UNSPEAKABLE...

[MrMickeysMom]

Source: Letter to the Editor, Saturday, October 9, 2010, Pittsburgh Post Gazette

The 1964 Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK settled the matter for me at the time. But when in 1977 in San Salvador I was blindfolded, stripped and cuffed spread eagle to a bed in the headquarters of the national guard and interrogated in Spanish, only to hear a male voice speaking perfect English in the background, only then did I realize my own government was a likely participant in my kidnapping and expulsion from El Salvador. When the U.S. consul recovered my passport lifted from me by Salvadoran authorities who expelled me, my suspicion gained credence.
According to the Sept. 28 USA Today special issue on the 50th anniversary of JFK's election in 1960 and assassination three years later, the assassination "inspired more than 3,000 books and a number of Hollywood movies." Now, peace activist James Douglass draws upon many of them in his definitive "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters."
The suspicion has gained credence regarding why he died, and it's the unspeakable.
Also it's because Mr. Douglass notes that his work emphasizes the "spiritual context" of those terrible events that the Association of Pittsburgh Priests is bringing Mr. Douglass to Pittsburgh.
His presentation, titled: "JFK & Obama -- the Unspeakable," is set for 4 p.m., Sunday, Oct. 17, at the East Liberty Presbyterian Church. Mr. Douglass will be introduced by former Allegheny County commissioner and coroner Cyril Wecht, a Warren Commission critic. Before the program, Mr. Douglass will be available for a book signing of the newly released paperback version of his book at Borders Eastside Bookstore, Penn Circle South, from 2 to 4 p.m.
REV. BERNARD SURVIL
Greensburg

This is exactly what I've been discussing. I knew eventually I'd see something that nails it so well.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. What was "nailed so well?"

I don't understand what conclusion you have drawn from this odd PR editorial.

[MrMickeysMom]

3. What's so odd about this editorial?

Define "odd". I think it's great. It tells more about the disbelief one can understand that is associated with every institution. The most trusted source, your United States government isn't supposed to lie, yet, there doesn't seem to be one institution that isn't bound to lie.

Perhaps it's stated too clear and you're obtuse about it.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. It seems to be a disjointed mess.

His false conclusions presented as so form of proof only to end in a PR announcement. Just because he heard well-spoken English (I am assuming American), doesn't mean the government was involved in his kidnapping and torture. The return of his passport was the "nail in the coffin" to 'confirm' the government was involved, just demonstrates a lack of logical thinking and is nothing more than speculation.

"The most trusted source, your United States government isn't supposed to lie, yet, there doesn't seem to be one institution that isn't bound to lie. " This doesn't make sense. Who says the government isn't supposed to lie? And if 'all' institutions lie, why would it be a surprise that the US government lies?

"Perhaps it's stated too clear and you're obtuse about it."

Or perhaps it is a POS speculative crap posing as fact, and you're too blinded by your tunnel vision to see it because it fits your narrative?

[MrMickeysMom]

10. Or perhaps...

..."Or perhaps it is a POS speculative crap posing as fact, and you're too blinded by your tunnel vision to see it because it fits your narrative?"

Hey, if that's what this appears to be to you, a "piece of shit", then you seem to conclude that description based on your immediate recognition that it's a piece of shit. Very interesting. You have been not blinded by your tunnel vision?

:rofl: Oh, that's a good one.

So, you're just like the other posters who we can count on one hand in this forum. They swoon down like a pack of flies on OPs that don't fit their vision.

It would appear the only way to clarify your opinion it is to attend that lecture this month. Better yet, send in a question and I WILL try to attend myself. We can "both" approach the speaker with your feigned sincere concern(s) in order to dub my OP as a "speculative crap" based on the letter writer's experience. The whole point of posting about this letter to the editor was that the speaker had a much larger point to reference himself to a VERY well reviewed book on JFK, "Unspeakable". That merits my OP. Oh, by the way, I figured this or any other OP of mine would chafe the ass of the usual group of flies with a thousand eyes.

Plus, I happen to live closer to where this talk will be held than you might be. But, who knows, maybe you've heard this speaker, or Cyril Wecht talk. Maybe you've read countless books on JFK, including "Unspeakable". Would you have anything to say about that? No, not when you act so quickly to find a piece of shit.

Perhaps you can attend that same lecture. And, could we assume you won't let that get in the way of your narrative, either?

Doesn't sound like it, based on your response. So I suggest you not be a fucking hypocrite.

Buh-bye and don't forget to send your questions to me. I'll share the answers with this group if I can actually get to this lecture. So far, it looks like can make it.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. I don't know why you would ask for questions.,

You seem to be offended by them. Granted, perhaps the lecturer is not a raging hypocrite and so mired in logical fallacies that he would be able to answer simple questions, something you seemingly cannot do. I don't know if the lecture is coming to NOLA, nor do I have much interest in it, I simply was asking why this brief editorial "nailed" your conclusions and what those conclusions were. Then again, as it doesn't interfere with your narrative, it must be factual which is why it "nails" you conclusions, whatever they may be, and if like the first few sentences of this editorial PR statement, then they too are nothing more than logical misfires from someone looking for patterns in her Alphabet soup as proof that ghosts communicate.

Enjoy your lecture. Do pick remember your tinfoil hat, as the used ones at these events may have dandruff flakes in them; kinda like those dirty "helper" socks at the shoe store.

[MrMickeysMom]

18. Please read for meaning, as it is obvious you did not-

Did you actually read the comment after the Op Ed? Maybe you need glasses, or you would not have mis-quoted with, "I simply was asking why this brief editorial "nailed" your conclusions". If you are hell bent in wanting to know what specific conclusions I have outside of my disbelief in the single bullet theory then lay them out for me, sparky.

And for crying out loud- please come up with insults that can at least make sense. "Dirty helper socks" says more about you than anything else. What strange behavior. Holy cow. :crazy:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

2. So if I get kidnapped

it means the Oswald didn't act alone?
I don't get it...

[MrMickeysMom]

4. No....

That's right. You wouldn't "get it".

True to form.

[zappaman]

5. explain the connection

for all us who don't get it

[MrMickeysMom]

6. So far, you are the only one, zappaman...

... and you have no interest in having anything explained to you, based on the COUNTLESS examples of responses that litter this group.

[zappaman]

7. nevermind

judging by your other posts, it's obvious that you are once again saying 2 + 2 = 5.
:rofl:

[MrMickeysMom]

11. Wow...

That's so well based!

:P

[zappaman]

13. I believe the government lies

therefore they killed JFK and planned 9/11.
perfect logic!
thanks MrMickeys Mom!
:rofl:

[MrMickeysMom]

14. Those are your assumptions ...

... which could only come from your own "perfect logic".

You make my point. Flies with a thousand eyes apparently don't bother to converse on an OP, they just pile on looking for corn or God knows what inside their own pile of shit.

Mmmmm... good eating on your own pile, zappaman! :rofl:

[zappaman]

15. good one!

you can't explain your OP and when I interpret it to the mean one thing it could possibly mean...you still can't explain.
I wish I could live in your head...it must be like an endless SIMPSONS episode!
by the way, not one poster on this thread yet has understood your OP...DOH!
:rofl:

[MrMickeysMom]

19. Read ... that's all I can say...

Jeebus... You guys are so ready to line up like cheerleaders, it's amazing. How many agree with the OP? Who's with me? Oooh..... noes!!! Meanwhile, like complete Homers... I guess you don't read either, do you?

Trust me, I don't think you'd want to live in my head, as I deal with too many Homers on the 9/11 thread. Thank God there are some other people who frequent this forum. But, it really doesn't matter, because a few who may wish to know about this upcoming lecture got that information, didn't they? Of course, if they read further they could role their eyes (Ooops, I forgot, I could have another opportunity for another little emoticon!)

Yeah, thanks zappaman. Next time I catch the Simpsons, I'll look for Crusty and think of you.

[zappaman]

21. wow, lots of people flocking to this post to agree with you, eh?

hell, no one but you even UNDERSTANDS the op...
:rofl:

[Octafish]

22. Another useless post from zappaman.

Perfect record for futility.

[zappaman]

24. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

and flatter me all you want, but you have got a 47 year head start on me when it comes to futility!
:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

25. This is unintentional irony, right?

from Mr. 47 years of futility...you're funny, dude.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. that's quite untrue

Behind the Aegis had already asked the same question.

I agree. Even if we concede for the sake of argument that the U.S. government was complicit in the letter-writer's kidnapping -- which certainly could be true -- why would that change any rational person's mind about the JFK assassination?

Over and over again, I encounter the argument that 'once one realizes that the government lies, then one can see that the government conspired in X' -- or that 'if one doesn't see that the government conspired in X, then one must not be willing to admit that the government lies.' Neither argument makes any sense. They seem to be deployed to gloss over the weakness of the evidence that the government actually conspired in X.

If there are people who really still need to figure out that the government lies, then more power to them.

[Octafish]

23. Not everyone in government lies.

Just the traitors.

[SDuderstadt]

26. There you go...

flinging the "traitor" label again.

Any indictments in the works, dude?

[Octafish]

34. If CIA weren't still protecting their position 47 years on, I might move on, sduderstadt.

It's not sources and methods at this point. It's operations and that means command and control. Who was in control, then?

Now, who are they protecting? Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Oh, gee...

more goofy CT bullshit.

I know I'M convinced, dude.

When can we expect indictments, dude? Any chance that'll occur before every direct witness is dead?

[MrMickeysMom]

46. How is it more goofy CT bullshit, now?

I'm sure I'll be convinced when you provide those references.

Gee, I can hardly wait for them.



Why aren't they here yet?






Oh, darn it all!

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. I agree with the first part

I don't think that everyone in government lies, or that "the government lies" all the time.

I don't agree that "just the traitors" lie. But probably you didn't mean that literally.

[Octafish]

31. Interesting you should say that...

With armed operations worldwide and two illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars emptying the Treasury faster than even Wall Street can lose money, the nation is basically operating as an atomic mafia in the service of private property.

That's not just messed-up or crazy or radical. That is criminal. And corruption in office, as Adlai Stevenson, Jr. noted, is treason.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Serious question...

dude.

Are you calling President Obama a traitor?

[Octafish]

35. What do you think, sduderstadt?

No. I'm talking about the people who put him in this position. Ever hear of George W Bush? He's a warmonger. So's his daddy, George Herbert Walker Bush. His daddy, Prescott Sheldon Bush, was a warmonger who even financed Hitler and helped support the coup against FDR.

They, and the people they serve, make money off war. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Yes, I'm certain that the Bushes are...

the epicenter of everything evil, dude.

The problem for you is that even the Anti-Defamation League has debunked your stupid claims about the Bush family and the Nazi's. It's a really stupid stretch to claim Prescott Bush "financed Hitler", dude. Despite the frequency of your claims, 1 + 2 will never equal 4.

You really need to do something about your Bush Derangement Syndrome, dude.

[Octafish]

38. Prescott S. Bush made a fortune financing the NAZIs, sduderstadt.

FYI: He wasn't alone, but Prescott Bush did finance Hitler.

Do you defend the Bushes full-time, sduderstadt?

[SDuderstadt]

39. "Do you defend the Bushes full-time"

Octafish "Logic":

Spmeone who has publicly called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of George W. Bush is defending "the Bushes full-time". Nice try at psychic foreclosure, dude. Unfortunately, your smear did not work as nearly everyone of them does not work. Nice try, though.

As we have discussed before, I despise the Bush family. At the same time, however, I will defend anyone, including people I despise, from outright smears. I'd even defend you from a smear, dude. In the meantime, I ask again: is there ANYONE you won't smear in your pursuit of the "truth", dude?

I am well aware of Loftus' accusations. I am also aware that no less than the Anti-Defamation League has consistently debunked this idiotic myth. I am well aware of Prescott Bush, Fritz Thyssen and Union Bank. The problem for you continues to be that 1+2 Still does not equal 4, dude, no matter how many times you insist it does.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

Bush and the Union Banking Corporation Bush was one of seven directors of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank controlled by the Thyssen family, which was seized in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act as being owned by "enemy aliens." The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war, then returned afterward.

In an article relying on conspiracy theorist John Buchanan's work, The Guardian stated that the company formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.<3> The Alien Property Custodian records state "Whether all or part of the funds held by Union Banking Corporation, or companies associated with it, belong to Fritz Thyssen could not be established in this investigation."<4>
In 2003, the Anti-Defamation League said:
“ Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated. Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.<3><5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#Bush_and_the_Union_Banking_Corporation

I read your hysterical allegations when you are blustering about, click on the links you provide, then read the supposedly corroborating your goofy claims. After reading through the material, I invariably scratch my head and say to myself, "Wait a minute...that doesn't prove Octafish's claim". Again, as I have said before, 1+2 STILL does not equal 4, dude. However, I stand solidly behind your right to waste your life as you see fit.

[Octafish]

40. So you say, but you never actually do show a link to where you did, sduderstadt.

FYI: Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed

PS: Wikipedia? LMAO. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Dude...

we've had this conversation before, remember? You acknowledged that I did, in fact, call for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of George W. Bush, then you tried to move the goalposts by declaring that I had done nothing to make that happen. Do you remember now? Don't make me embarrass you in front of your little groupies.

As far as the Wikipedia link goes, did you notice that it had links to the Anti-Defamation League's debunking of the "Bushes are Nazis" CT bullshit? Beyond that, I find it hilarious that you question Wikipedia as a source while, at the same time uncritically accepting goofy CT bullshit.

[Octafish]

43. Here's the link to where you said you did, you didn't, sduderstadt.

Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have yet to post anything in support of your contention. Remember, Dude?

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...

you challenged to show where I had ever called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of George W. Bush. When I actually provided where I had called for it, your reply was that "those are just your words". You're laughable, dude. Are you really claiming that calling for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of George W. Bush is somehow not calling for it? Please explain your "logic".

[Octafish]

47. You saying something is not the same as actually doing something, sduderstadt.

The links you provided said nothing about Bush. That's why I bothered to visit each of them.

Not. One. Link. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Dude...

This is getting stupid. You challenged me to show where I called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of George W. Bush. I provided several examples of where I did just that. I have no idea what your claim is now, but it appears to be that I did not provide "links" that justified why Bush should be indicted, prosecuted and convicted.

Most people, when shown that the claim they were challenging is, indeed, true, would acknowledge it. But, not you...you just raise the bar and move the goalposts. I don't, at this point, know precisely what your game is, but your gameplaying is getting tiring, dude. At some point, you're going to have to realize that, simply because someone does not buy your goofy, unproven CT bullshit, does not make them a Bush-lover, dude. Maybe you think you're the only one who's ever heard of Gen. Smedley Butler and the Business Plot, but I studied it in undergraduate school. As usual, your "proof" that Prescott Bush was involved is some thinly sourced fantasy that sounds about as scholarly as one of your tirades.

As I have said before, I will take the Anti-Defamation League's debunking of attempts to cast Prescott Bush as some sort of Nazi wanna-be over your CT nonsense anyday. I really despise the RW's readiness to engage in character assassination to achieve their political aims. I despise it even much more when someone from our side does it. Just being on the right side does not salvage your reputation for engaging in such questionable tactics, dude. The funniest thing is that all your prattling about the truth belies your willingness to bend it beyond recognition to suit your purposes. When you come up with some hard proof (not more goofy CT bullshit) of your delusions, let us know. In the meantime, you might want to go study the logical fallacy known as "false certainty", dude.

[zappaman]

42. bloviate all you want, Octafish

As usual, you demonstrate that your record of futility is second to none!


From The Guardian 2004
"While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war."

So in the absence of any tangible evidence, Prescott Bush is connected to Hitler via the fact that he worked for one bank and later directed another; both of which were used by Fritz Thyssen in his efforts to fund the Nazi Party in the 20s and early 30s.

It is not as if this story is new, or has not already been debunked before...

"President Bush owes his family inheritance to Adolf Hitler, and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, helped finance the Nazi rise to power in Germany.
These stories had circulated for years but resurfaced on May 13, 2003, in the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma, headlined, "Bush Family Funded Adolf Hitler." As the Associated Press reports, Prescott had been on the board of Union Banking Corp., whose majority owner, the Thyssen family of Germany, indeed had funded the Nazis against a feared communist takeover of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Family leader Fritz Thyssen broke with Hitler over the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews, was stripped of his citizenship and fortune, and was in a Nazi prison at the time the elder Bush sat on that board. There is no evidence that Prescott Bush, who owned just one share of Union Banking, had anything to do with the Thyssen political work in Germany.
Some critics go even further to accuse the president of having inherited ill-gotten profits from a Nazi slave-labor operation near the Auschwitz death camp in Poland. But the Polish company in which Prescott Bush had an interest, Silesian-American Corp., was stolen by the Nazis in 1939, the year before Auschwitz was built. Discussing this controversy, columnist Joe Conason of the New York Observer writes, "Henry Ford was a Nazi collaborator. Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a Nazi sympathizer. Unless additional information emerges to indict him, Prescott Bush Sr. was neither. To misuse such terms for political advantage against his grandson is to trivialize very grave offenses."

:rofl:

[Octafish]

48. So is this thread where you learned about Prescott Bush, zappaman?

Laugh all you want, zappaman. You should be ashamed this is news to you: Prescott Bush made his fortune off trading with the NAZIs -- even after Germany declared war on the United States.

Here's more news for you:

Prescott Bush was one of the parties who plotted to overthrow FDR.

Live and learn. So easy, even you can do it, zappaman.

[zappaman]

50. bloviate all you want, Octafish

I guess no one was around to read this previous post for you or you just missed it while doing all your "detectiving".

"While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war."

So in the absence of any tangible evidence, Prescott Bush is connected to Hitler via the fact that he worked for one bank and later directed another; both of which were used by Fritz Thyssen in his efforts to fund the Nazi Party in the 20s and early 30s.

It is not as if this story is new, or has not already been debunked before...

"President Bush owes his family inheritance to Adolf Hitler, and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, helped finance the Nazi rise to power in Germany.
These stories had circulated for years but resurfaced on May 13, 2003, in the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma, headlined, "Bush Family Funded Adolf Hitler." As the Associated Press reports, Prescott had been on the board of Union Banking Corp., whose majority owner, the Thyssen family of Germany, indeed had funded the Nazis against a feared communist takeover of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Family leader Fritz Thyssen broke with Hitler over the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews, was stripped of his citizenship and fortune, and was in a Nazi prison at the time the elder Bush sat on that board. There is no evidence that Prescott Bush, who owned just one share of Union Banking, had anything to do with the Thyssen political work in Germany.
Some critics go even further to accuse the president of having inherited ill-gotten profits from a Nazi slave-labor operation near the Auschwitz death camp in Poland. But the Polish company in which Prescott Bush had an interest, Silesian-American Corp., was stolen by the Nazis in 1939, the year before Auschwitz was built. Discussing this controversy, columnist Joe Conason of the New York Observer writes, "Henry Ford was a Nazi collaborator. Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a Nazi sympathizer. Unless additional information emerges to indict him, Prescott Bush Sr. was neither. To misuse such terms for political advantage against his grandson is to trivialize very grave offenses."

But keep posting bullshit, Blofish. No reason to stop your unbeatable record of futility now.
tick....tick....

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Octafish]

12. Brought up James Douglass and John Newman at a cocktail party.

The documentary on Daniel Ellsberg, "The Most Dangerous Man in America," recently aired and was a topic of conversation. In the movie, Ellsberg reported presidents since Truman had lied to America regarding our involvement in Vietnam.

I brought up the fact John Newman discovered big gaps in the Pentagon Papers covering 1961-1963 and how then-Army Major John M. Newman used his capacities as an active-duty officer and historian to chronicle that period. He filled in the missing paper trail and found that the Pentagon and CIA lied to President Kennedy regarding the situation in Vietnman and that the President had ordered a complete pull-out from that country's civil war.

I also brought up James Douglass and "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." As you know, Douglass ties together the existing paper trail to show Kennedy was undergoing a transformation from Cold Warrior to a peace president.

What Ellsberg said about Douglass:

"Douglass presents, brilliantly, an unfamiliar yet thoroughly convincing account of a series of creditable decisions of John F. Kennedy—at odds with his initial Cold War stance—that earned him the secret distrust and hatred of hard-liners among the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA. Did this suspicion and rage lead directly to his murder by agents of these institutions, as Douglass concludes? Many readers who are not yet convinced of this ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ by Douglass’s prosecutorial indictment will find themselves, perhaps—like myself—for the first time, compelled to call for an authoritative criminal investigation. Recent events give all the more urgency to learning what such an inquiry can teach us about how, by whom, and in whose interests this country is run."

The great DUer MinM started a most informative thread on the book.

The people at the party had not heard of either book. Several said they were going to buy them.

[MrMickeysMom]

16. Excellent point and link... Thanks, Octafish.

Of course, Cyril Wecht who was a critic of the Warren Commission's farce has been involved, as has Pittsburgh in conferences and never letting the question of who was behind the murder of JFK. I understand we've had conferences here, though I've never been able to attend (invited Arlen Specter a few years back) to address the merit of proper investigation. The questions have never gone away. Why would they? That's why this missive in the Op Ed interests me.

I've heard of both books, but have only read excerpts of Douglass book as it was also discussed on Black Op Radio (heard Thursday nights htttp:www.blackopradio.com )

Thanks to MinM, of course.

[MrMickeysMom]

27. Here's a primer review of the book for those thinking of going Oct 17th

http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

It's a pretty good review by Jim DiEugenio. In excerpt -

in the first chapter, Douglass is describing the Cuban Missile Crisis at length (using the newest transcription of the secretly recorded tapes by Sheldon Stern.) He then segues to Kennedy's American University speech. At this point, Douglass then introduces the figure of Lee Harvey Oswald and his relation to the U-2 (p. 37). This is beautifully done because he has been specifically discussing the U-2 flights over Cuba during the Missile Crisis, and he subliminally matches both Kennedy and Oswald in their most extreme Cold War backdrops. He then switches back to the American University speech, contrasting its rather non-descript reception in the New York Times with its joyous welcome in Russia, thus showing that Kennedy's efforts for détente were more appreciated by his presumed enemy than by the domestic pundit class.

[Stanchetalarooni]

29. I read this book this summer.

It is quite concise and fact filled.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-stone/jfk-and-the-unspeakable_b_243924.html
Today, more than 45 years later, profound doubts persist about how President Kennedy was killed and why. My film JFK was a metaphor for all those doubts, suspicions and unanswered questions. Now an extraordinary new book offers the best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance. That book is James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. It is a book that deserves the attention of all Americans; it is one of those rare books that, by helping us understand our history, has the power to change it.

The subtitle sums up Douglass's purpose: Why He Died and Why it Matters. In his beautifully written and exhaustively researched treatment, Douglass lays out the "motive" for Kennedy's assassination. Simply, he traces a process of steady conversion by Kennedy from his origins as a traditional Cold Warrior to his determination to pull the world back from the edge of destruction.

All of these steps caused him to be regarded as a virtual traitor by elements of the military-intelligence community. These were the forces that planned and carried out his assassination. Kennedy himself said, in 1962, after he read Seven Days in May, which is about a military coup in the United States, that if he had another Bay of Pigs, the same thing could happen to him. Well, he did have another "Bay of Pigs"; he had several. And I think Kennedy prophesied his own death with those words.

[MrMickeysMom]

32. I guess I'm going to attend the interview, then...

It would be a lost opportunity to miss it.

Thanks for the link. If I can ever finish the book I'm reading on Lincoln, a great follow up would be Unspeakable, I'm thinking.