Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
10 comments

Life Arts

President Kennedy's assassination was a coup d'etat (BOOK REVIEW)

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Interesting 2   Must Read 1   News 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H2 11/9/13

Become a Fan
  (16 fans)

opednews.com

Duluth, Minnesota (OpEdNews) November 9, 2013: On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

His assassination was a coup d'etat orchestrated by then Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who automatically became President of the United States when President Kennedy died.

President Kennedy was assassinated at a time when the Cold War was going strong. Fortunately, LBJ and his co-conspirators did not try to attribute JFK's assassination to the (now former) Soviet Union or to Fidel Castro. Instead, they elaborately framed Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy. Then they had Jack Ruby kill Oswald.

However, even though the Cold War is now over, many Americans prefer to believe the myth about Oswald supposedly being the lone gunman. To believe this myth about Oswald, you have to believe that he somehow fired a magic bullet that first penetrated President Kennedy's body and then exited and wounded Governor John Connally, who was seated in front of Kennedy on the jump seat in the limousine. Nevertheless, many Americans to this day prefer to believe this improbable myth about Oswald.

James W. Douglass's meticulous 525-page book JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE: WHY HE DIED AND WHY IT MATTERS (2008) did not have an impact in countering this improbable myth about JFK's assassination.

Nor did Peter Janney's 550-page book MARY'S MOSAIC: THE CIA CONSPIRACY TO MURDER JOHN F. KENNEDY, MARY PINCHOT MEYER, AND THEIR VISION OF WORLD PEACE (2012).

Will Roger Stone and Mike Colapietro's new 425-page book THE MAN WHO KILLED KENNEDY: THE CASE AGAINST LBJ have the breakthrough impact that these earlier books did not have? I hope it does.

Roger Stone is a well known Republican. He weaves memories and information about a number of Republicans into the book. For example, he reveals that when Richard M. Nixon watched the television broadcast on November 24, 1963, about Jack Ruby killing Oswald, Nixon recognized Ruby as a "Johnson man." Nixon knew Ruby as a paid informant in the 1940s for the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Mike Colapietro is an investigative journalist. This book is far more readable than the other three books I've mentioned. However, the first printing of this book was not carefully proofread; it contains a lot of proofreading oversights.

On page 392, Stone and Colapietro quotes the following statement made by Noam Chomsky in Budapest when he was asked about the energy that has gone into investigating Kennedy's assassination:

""Who knows and who cares,' he replied. "Plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy? If there was some reason to believe there was a high level conspiracy, it might be interesting, but the evidence against that is overwhelming. And after that, it's just a matter of if it happened to be a jealous husband or the Mafia or someone else, what difference does it make? It's just taking energy away from serious issues to the ones that don't matter.'"

Stone and Colapietro use Chomsky's dismissive statement as a springboard to set forth their own reply to him on pages 392-393:

"Why care about a murder that happened fifty years ago? The Kennedy assassination goes hand-in-hand with the popular distrust of the government that sprung up in the late 1960s. The assassination of Kennedy dug the foundation of distrust; the lies that landed us in [the] Vietnam War and the Watergate break-in commented it.

"In order to win back the trust of the people, it is the government's responsibility to come clean."

In theory, I agree that the government should come clean about President Kennedy's assassination. However, I do not expect to see this happen.

Why not? Let me explain why not.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Tell Americans to read Roger Stone's new book

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

www.d.umn.edu/~tfarrell

Thomas James Farrell is professor emeritus of writing studies at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD). He started teaching at UMD in Fall 1987, and he retired from UMD at the end of May 2009. He was born in 1944. He holds three degrees from (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Who Was Walter Ong, and Why Is His Thought Important Today?

More Americans Should Live Heroic Lives of Virtue (Review Essay)

Martha Nussbaum on Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Book Review)

Hillary Clinton Urges Us to Stand Up to Extremists in the U.S.

Matthew Fox's Critique of the Roman Catholic Church

President Kennedy's assassination was a coup d'etat (BOOK REVIEW)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 people are discussing this page, with 10 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

We can all be thankful that LBJ and his co-conspir... by Thomas Farrell on Saturday, Nov 9, 2013 at 2:36:36 PM
I think it's more plausible that LBJ was easily pe... by Jim Arnold on Sunday, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:01:44 PM
I agree.  People have a psychological need to... by Derryl Hermanutz on Sunday, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:52:48 PM
  Patently disgusting nonsense, shame on you.... by Ralph Demers on Thursday, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:23:08 PM
The problem was that Kennedy thought he was the Pr... by Patricia Gray on Sunday, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:48:56 PM
I believe you are absolutely correct in your analy... by Pal Palsimon on Monday, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:31:43 AM
CHildish persiflage, but it's nice you entertain e... by Ralph Demers on Thursday, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:24:48 PM
Kennedy wasn't naive.  He was brought up as a... by David McCorquodale on Monday, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:20:29 AM
Disgusting garbage, you ought to be ashamed of you... by Ralph Demers on Thursday, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:21:58 PM
I read your background. Enough indeed.Anger issues... by Jim Arnold on Friday, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:29:07 AM