16-10-2010, 08:46 PM
To all on this thread:
Phil Dragoo made me aware of this this morning. I do not recall getting any e mail from Dawn about my review of Baker’s book. If I had I would have replied post haste since I have always been appreciative of her efforts in the field.
Since I also respect the work and people on DPF I will try and reply to most of the criticisms of me made here.
Let us begin with Baker’s book, the mistitled Family of Secrets. I disagree with the term “trashed”. If you read the review, you will see that I began with Baker’s discussion of George W. Bush and the Texas Air National Guard issue. I was fair and scrupulous and accurate about his work there. And I gave him credit for what he achieved. This part of the book was logically driven, had a lot of evidence, and was cogently argued, in the sense that the alternatives arrived at were done by the weight of the evidence adduced.
Now after this part, I clearly demarcate that with the other major parts of the book, this paradigm is not followed i.e. Bush’s alleged part in the JFK murder, Bush’s relationship with George DeMohrenschildt, and Bush’s alleged part in the Watergate scandal. Why should we drop these standards when an alleged big-time alternative media writer or as Dawn calls him, an MSM writer, bends to address the JFK case? I don’t and will not do such a thing. I wouldn’t do it for people like John Davis or Richard Billings, and I won’t do it for Baker. The bottom line is, and should always be: 1.) What is the sum total of your evidence? 2.) How is that sum total arrived at?
With Baker’s work on these three areas I thought the sum total was negligible, and the way he arrived at it was dubious. I was clear in the review as to why I thought this. In fact, rereading the review and listening to what I said on Black Op Radio, I actually believe most of the evidence Baker adduced in the three areas was not just negligible but silly. And further, some of it was arrived at by less than honest means e.g. his discussion of the Parrot episode. And I was very clear as to why I questioned his methodology there. I mean did Baker really think that 1.) DeMohrenschildt was going to tell his pre Haiti briefers that he was the designated Patsy’s escort? Or that he was sent to Haiti to take part in the coup attempt? In my view, the Baron did not even know at the time that this was his role in the JFK matter. 2.) Are we really to believe that Barbara Bush was somehow in on the JFK hit or the cover up just because she did not print her note about when she learned JFK was dead in her previously published children’s book? 3.) If you were a candidate for the Senate in Texas, would you stay in Dallas the night of the 22nd knowing that nobody is going to be attuned to that campaign there since they were slightly preoccupied by the events of the day? Yet this is the kind of stuff that Baker uses in is argument. Sorry if I don’t take it seriously. But in my view it does not amount to very much in comparison to what the likes of say John Newman, Tony Summers or Jim Douglass has achieved.
Now does the fact that I reject Baker’s book mean that I am somehow “protecting” the elder George Bush? Well, anyone who knows me will tell you that this is dead wrong. I consider the Bush clan—the entire clan, not just the abbreviated version Baker deals with—as a criminal enterprise. I personally believe that VP Bush should have been prosecuted for his role in Iran/Contra and possibly for the October Surprise. I believe Jeb Bush should have been prosecuted for his role in the former and for his stealing of the 2000 election for his brother. Oddly, you will not see these sentiments expressed or the reasons spelled out in Baker’s book. Which is quite weird. Maybe Baker thinks Bush the elder could be prosecuted for not staying in Dallas the night of the 22nd?
And this is a real problem I had with the book. Its the same problem I had with Tony Summers’ book on Marilyn Monroe. At the end of the day it’s a sensationalistic piece of work. It tries to make an impact by making these huge charges with what I consider pitiful back up. I for one, have had enough of this in this field. This trend goes all the way back to the pretentious and misleading books Farewell America and Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal. I for one , have had enough of it.
Baker’s work on Watergate was even worse. And I also explained why in the review. Here, he actually knowingly misrepresented his two paltry pieces of evidence to involved Bush in the scandal: the Town House slush fund, and the phone call to Nixon about John Dean. Why? Because he needed them to fulfill his agenda of George Bush being involved in Watergate and also being a top rank hidden CIA officer. I take a back seat to no one in addressing the true crime of Bush the Elder. But the list of crimes he is involved in, as mentioned above, is plentiful. Why should we have to make stuff up because Baker wants to write a best selling sensationalist book?
As per Jack White and 9-11: I will not ever buy into the work of Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear. For the reasons I stated previously I think they are meant to mislead and confound a movement that was once dedicated to fact finding and honest investigation.
As per Peter Lemkin, all that I wrote about him in piece on “Gregory Douglas” and Mary Meyer was right out of Cyril Wecht’s book. If I got anything wrong, his dispute is with Cyril, not me.
As per Len Osanic’s idea of holding a conference in Hawaii, that was not my idea. But I actually like it. Len wanted to make the conference a real vacation in addition to a learning and organizing experience. One where you could actually bring your partner to, even your kids. It’s a hell of a lot more attractive venue than Dallas. Therefore, many people would not mind paying the extra money. Disagreeing with Charles, I don’t think people would pay the extra money to visit Harlem or Appalachia. But Hawaii, yes.
As per JFK being an “oligarch” who was changing at the time of his death, I have to say, when I read something like that, I really believe that everything I have done up to this time has been, as they say, “pissing in the wind”. If you have not read Mahoney’s JFK: Ordeal in Africa or my essay based largely on it, “Dodd and Dulles vs. Kennedy in Africa”, that is no fault of mine. If JFK was an oligarch or imperialist, please explain his 1952 speeches against French involvement in Vietnam, his railing against Nixon and Dulles over contemplated intervention at Dien Bien Phu, and his 1957 condemnation of the Algerian civil war. Then explain why the foreign policy establishment, including Dean Acheson, attacked him for the latter. Finally, if he was an “oligarch” and part of the establishment, this was news to CIA Director Allen Dulles. He knew JFK was not. This is why he speeded up the assassination plot against Lumumba so it occurred before Kennedy was inaugurated. Since he knew Kennedy would not OK it. For the evidence of that, just look at the picture on the cover of the Mahoney book.
Jim DiEugenio
Phil Dragoo made me aware of this this morning. I do not recall getting any e mail from Dawn about my review of Baker’s book. If I had I would have replied post haste since I have always been appreciative of her efforts in the field.
Since I also respect the work and people on DPF I will try and reply to most of the criticisms of me made here.
Let us begin with Baker’s book, the mistitled Family of Secrets. I disagree with the term “trashed”. If you read the review, you will see that I began with Baker’s discussion of George W. Bush and the Texas Air National Guard issue. I was fair and scrupulous and accurate about his work there. And I gave him credit for what he achieved. This part of the book was logically driven, had a lot of evidence, and was cogently argued, in the sense that the alternatives arrived at were done by the weight of the evidence adduced.
Now after this part, I clearly demarcate that with the other major parts of the book, this paradigm is not followed i.e. Bush’s alleged part in the JFK murder, Bush’s relationship with George DeMohrenschildt, and Bush’s alleged part in the Watergate scandal. Why should we drop these standards when an alleged big-time alternative media writer or as Dawn calls him, an MSM writer, bends to address the JFK case? I don’t and will not do such a thing. I wouldn’t do it for people like John Davis or Richard Billings, and I won’t do it for Baker. The bottom line is, and should always be: 1.) What is the sum total of your evidence? 2.) How is that sum total arrived at?
With Baker’s work on these three areas I thought the sum total was negligible, and the way he arrived at it was dubious. I was clear in the review as to why I thought this. In fact, rereading the review and listening to what I said on Black Op Radio, I actually believe most of the evidence Baker adduced in the three areas was not just negligible but silly. And further, some of it was arrived at by less than honest means e.g. his discussion of the Parrot episode. And I was very clear as to why I questioned his methodology there. I mean did Baker really think that 1.) DeMohrenschildt was going to tell his pre Haiti briefers that he was the designated Patsy’s escort? Or that he was sent to Haiti to take part in the coup attempt? In my view, the Baron did not even know at the time that this was his role in the JFK matter. 2.) Are we really to believe that Barbara Bush was somehow in on the JFK hit or the cover up just because she did not print her note about when she learned JFK was dead in her previously published children’s book? 3.) If you were a candidate for the Senate in Texas, would you stay in Dallas the night of the 22nd knowing that nobody is going to be attuned to that campaign there since they were slightly preoccupied by the events of the day? Yet this is the kind of stuff that Baker uses in is argument. Sorry if I don’t take it seriously. But in my view it does not amount to very much in comparison to what the likes of say John Newman, Tony Summers or Jim Douglass has achieved.
Now does the fact that I reject Baker’s book mean that I am somehow “protecting” the elder George Bush? Well, anyone who knows me will tell you that this is dead wrong. I consider the Bush clan—the entire clan, not just the abbreviated version Baker deals with—as a criminal enterprise. I personally believe that VP Bush should have been prosecuted for his role in Iran/Contra and possibly for the October Surprise. I believe Jeb Bush should have been prosecuted for his role in the former and for his stealing of the 2000 election for his brother. Oddly, you will not see these sentiments expressed or the reasons spelled out in Baker’s book. Which is quite weird. Maybe Baker thinks Bush the elder could be prosecuted for not staying in Dallas the night of the 22nd?
And this is a real problem I had with the book. Its the same problem I had with Tony Summers’ book on Marilyn Monroe. At the end of the day it’s a sensationalistic piece of work. It tries to make an impact by making these huge charges with what I consider pitiful back up. I for one, have had enough of this in this field. This trend goes all the way back to the pretentious and misleading books Farewell America and Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal. I for one , have had enough of it.
Baker’s work on Watergate was even worse. And I also explained why in the review. Here, he actually knowingly misrepresented his two paltry pieces of evidence to involved Bush in the scandal: the Town House slush fund, and the phone call to Nixon about John Dean. Why? Because he needed them to fulfill his agenda of George Bush being involved in Watergate and also being a top rank hidden CIA officer. I take a back seat to no one in addressing the true crime of Bush the Elder. But the list of crimes he is involved in, as mentioned above, is plentiful. Why should we have to make stuff up because Baker wants to write a best selling sensationalist book?
As per Jack White and 9-11: I will not ever buy into the work of Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear. For the reasons I stated previously I think they are meant to mislead and confound a movement that was once dedicated to fact finding and honest investigation.
As per Peter Lemkin, all that I wrote about him in piece on “Gregory Douglas” and Mary Meyer was right out of Cyril Wecht’s book. If I got anything wrong, his dispute is with Cyril, not me.
As per Len Osanic’s idea of holding a conference in Hawaii, that was not my idea. But I actually like it. Len wanted to make the conference a real vacation in addition to a learning and organizing experience. One where you could actually bring your partner to, even your kids. It’s a hell of a lot more attractive venue than Dallas. Therefore, many people would not mind paying the extra money. Disagreeing with Charles, I don’t think people would pay the extra money to visit Harlem or Appalachia. But Hawaii, yes.
As per JFK being an “oligarch” who was changing at the time of his death, I have to say, when I read something like that, I really believe that everything I have done up to this time has been, as they say, “pissing in the wind”. If you have not read Mahoney’s JFK: Ordeal in Africa or my essay based largely on it, “Dodd and Dulles vs. Kennedy in Africa”, that is no fault of mine. If JFK was an oligarch or imperialist, please explain his 1952 speeches against French involvement in Vietnam, his railing against Nixon and Dulles over contemplated intervention at Dien Bien Phu, and his 1957 condemnation of the Algerian civil war. Then explain why the foreign policy establishment, including Dean Acheson, attacked him for the latter. Finally, if he was an “oligarch” and part of the establishment, this was news to CIA Director Allen Dulles. He knew JFK was not. This is why he speeded up the assassination plot against Lumumba so it occurred before Kennedy was inaugurated. Since he knew Kennedy would not OK it. For the evidence of that, just look at the picture on the cover of the Mahoney book.
Jim DiEugenio