by Alan Gomez and Gregory Korte
At: USA Today
What the author is doing has three layers. First, he is giving us a history of the Castro revolution. At the same time he is showing how the USA reacted to that epochal turnover, stage by stage in its evolution. Third, he is tracing certain people and movements who will return to the stage in 1963, after Kennedy changes policy, and begins a détente attempt with Cuba. Other authors have tried this before, but never on this scale or with this intricacy, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Arnaldo follows up his original critique of Shenon's book with a reply to the article published in Politico on October 6, 2015.
None of the Shenon's sources brought a single quantum of proof for turning plausible his Castro hypothesis. Their suspicions, impressions, beliefs, admissions, second-hand tales, and suggestions are linked to long-ago debunked stories. For sticking with them along the substantiation of his hypothesis, Shenon must concoct [various] 'facts', writes Arnaldo Fernandez.
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 494
Edited by Peter Kornbluh and Justin Anstett, At: The National Security Archive
This film is much worth seeing. And it deserved a much larger platform than it got last year. Right now, it's the best screen depiction of Kennedy's foreign policy that I know of, writes Jim DiEugenio.
A valuable Big Picture book, one with many new sources for study, which bring in much fascinating information. The light [Swanson] sheds on men like Nitze and Acheson show just what hollow clowns the so-called Wise Men of the media really were. [The book] also demonstrates just how powerful and dangerous the Military Industrial Complex has become. By showing Kennedy's opposition to it, he may have also shown why Kennedy was killed, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
The once progressive co-author of A Populist Manifesto with this book has written the worst kind of alternative history, one seriously colored by the view from the present, and more specifically, of those who won and those who lost, with a decided bias in favor of those who won, writes Jim DiEugenio.