08-05-2011, 07:02 AM
I am still involved in researching your hatchet jobs on the above.
I am just appalled about what you have written about James W. Douglas's JFK and the Unspeakable. You have picked up every little bit about LBJ you can find, put it completely out of context, and implied repeatedly - what you have apparently never done about anyone else - that he was the mastermind of the JFK assassination.
For example, about the ending of William Attwood's attempt to normalize relations with Castro, you quoted from the book: "By December 17th, it was clear that President Johnson was brushing it all aisde. Retroactively, Attwood came to conclude that it had already ended in Dealey Plaza. He finalized his thoughts about the excellent progress made up to this point with this: 'There is no doubt in my mind. If there had been no assassination we probably would have moved into negotiations leading towards normalization of relations with Cuba.' (p. 177)"
This was inevitable, given the help that Havana and Moscow had given the American plotters - what was best illustrated by the provocative letter that LHO had apparently written to the Soviets about wanting to go back there, and Johnson was forced to bury so that there would not be a showdown with the communists over Cuba after the assassination. Of course, you go along with Douglas in implying that this too showed LBJ being behind the Dallas killing.
About the Laos settlement that JFK arranged, you stated: "The Pentagon, the CIA, Lyndon Johnson and the Nhu brothers all looked askance at Laos as a model for Vietnam."
Of course, if you had read Halberstam correctly, you would know and should write that LBJ was the leading, successful opponent of Ike's last minute attemp to save the French at Diienbienphu. (p. 136ff.) LBJ did not want the USA to play policeman in Southeast Asia.
Still you concluded about Douglas's terrible book. "It is the best book in the field since Breach of Trust."
For the whole terrible review, posters should consult this link:
http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html
Once I have looked at these books you have so commended, finished going through the rest of the Halberstam book, read closely your aricles about it, and written my conclusions about your work, then I shall provide the evidence you want about the consequences of the wounding, accidental or deliberate, of Connally.
I am just appalled about what you have written about James W. Douglas's JFK and the Unspeakable. You have picked up every little bit about LBJ you can find, put it completely out of context, and implied repeatedly - what you have apparently never done about anyone else - that he was the mastermind of the JFK assassination.
For example, about the ending of William Attwood's attempt to normalize relations with Castro, you quoted from the book: "By December 17th, it was clear that President Johnson was brushing it all aisde. Retroactively, Attwood came to conclude that it had already ended in Dealey Plaza. He finalized his thoughts about the excellent progress made up to this point with this: 'There is no doubt in my mind. If there had been no assassination we probably would have moved into negotiations leading towards normalization of relations with Cuba.' (p. 177)"
This was inevitable, given the help that Havana and Moscow had given the American plotters - what was best illustrated by the provocative letter that LHO had apparently written to the Soviets about wanting to go back there, and Johnson was forced to bury so that there would not be a showdown with the communists over Cuba after the assassination. Of course, you go along with Douglas in implying that this too showed LBJ being behind the Dallas killing.
About the Laos settlement that JFK arranged, you stated: "The Pentagon, the CIA, Lyndon Johnson and the Nhu brothers all looked askance at Laos as a model for Vietnam."
Of course, if you had read Halberstam correctly, you would know and should write that LBJ was the leading, successful opponent of Ike's last minute attemp to save the French at Diienbienphu. (p. 136ff.) LBJ did not want the USA to play policeman in Southeast Asia.
Still you concluded about Douglas's terrible book. "It is the best book in the field since Breach of Trust."
For the whole terrible review, posters should consult this link:
http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html
Once I have looked at these books you have so commended, finished going through the rest of the Halberstam book, read closely your aricles about it, and written my conclusions about your work, then I shall provide the evidence you want about the consequences of the wounding, accidental or deliberate, of Connally.