1,640 of 1,735 people found the following review helpful
And We Are All Mortal,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Hardcover)
In James W. Douglass' outstanding new book, "JFK and the Unspeakable," the author explains the title in his introduction. Coined by spiritual writer Thomas Merton, The Unspeakable refers to "an evil whose depth and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe." Regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Unspeakable succeeded due to deniability by the nation's citizens of the horrifying truth of the event and to plausible deniability by the government agencies responsible for the murder. (Vincent Bugliosi's recent fictional paperweight is a perfect example of the plausible deniability that allows the Unspeakable to thrive.)
Many excellent books have proven that the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy. Douglass verifies the certainty of the conspiracy and, as the subtitle of the book states, explains "Why He Died and Why It Matters." He scrutinizes the historical facts surrounding the assassination, from the creation of the CIA to the gradual obliteration of the freedoms upon which this nation was founded.
This book is primarily the story of John F. Kennedy who changes from a Cold Warrior to an altruistic leader willing to risk his life to ensure that the world's children will not become victims of a nuclear catastrophe. Equal time is spent on JFK's presidency as on the assassination but one of the many rewards of this book is the author's capacity to show the relationship between his policies and his death. And the book is a tragedy because it gradually becomes obvious that each step he makes toward peace steadily increases the hatred of his enemies who will eventually betray him.
It is also the story of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Moved around the country like a pawn by government agencies (as was the second "Oswald"), he was being set up as the scapegoat. Enter some despicable characters, including David Atlee Philips, James Hosty and, of course, Michael and Ruth Paine. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union was being set up as the evil empire behind the assassination, along with its satellite Cuba.
Douglass credibly illustrates the origin of the Crime of the Century. During President Truman's administration, the CIA was empowered to be a paramilitary organization with unlimited powers. Truman's successor, President Eisenhower, fell out of favor with the CIA when he planned a summit meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. This was cancelled after a U.S. spy plane crashed in Russia. Eisenhower had reportedly ordered such flights cancelled and had his suspicions about who had ruined his peace plan. He subsequently issued his warning about the "military industrial complex" in his farewell address. But he didn't defy "this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry." He left that task to his successor, JFK.
The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was planned by the CIA to regain control of the island and to re-open the casinos for organized crime. President Kennedy refused to provide air support for the Cuban brigade because he knew that he had been lied to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the CIA; the invasion had been designed to fail without U.S. support but they hadn't told this to JFK who refused to fall into their trap. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK once again enraged the CIA and the Joint Chiefs by resisting their tremendous pressure on him to take military action which would have led to nuclear war.
Following that crisis, JFK became intent on ending the Cold War by establishing a peaceful relationship with the Soviet Union. However, many CIA and Pentagon personnel believed that it was better to be "dead than red" and that it was preferable to destroy civilization rather than let the Communists rule. They also knew that war generated billions of dollars into the arms industry. As a result, they would repeatedly subvert the President's policies and isolate him within his own government. Enter some more despicable characters: Richard Bissell, Charles Cabell, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lyman Lemnitzer, Curtis LeMay and perhaps the most contemptible of all, Allen Dulles. Ironically, JFK learned to trust Khrushchev more than people within his own government.
At American University on June 10, 1963, JFK spoke about his desire for world peace. He communicated his resolve to form a new relationship with Khrushchev. He spoke about the necessity of a pursuit toward disarmament. He related his intentions to establish a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He acknowledged his country's past faults and recognized the Russian people as wanting peace as much as the American people. "And we are all mortal," he stated. Though this extremely important speech was ignored in the United States, it was disseminated throughout the Soviet Union, per order of Khrushchev, who was prepared to respond favorably to JFK's peace initiative. The speech also certified JFK's death warrant. With so many powerful enemies opposing his policies and hating him, JFK didn't have a chance as he was being maneuvered into the crossfire in Dallas.
President Kennedy was aware of the power of his enemies and he knew the dangers facing him. But he persevered and mandated that all U.S. personnel would be withdrawn from Vietnam; he was determined to never send in combat troops even if this meant defeat. He also refused to intervene militarily in Laos. He exchanged private letters with Khrushchev, which infuriated the CIA, and secretly initiated plans to attain rapproachement with Cuba, which further incensed the Agency. Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA hated as intensely as it hated Kennedy, was equally eager to begin an American-Cuba dialogue. In fact, Castro was meeting with a JFK representative when the President was murdered. JFK died a martyr and the forces of evil that killed him also killed his vision of peace.
Lyndon Johnson, the CIA's ally, assumed the presidency. He cancelled talks with Khrushchev and refused Castro's pleas to continue the dialogue. He reversed JFK's withdrawal plan from Vietnam as well as his plan to neutralize Laos. The military industrial complex took control of the country. The policy of plausible deniability led the way to assassinations of foreign leaders, the overthrowing of foreign governments and horrors committed all over the globe. If JFK had not been murdered, we would not have had the prolongation of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the purported War on Terror and the steady moral deterioration of America. Interestingly, one month after JFK's assassination, President Truman wrote an article for The Washington Post cautioning about the threat of the CIA taking over America.
The author meticulously examines the evidence and draws conclusions which ring with unassailable truth: (1) The CIA coordinated and implemented he assassination of President Kennedy, an act of treason which destroyed democracy in the U.S. (2) The Warren Commission was created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American people. (3)There has been a continued cover-up by successive administrations and their stooges in the mass media. (4)The murder of JFK is directly related to the current domination of the American people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme evil.
This is an exceptional book that will be used by future historians to determine the truth about the assassination and how it changed America. And it will also be used to honor John F. Kennedy as a courageous president who believed in doing God's work on earth. In doing so, he came into conflict with the Unspeakable and his life was extinguished.
Tracked by 12 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 792 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 11, 2008 7:51:37 AM PST
James Joyce says:
Thank you. You haave convinced me that I must read this book.
Posted on Nov 23, 2008 5:53:24 PM PST
Wayne A. says:
The last four or five Kennedy assassination books I've read respectively, comprehensively, and painstakingly proved that the CIA did it, Castro did it, the Mob did it, French drug dealers and right-wingers did it, etc. One book even "proved" pretty convincingly that the last shot was accidentally fired by a Secret Service agent. Oh, yet another had extraordinary evidence linking Oswald and Ruby to covert bio-weapons research and the creation of the AIDS virus. I'm not being ironic in any respect here.
Most of these books each have dozens upon dozens of five-star reviews with a handful of one-star comments. The contents of all these reviews, good and bad, are virtually indistinguishable: the five-star reviewers claim the book they're reviewing pretty much cinches it; the one-star reviewers, without any attempt at detailed argument, say it's all bunk, and usually in one or two spare and insulting lines. The "well-researched" evidence of all these books, if laid out together, constitutes a very great enigma--everybody can't be right otherwise there were twenty or thirty assassins at Dealy Plaza. I notice though that generally people go for the theory that verifies the world-view they'd pretty much already adapted.
Some wise-guy once said (in regard to the human mind), "What the Believer believes, the Prover proves."
Posted on Dec 2, 2008 10:44:58 AM PST
Earl Hazell says:
This is an absolutely brilliant review that is completely behind my future purchase of this book. You do a great service by putting your support for such pertinent material in such painstakingly measured and eloquent words. Thanks.
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2008 5:50:49 AM PST
Patrick Collins says:
Good post WTA. Of course these crack assassins missed once, hit JFK in the back and only by a millimetre found their target (the fatal head shot striking the head approx 2 inches below the top of the hair - at 80 yards approx that equates to a fraction of a movement up and the shot would have missed). Nice shooting at a car travelling away at 8 miles per hour with little or no left to right or right to left tracking. Oh yes and with s 4x scope - a visual distance of some 20 yards.
Nigel Turner did a great job with The Men Who Killed Kennedy - only to find that the next day in the French papers they had found the three assassins he named - one was on a submarine on Nov 22nd 1963, one was blind in one eye and one was dead or in prison. There must be some 100 plus named assassins now. 500 books just on the assassination and further 1500 that contain some information on the assassination. Many of them offering different theories on who did it - all of them right of course !
Of course we all know its impossible for a 24 year old ex marine sharpshooter to kill another human being riding in an open top car dont we. Hinckley never shot Reagan and John Lennon lives on a desert island somewhere.
I thought this book was awful. Full of conjecture and very little evidence to show any hint of conpsiracy in this case. Just like every other pro conspiract work on the case - almost without exception.
Posted on Dec 23, 2008 9:37:04 PM PST
E. Perkins says:
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2008 7:59:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 26, 2008 8:01:06 AM PST
PA reviewer says:
E. Perkins you bring up the Warren Commission report. J. Edgar Hoover himself said of the report that "finding out the truth isn't what's important here, what's important is getting something out there that reassures the American public that it was a lone assassin." It was a whitewash, 26 volumes of calculated obfuscation.
As far as all of the outlandish "competing" conspiracy theories, that is in large part the deliberate work of the CIA itself. They WANT as many goofy conspiracy theories swirling around as possible to muddy the issue, muddy the obvious. Russians, mafia, etc. More obfuscation. It was the CIA, with LBJ complicit. Anybody with any rudimentary ability to separate the wheat from the chaff can see that.
Posted on Jan 2, 2009 8:18:05 PM PST
Edward C. Foge says:
This may be one of the best book reviews that I have ever read. It speaks of JFK's vision, what that vision was up against, who opposed the President and why they did. Thank you Mr. Anez for this insightful review, you have just convinced me to add yet one book to my ever growing library of JFK material.
Posted on Jan 6, 2009 10:22:06 AM PST
Scott Beckes says:
We won't ever know who did it. The refusal of mainstream journalists to properly investigate the crime, along with the failure of proper legal investigation will ensure that the cover up lasts well into the next century and beyond.
I can tell you one thing for sure. Lee Harvey Oswald was completely incapable of accomplishing the assassination. He shot 1 point above qualification his last year in the Marine Corps, and that was versus stationary targets. Only a trained sniper could hit a target that was moving down and away from the shooter like the President's limousine. Anyone who has been in the United States military would know that a person who was a radar operator on active duty would not have the skills and abilities to allow for the elevation and movement of the target in this case. Not to mention the fact that he was using possibly the most useless rifle in the history of warfare.
Other than that, nothing really can be said for sure about the assassination. There is absolutely no way a jury could have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty. This was proven by Garrison, even though he did not get a conviction of Clay Shaw, the jury admitted that they were completely convinced that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy.
You can be pretty sure that the government has well and truly buried this case beneath a blizzard of disinformation
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2009 8:01:11 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2009 11:26:07 AM PST
Patrick Collins says:
Scott, whilst I have respect for well reasoned arguments for conspiracy in this case and indeed welcome thorough investigation - to this day, I find it hard to read comments such as yours without feeling frustration. You no doubt have faith in your convictions and post your comments in good faith, but where on earth are you getting your information ? Or should I say not getting your information ! And how can we deduce from Oswald's skills as a radar operator that he was not capable of firing a rifle with reasonable accuracy ! That is ludicrous and I really frankly despair at this kind of logic. Its rather like saying your IT Manager can't be a good golfer.
Let me address your points - and I quote "I can tell you one thing for sure. Lee Harvey Oswald was completely incapable of accomplishing the assassination." Says who ? You ? On what basis do you make this statement - some glib cursory evaluation of the evidence in this case coupled with your own relevent life experiences (perhaps in the military ?) no doubt ? Does this qualify you to make a reasoned judgment ? I doubt it - you are entitled to your opinion of course.
Oswald was in fact a competent shot - the record is there for any reader here to review. Scott you are being selective. I doubt you will have read "My Brother Lee" by Robert Oswald. Try and find a copy - it is rare however. You will find that Oswald from a young age demonstrated considerable skill with a rifle. As a marine he qualified as marksman. Robert will tell you things that you will not find in any other book about his brothers characteristics.
Tracking a moving car at approx 8 to 11 miles per hour moving away and almost in a straight line is not difficult for a trained rifleman. I accept it may have been a relatively difficult shot for Oswald (or any would be non expert assassin), but do not make the mistake of concluding therefore it was not possible. Oswald may have failed to pull off the assassination 9 times out of ten. That does not exclude its possibility.
Using the MC attached scope the magnification was x 4. Kennedy would have appeared to be at some 15 yards to 25 yards through the scope - if used.
Quote "Other than that, nothing really can be said for sure about the assassination." What complete tripe. There are thousands of things that can be said for sure about the assassination.Let me give you one example ! If there was a missed shot (almost certainly there was - James Tague wound) and as 95% of the witnesses said there were THREE shots and we know at least two shots hit JFK and Connally (as in 1 fatal and 1 non fatal to two men), using the Zapruder film as a time line we can calculate to almost a certainty the plausible scenarios regarding the timing of the shots. Why do I refer to this - because your contention that Oswald could not have pulled off the shooting is in part and significantly down to YOUR interpretation of the degree of difficulty of the shooting and YOUR interpretation of Oswald's capability - yes ?
First shot caused Kennedy or Kennedy and Connally wounds, second shot missed, third shot fatal. Total time approx 5 seconds - giving just under 5 seconds to fire shots two and three - tight, but achievable. Note 1 shot every 2.3 seconds using scope or 1 shot every 1.7 seconds using iron sites.
Scenario 2 - deemed entirely plausible by recent research (do your homework Scott)
First shot misses at Z frame 160.
Second shot causes non fatal wounds at Z224 (approx)
Third shot fatal at Z313. Total time 8.4 seconds - allowing approx EIGHT seconds to fire shots two and three.
Zapruder's camera ran 18.3 frames per second.
An interesting fact - Oswald dry fired the rifle regularly, practicing hundreds of times a day on occasions on his New Orleans apt balcony.
The MC rifle was an effective WW2 weapon and was responsible for thousands of deaths. Granted Oswald's weapon was not 100% in respect of condition and the scope was slightly miss aligned (interestingly above and to the right of target). The scope of course could have been moved slightly when the rifle was dropped on the 6th floor.
So Scott - book number 2 Henry Bloomgarden "The Gun".. Rare and quite expensive - but a library should be able to get you a copy. Here you will be appraised of the rifles history and capabilities by someone who knows what they are talking about.
Recent Discovery Channel documentaries using British rifleman Michael Yardley demonstrate that the rifle could have been fired 3 times and hit a moving target 2 or even 3 times within the allotted time scale.
And finally no one can know what Oswald thought on that day at that specific time - how attuned his senses were, whether he was hesitant or what went through his mind in the last final seconds, if he had doubts for example. It does not preclude the scenario in which he was the sole assassin. And indeed the evidence as we see it - indicates very strongly that he was.
Two very quick points - there are several professional journalists who have approached this subject and published. One is Anthony Summers another is Henry Hurt. In the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald by London Weekend Television using the real witnesses and participants in this case (Buell Wesley Frazier, Ruth Pain, Johnny Calvin Brewer etc), a jury did return a verdict of guilty. Ref your comments about the Garrison investigation and that jury - where they appraised of the facts do you think ? Did they see high quality stills of Zapruder frames Z312 and 313 which show JFK's head blown forwards 2.5 inches in1/18th of a second ? Did they understand wound ballistics ? I don't think so.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2009 7:18:26 AM PST
Charles W. Anderson says:
"Why won't you just believe your own government (The Warren Commission Report) and its spokespersons. They had all the information, they were your representatives, and they were acting in your best interests. You can believe that, can't you?"
Heh. Every time I come to the conclusion that all the nuts are on the pro-conspiracy side, some Warren supporter says something crazy like this; and off I go again, into the void of uncertainty...