His assassination was a coup d'etat orchestrated by then Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who automatically became President of the
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)
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
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
""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.
1 | 2