Ron says "that all is uncertainty, that we'll never know who killed Kennedy or why to any degree of certainty." Well, with Ron leading the way that is probably true. ... To people who know something about the JFK case, and the ARRB declassified files, it is Ron who is the wingnut theorist. The idea that JFK was killed as a result of a high level plot is not a theory. It is a provable fact. End of story, writes Jim DiEugenio.
By showing the difference between Kennedy and what came before and after him, [Muehlenbeck] helps us understand why the prime minister of Somalia later said that "the memory of Kennedy is always alive in us Africans", writes Jim DiEugenio.
This is a kind of odd book. Even for the MSM. Clarke and his cohorts seem to be just catching up to what people in the know understood about Kennedy decades ago. But only now, in 2013 can this be revealed. But even then, it must be accompanied by the usual MSM rumor-mongering and dirt. I guess, under those restrictive circumstances, this is the best one can expect from someone who trusts the likes of Ben Bradlee, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
Vo Hong Nam, youngest son of North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, confirmed his father's knowledge that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, recounts Mani Kang from his personal interview with him.
At the end of his review of JFK and the Unspeakable, DiEugenio wrote that Jim Douglass’ book was the best in the field since Gerald McKnight’s. The author’s own book has a dual distinction. It is the best book on Garrison yet written, and it is the best work on the JFK case since the Douglass book, writes Albert Rossi.
Chomsky has now been proven both wrong and misleading on both Kennedy and Vietnam, and the Missile Crisis. But it’s worse than that. Chomsky simply has no regard for facts or evidence in the two cases, writes Jim DiEugenio.
A rich, rewarding, and reverberating book which both illuminates and empowers the reader, the best book in the field since Breach of Trust, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Jim DiEugenio continues his re-examination of Halberstam, emphasizing the near total antithesis between LBJ and JFK in terms of Vietnam (and foreign policy in general) which the book all but erased.
In the first of a two part study, Jim DiEugenio reexamines, in the light of what we now know, the book which perhaps more than any other epitomized the accepted wisdom on JFK's role in US involvement in Vietnam.
Although [Bundy] thought [Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest] was an entertaining and informative read, he concluded that the central thesis was just wrong. It was not the advisers—the best and brightest—who did the staff work who got us into the Vietnam War. It was the difference in the men who occupied the Oval Office. It was the difference between Kennedy and Johnson, writes Jim DiEugenio.