01-01-2011, 01:55 AM
Now, in fairness to myself and Green, will Fetzer now post the replies by myself and Green to this post by Nelson?
Or if he cannot get them since Spartacus is down, will he
at least acknowledge they are there?
No he will not. Why? Because Fetzer made one of his many huge misjudgments, almost as bad as endorsing Gregory Douglas' piece of forgery when he interviewed Nelson about this book. He actually called it the "JFK and the Unpseakable" of the LBJ field.
Which of course means that 1.) Fetzer does not know why Douglass' book is so important, 2.) He does not really understand who Kennedy was, and 3.) He sure as heck does not understand who LBJ was. It would be impossible to write such a book about LBJ since he had no degree of sophistication about foreign policy, nowhere near what JFK had. Therefore, there could be no Julius Ceasar style plot against him. Further, Douglass would never stoop to using sources like Hersh and McClellan in his book. Nelson does.
COncerning Nelson's point about Valentine's book, apparently Nelson never read Hersh's first book on My Lai, which predates the articles he notes. I did. In that book, he maintains a government cover up about what happened. As the months wore on, and it became obvious that Calley and the higher ups were being protected by the military and Nixon, even a stooge like Hersh understood the cover up could not be maintained.
He then ignores the other two areas I pointed out about the stooge Hersh ie. Watergate and the fact "The Dark Side of Camelot" was a put up job as a reaction to Stone's film. He also did not point out the three pieces of journalistic falsehoods I pointed out in Hersh's book which show it was a hatchet job.
Fetzer, forever the polemicist, left those out. I would also. Somehow Fetzer ignored the facts that Nelson borrowed liberally from not just CIA slut Hersh, but the fabricating Barr McClellan.
Fetzer is too busy proving Zapruder did not take the Z film to notice faults in scholarship like that. Or else he never read my discussions of both books.
Shame on you Jim.
Or if he cannot get them since Spartacus is down, will he
at least acknowledge they are there?
No he will not. Why? Because Fetzer made one of his many huge misjudgments, almost as bad as endorsing Gregory Douglas' piece of forgery when he interviewed Nelson about this book. He actually called it the "JFK and the Unpseakable" of the LBJ field.
Which of course means that 1.) Fetzer does not know why Douglass' book is so important, 2.) He does not really understand who Kennedy was, and 3.) He sure as heck does not understand who LBJ was. It would be impossible to write such a book about LBJ since he had no degree of sophistication about foreign policy, nowhere near what JFK had. Therefore, there could be no Julius Ceasar style plot against him. Further, Douglass would never stoop to using sources like Hersh and McClellan in his book. Nelson does.
COncerning Nelson's point about Valentine's book, apparently Nelson never read Hersh's first book on My Lai, which predates the articles he notes. I did. In that book, he maintains a government cover up about what happened. As the months wore on, and it became obvious that Calley and the higher ups were being protected by the military and Nixon, even a stooge like Hersh understood the cover up could not be maintained.
He then ignores the other two areas I pointed out about the stooge Hersh ie. Watergate and the fact "The Dark Side of Camelot" was a put up job as a reaction to Stone's film. He also did not point out the three pieces of journalistic falsehoods I pointed out in Hersh's book which show it was a hatchet job.
Fetzer, forever the polemicist, left those out. I would also. Somehow Fetzer ignored the facts that Nelson borrowed liberally from not just CIA slut Hersh, but the fabricating Barr McClellan.
Fetzer is too busy proving Zapruder did not take the Z film to notice faults in scholarship like that. Or else he never read my discussions of both books.
Shame on you Jim.