Halberstam's Vietnam Cover up book Exposed: Part 2

[Lauren Johnson]

The "he" does refer to Halberstam, and why Castro was eliminated by the Dallas assassination was because of the wounding, accidental or deliberate, of Connally.

OK, I get it.

The Governor was willing to be in the vehicle along with Nellie and Jackie where the assassination took place in order to give himself an alibi, but was not willing to die silently when Richard Cain - you remember the guy who was gunned down in Rose's Restaurant in Chicago when Watergate was becoming completely out of control, and his assassin was looking for "the package" aka the Manlicker-Carcano rifle which was not test fired in preparation for the assassination.

That is one heckofa run-on sentence.

As for how any of this fits into Jim D.'S claims, I shall look into further, and provide an answer later.

My suggestion is that you are tacitly admitting that Halberstam knew more than what he wrote--a lot more. But he didn't want to write it. Therefore, his book is indeed guilty of being what Jim says it is: disinformation. At least, broadly, you agree with him.

My basic view about Halberstam's book is that he was so disgusted in researching it that he just wanted to wash his hands of the whole mess when writing it. Certainly don't think that Halberstam intended to scapegoat LBJ in the conspiracy which assassinated JFK or the stoking up of the war in Vietnam, many of the details of which he was not aware of.

Once again, you are assigning motive for DH's disinformation. It isn't the same as Jim D's, but at least I find some agreement between you two. You both are accusing him in some fashion of the same poor journalistic practice: dishonesty.

BTW, I am greatly appreciative of Jim's work. Also, I have read JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass about three times now front to back. It would take a lot to persuade me to reject his arguments.