Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, Jim, some people can plan past their expectations for their next meal, and LBJ was clearly among them. For whatever reason, you seem to regard the limits of your own imagination as the boundaries of historical events. You should know that Stuart Symington was JFK's choice of a running mate. The invitation was extended to him and he went to bed in the belief he would run with JFK. Things changed, however, when Lyndon and his cronies, including Speaker Rayburn, used information they had obtained from J. Edgar about his sexual escapades to force Jack to change his mind. Telling Stu that things had changed, as I understand it, was one of the most regrettable events of his life--one that was fraught with tragic consequences. The argument, of course, was that if his escapades were publicized, his prospects for the presidency would have been buried, so he "bit the bullet"--literally, as it worked out. It would be a good thing if you were more conscientious about your own research and spent less time advancing false causes, of which you champion more than your fair share (against the CIA at the Pentagon, the heroic contributions of Seymour Hersh, and the role of LBJ in the assassination of JFK). That's three strikes, Jim! You can do better.

This is another point I did not bring up: CD's quote from p. 576 clearly states that LBJ had been dreaming up this plot for almost four years!

This was before Kennedy became president!!! Before LBJ became VP!!

This is what I mean about these solipsistic books that are written from a preconceived viewpoint.

And then Fetzer trots out Howard Hunt again. I wonder if Fetzer actually knows the real story behind Hunt's phony "confession" and the whole ersatz article in Rolling Stone? Probably not. Because Fetzer does not discriminate in finding sources. That article is sourced of course to Saint John Hunt. Seamus Coogan showed who this guy really was in his 1.) Alex Jones series, and 2.) His discussion of Jesse Ventura's special. Suffice it to say, there is another side to this story which Fetzer obviously does not care about. But its much more convincing and has much more documentation to it than Saint John's.

As I proved, Saint John lied to Rolling Stone. He could not have dumped the electronic surveillance stuff in a river with his father, as he told the magazine. Why? Two reasons. It was not Hunt who drove home the electronics stuff--since he was not directly involved with the taping. Alfred Baldwin, McCord's assistant drove the stuff to McCord's house that night. And Hunt did not go home that night right after the arrests. He got home very late since he first went to his office at the White House, and then went to the Mullen Company. These facts are all in Jim Hougan's masterful book Secret Agenda. Which, apparently, Fetzer has not read. Even though it has been out since 1984.

The idea that Sturgis would go to Hunt and ask him to become involved is ludicrous. For the simple reason that Sturgis had always been below Hunt in the chain of command. But what this fiction device does is 1.) Establishes that Hunt had some knowledge of a phony plot, and 2.) Keeps him out of it, and 3.) Keeps out the true uper echelon of the operational part of the conspiracy, i.e. Helms, Dulles, Angleton. Ha Ha Ha. The idea that anyone with any experience in the field would fall for this deception is stunning. It is clearly Howard getting a last laugh at Kennedy--a man he completely despised--and the researchers, like Weberman, who have pursued him ever since 1975.

So Jim, please don't bring up this motely crew again. You know, that twice convicted convict and con man Billy Sol Estes who says he has tapes of Carter explaining the plot to him. Yeah, sure, and he went to jail twice rather than playing them in court. Or Ruby, who everyone knows was being drugged by Jolly West. Or Madeleine Brown, who ended up subscribing to that ever enveloping Murchison assassination cabal, or McClellan who actually has Oswald on the sixth floor firing away.

This is what I mean by a tradition of the best the research community has to offer from Weisberg to Douglass. None of the above fits into that tradition. Just like Nelson's book does not. And if we lead with this at the 50th, we are lost.