOOK OFFERS SOME INTERESTING INSIGHTS INTO JOHN AND OTHER KENNEDY PERSONA, IT IS A WORTHY READ FOR THE STORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP ITSELF AS MUCH AS FOR THE NOTARIETY AND NEWSWORTHINESS OF THE OTHER CHARACTERS.
great.......2007-03-20
i am reading the book now like that they are not bad mouthing him
Fantastic!!.......2007-02-10
This books gives more insight to JFK Jr.'s personal life giving personal stories. It is a fun read and is well worth the time. I really enjoyed learning more about John, the private person.
Would love to know how William and Caorline are doing today.......2007-02-06
Having followed the Kennedy story since I was 20 (some 43 years ago) I enjoyed the book tremendously. My own mother died the week after Jackie, partially over grieving Jackie's death. I grew up Democrat, Catholic in Connecticut and felt a closeness to the whole Kennedy "thing". I am still feeling sad over the loss of JFK JR some even rumored that Hillary could have played a part, I honestly hope not.
Average customer rating:
- JFK: Real Person.
- BOUGHT AND PAYED
- Clinton wasn't so bad after all....
- Historical Journalism at its Best
- Good and informative book with one weakness
|
The Dark Side of Camelot
Seymour M. Hersh
Manufacturer: Little Brown and Company
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Political
| Leaders & Notable People
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Rich & Famous
| Leaders & Notable People
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
General
| United States
| Historical
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Kennedy, John F.
| ( K )
| People, A-Z
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Kennedy, Robert
| ( K )
| People, A-Z
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Gambling
| Puzzles & Games
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
| Baccarat
| Blackjack
| Craps
| General
| Horse Racing
| Lotteries
| Poker
| Roulette
| Slot Machines
| Sports
| Track Betting
| Video Poker
1945 - Present
| 20th Century
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Teens
| Subjects
| Books
Historical
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Teens
| Subjects
| Books
Similar Items:
-
A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy
-
Chain of Command : The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib
-
Double Cross: The Explosive, Inside Story of the Mobster Who Controlled America
-
Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy
-
An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963
ASIN: 0316359556 |
Amazon.com
If the Kennedys are America's royal family, then John F. Kennedy was the nation's crown prince. Magnetic, handsome, and charismatic, his perfectly coifed image overshadowed the successes and failures of his presidency, and his assassination cemented his near-mythological status in American culture and politics. Struck down in his prime, he represented the best and the brightest of America's future, and when he died, part of the nation's promise and innocence went with him. That, at least, is the public version of the story.
The private version, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour M. Hersh, is quite different. His meticulous investigation of Kennedy has revealed a wealth of indiscretions and malfeasance, ranging from frequent liaisons with prostitutes and mistresses to the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro to involvement in organized crime. Though scandals in the White House are nothing new, Hersh maintains that Kennedy's activities went beyond minor abuses of power and personal indulgences: they threatened the security of the nation--particularly in the realm of foreign policy--and the integrity of the office. Hersh believes it was only a matter of time before Kennedy's dealings were exposed, and only his popularity and charm, compounded by his premature death, spared such an investigation for so long. Exposure was further stalled by Bobby Kennedy's involvement in nefarious dealings, enabling him to bury any investigation of his brother and--by extension--himself.
Based on interviews with former Kennedy administration officials, former Secret Service agents, and hundreds of Kennedy's personal friends and associates, The Dark Side of Camelot rewrites the history of John F. Kennedy and his presidency.
Customer Reviews:
JFK: Real Person. .......2007-09-11
Legend and hero are the words most of us learn in school to apply to John F. Kennedy. We usually tend to see him only in his media and photographic image, but Seymour Hersh portrays him here as being a man with an abundant set of flaws and characteristics. Most likely, although I grant that not everything the author says can be definitively proven, Hersh's depiction of JFK is far closer to that of the real person than the one we see gazing down upon us in posters. Of course, The Dark Side of Camelot is about a whole lot more than the 35th President. We find out all manner of fact and rumor concerning his grandfather, Honey Fitz, his father, and the rest of his family; not to mention Richard Nixon and an array of women who are too numerous to name here. Kennedy was the quintessential high status male, and, intrinsic to his status, were a great many politically incorrect features that are fun to read about (while still being informative in regards to the leader and his times).
BOUGHT AND PAYED.......2007-08-05
If there is one election that was bougth,it was this one.
Nixon would have won in a ,,regular,, election!!
Clinton wasn't so bad after all...........2007-07-21
This is an important book because once and for all, it shows that JFK was a lousy human being and a lousy president. The ONLY reason he's so well regarded today is because he was charming, handsome, charismatic and had great press- in other words, he would have made a perfect Hollywood celebrity...
It's time for the myth to die- as far as I'm concerned, the JFK eternal flame in DC (and other useless memorial nonsense) should be put out- a waste of tax payer money...
Historical Journalism at its Best.......2007-05-06
Kennedy fans, beware. All of the trite, happy fictions and mythologies about your beloved President are forever popped by Seymour's tome. He has done extensive homework in defeating the Kennedy propanganda machine's skilled agenda of disinformation and lies. (Just for the record, I am a leftist with no sympathy for anything Republican or conservative. That does not, however, allow me to ignore the unpleasant facts about Democrats.) JFK's immoral, illegal and reckless behavior is that of a spoiled, indulgent child with an inferiority and manhood complex and a domineering father. That aspect of his presidency is clear. Less obvious is how he got away with it for so long. That bespeaks of an as-yet-undescribed conspiracy of silence, dissembling and coverup that is as troubling as the mysteries of the assassination. Curiously, Hersch tersely states at the end of his book that he found no compelling evidence of any conspiracy in the 11-22-63 murder. However, his book is intended to dismiss myths about JFK's life, rather than death, and in this he admirably succeeds. Hersch's masterpiece does a wonderful job describing how the sex-obsessed Kennedy was constantly being threatened to have his numerous liaisons exposed, some, like that of Marilyn Monroe, that may or may not have ended in suicides. Even his alleged triumphs, such as the Missile Crisis, are shown to have been public relation manipulations as much as any competent Cold War victory. Sadly, the unbiaised reader must conclude that JFK was as immoral, venal and corrupt a President as we have ever had in the White House, and that probably includes the present idiot who has been bought and sold by every special interest in the world.
Read about Kennedy's accepting bribes from defense contractors, how he was married before he met Jaqueline but never got a divorce, how he plotted to get rid of South Vietnam's Diem because Diem wanted to make peace with the North, how his operatives were planning Castro's death the very day he himself was murdered, how he slept with an East German whore and hundreds more less-suspect women, how he sought Mafia help in winning the crooked 1960 election, how he looked the other way at corruption within his own group of cronies, how he planned to bomb the Chinese nuke facilities, and how all the evidence points to a more massive US involvement in Vietnam had he prevailed in '64. In short, just about everything you know in the public forum about JFK is a lie.
Good and informative book with one weakness .......2007-02-23
A very good read , very honest and compelling . I can only recommend the book to all the people who wants to know the whole story . I'm fascinated by the Kennedy family , and I was glad to got the book .
However , I have to subtract one star , because the author perpetrated the myth and the fairy tale of the lonegunman .
With all what we know today , this is an offense for the intelligent mind . Otherwise the book is absolutely great .
Customer Reviews:
Good book about Oswald (with some nice photos).......2005-12-23
Being Groden's follow-up to "The Killing Of A President", this book is a little anti climactic. That said, it is still very good as an overview of Oswald with some nice photos. Worth getting.
Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
Pittsburgh, PA
BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
BEST JFK SECRET SERVICE BOOK: SURVIVOR'S GUILT BY YOURS TRULY :)
Beautiful pictures, but think for yourself.......1998-08-23
And in the center ring, standing somewhere between 5'8" and 5'11", Lee "The Assassin" Oswald!! And right there beside him, the man who has solved the Kennedy assassination more times than swiss cheese has holes, Robert "The Brain" Groden!! Now after a certain point, everyone feels that way. Bob Groden must be given his due: He has managed to squirrel away quite a collection of JFK visual materials, and the results are pretty stimulating. But the biggest problem comes in the text. Some of the sources and conclusions in this "definitive" text are open to quite a bit of speculation. Interpretation (this picture shows this, here we see Clay Shaw, and OHMYGoodness a Grassy Knoll shooter) could be easily contested.
This book is great for the coffee table as people WILL pick it up and WILL have great fun discussing it. Just be careful what kinds of words a picture can put into your mouth. Bob, I'd love to hear from you.
Book Description
Let Every Nation Know is the first book of its kind-a historical biography in Kennedy's own words. Combining a remarkable audio CD with the insights of two of America's preeminent historians, the result is a unique look at the world-changing words and presidency of John F. Kennedy.
In the thousand days of his presidency, John F. Kennedy spoke about many of the enduring concerns of our union. His optimism, personal strength and far-reaching vision helped guide the nation through crisis, spoke to the dreams of its people and for a too brief moment guided America into the future.
From the author of the #1 bestselling biography An Unfinished Life, Robert Dallek, and the author of Washington's General, Terry Golway, Let Every Nation Know, is a book unlike any other. With an audio CD that includes 32 speeches, debates and interviews that forge a fresh portrait of John F. Kennedy and his presidency, this is a singular experience.
Customer Reviews:
Eloquent, But Hard to Comprehend.......2007-09-24
Robert Dallak and Terry Goldway bring to life masterfully in Kennedy's own words a portrait of an age with a president that was young but gifted politician. From the "Ask Not" Speech to the speech of the Berlin Wall, Kennedy's voice enhances the masterful biography of all Kennedy's charm, love of words, and deep, moral conscience. To me, it brings back the era when the world was on nuclear hair-trigger alert, the press was oppressing, and CIA secrets were gossip for the public. However, I do not think middle school students should read this book because the words of kennedy are still to deep to grasp at this age. The words of Kennedy cut deep into this nation's very soul, and continues to do so.
Perhaps the best of all the books on JFK.......2007-07-18
This was the kind of book that once I started reading I couldn't put down. I finished it very quickly.
I was five years old when he was killed. He was the first President I remember first hand. I remember that in Kindergarden we were told that President George Washington was the Father of our country. In my five year old mind, I thought JFK was the Father of our country, because he too was President like George Washington. This book gave me a chance to hear in his own words what was going on in a time I barely remember as a young child.
His words still speak to us today. This book for me was what I needed to read at this time to remind me of what is important. We as a country have moved so far away from the vision of JFK and it has inspired me to get back to my roots and to get back on track and to try and get our country back on track.
Let Every Nation Know. JFK in his own words........2007-01-15
A must have book for all age groups interested in the life and times of JFK. To hear the actual speeches of JFK on CD are inspirational and even in this day and age very moving. The book and CD transported me back to that era even though I was 8 at the time and brought back many memories.
An excellent book.Highly recommended.
A political biography honed from John F. Kennedy's own words .......2006-08-19
Here's a unique coverage: a political biography honed from John F. Kennedy's own words blending an audio CD with the insights of two notable historians. From issues ranging from Peace Corps politics to Kennedy's debates before his Presidency and his preparations for war, LET EVERY NATION KNOW proves far more compelling - and provides far more insights - than most.
Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch
A Better Time.......2006-08-17
Listening to the accompaning CD is both stimulating and depressing. The literacy and restraint of Kennedy's language so starkly contrasts to what we hear from the current administration. There is much irony as well. In the clip from the debates, Nixon tells the voters that as president he will be a role model for the nation's youth, just as Ike had been. But most depressing is the way this book and CD demonstrate the change in what voters now find persuasive. These are not sound bits or simple messages. These are intelligent and sophisticated speeches. These speeches suggest that Kennedy assumed that the voters were intelligent and that he respected their intelligence. Compare that to the current, simplistic messages that accuse opponents of being in league with al Qaeda. While Nixon was no stranger to the simplistic attack, it is striking to listen to his language and compare it to the current Republican leadership. To suggest that an early time was better is almost a cliche, but when you read and listen to these speeches the evidence seems overwhelming. This was a time when many of our leaders spoke with eloquence and addressed complex issues (Stevenson, Dirkson, Mansfield, Nelson Rockefeller, Robert Kennedy, and many others). More importantly, the voters seemed to actually listen to these speeches. There are great lessons in this modest volume.
Books:
- When You and Your Mother Can't Be Friends: Resolving the Most Complicated Relationship of Your Life
- Where Did I Come From?
- Whoosh Boom Splat: The Garage Warrior's Guide to Building Projectile Shooters
- Wordsworth: A Life
- Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America: A Biography
- Adopted Son: Washington, Lafayette, and the Friendship that Saved the Revolution
- America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
- An Unmentionable Murder (Last Hurrah for the WWII Manor House Mystery)
- Andrew Carnegie
- Atlas Major
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn't
- History: Fiction or Science
- Understanding Financial Statements: A Journalist's Guide
- A Dialogue on the Law of Kingship Among the Scots: A Critical Edition and Translation of George Buch
- Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries
- FLIP: How to Find, Fix, and Sell Houses for Profit
- Epitaph of a Small Winner: A Novel
- Translating an International Education to a National Environment
- Architectural Graphic Standards for Residential Construction: The Architect's and Builder's Guide to
- National Audubon Society Pocket Guide to Familiar Cacti
JFK: Breaking the News
That Day in Dallas: 3 Photographers Capture on Film the Day President Kennedy Died
President Kennedy Has Been Shot: Experience The Moment-to-Moment Account Of The Four Days That Changed America
Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy
National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film: Mr. Zapruder's Home Movie And the Murder of President Kennedy
