The other day, I posted an entry about an article in The New York Times about the Zapruder film of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Although the film is an important record of the event, the article suggested that the camera didn't start to roll until after the first shot was fired.
The article in the Times was challenged by "Real History Lisa," who urged me -- and, likewise, anyone with an interest in the case -- to read the testimony that serves, in part, as the basis for the article. Amos Euins, a ninth-grader at the time, is cited in the article.
Unlike most citizens, I have read the Warren Commission's report. For those with an interest in reading it, you can find it here, at the National Archives website.
I have a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in journalism, and history was my minor in college. But, as an historian, I'm frankly an amateur in comparison to "Real History Lisa." I thought I had been studying the JFK case for many years (which I have) and I was familiar with most of the contradictions in the evidence, but you'll learn much more about it if you look at Lisa's blog.
Now that I'm aware of your blog, Lisa, I plan to keep an eye on it. I urge the rest of you to do the same.
4 comments:
Hey, thanks, David. Just found you via inbound links from your site. Thanks for the bump on this.
Yeah - the JFK case is a quagmire, and it takes a lot of careful diligence to sort the important from the trash. Those who espouse conspiracy are not always telling the truth, or telling the full picture, and that's why it's so hard.
Thanks for your serious interest in the case. I strongly believe had people challenged the Warren Report's ridiculous conclusions strongly when it first came out, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. But by rolling over and accepting the lies, we made the Iraq war possible.
Lisa, I'm glad to help you out. Your blog deserves all the attention it can get.
I must say, though, that I need a more conclusive case to make such a link between the blind acceptance of the Warren Commission's findings in the 1960s and the invasion of Iraq 40 years later.
Although there does appear to be something of a "domino effect" at work that took us from the acceptance of the Warren Commission to the Gulf of Tonkin to Watergate to Iran-Contra and, ultimately, to Iraq.
Presidential power is neither absolute nor above the law. It's a lesson we need to re-learn periodically in order for our system to survive.
I drew some of the connections out in a post I wrote when President Ford died. Many of the neocons in the current administration came to power during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Donald Rumsfeld was Ford's chief of staff, and then became his secretary of defense (and Cheney became his chief of staff). And George H. W. Bush (father of our current president) became head of the CIA at that time. There's a direct throughline of history we don't usually perceive because the media never highlights it for us.
Connecting all the dots would require more time than I have to spare. But I feel strongly that had we held people accountable for killing Kennedy, Nixon would not have been in office, Ford would not have been there to give Cheney and Rumsfeld such power, and history would have looked incredibly different.
Lisa, there's a lot of truth in what you say. I certainly don't dispute that the pedigrees of many of the people who have served or are serving in the Bush administration included service to Nixon and Ford.
In fact, the current Bush administration owes its very existence to the presence of Supreme Court justices who were appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the first Bush.
Actually, though, that's the way history operates. Event A leads to Event B, which in turn affects Event C. That's kind of a simplistic way of saying that one thing leads to another!
So you may be right. The acceptance of the Warren Commission may have made it possible for Bush and his people to take power and, ultimately, engage the nation in what already is and will continue to be a costly military endeavor -- costly in terms of blood and treasure.
Of course, even if Bush and his people came into office wanting to "finish" the job that Bush I and his team started in 1991, attacking Iraq did not become plausible until after the September 11 hijackings.
From that vantage point, the "neocons" were able to make flimsy allegations stick and thus it was easier to achieve their original goal.
I haven't seen any evidence that the Islamic radicals and the neocons were involved in a conspiracy together. But if they both wanted the United States to overturn Saddam Hussein's government and occupy Iraq, they were the most unlikely of allies. Yet, allies they were!
Post a Comment