and sympathies are contra
to those of America. The problem with this is dual. First, it is
the typical "like father, like son" blanket which reeks of guilt,
not just by association, but by birth. Second, the blatant ploy
does not stand scrutiny because what makes John and Robert
Kennedy so fascinating is how different their politics and
economics were from Joe Kennedy's and how fast the difference was
exhibited. To use just two examples from JFK's first term in the
House, Kennedy rejected his father's isolationist Republican type
of foreign policy and opted for a more internationalist approach
when he voted for the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. Second,
Kennedy voted to sustain Truman's veto of Taft-Hartley which
would weaken unions and strengthen American big
businessmen-people like his father. From there on in, the splits
got wider and wider. It is this father-son dichotomy that none of
these books cares to acknowledge let alone explore-which reveals
their intent. (An exception is the Blairs' book, which does
acknowledge the split on pp. 608-623.)

In their approach to JFK, Collier and Horowitz take up where the
Blairs left off. In fact, they play up the playboy angle even
more strongly than the Blairs. When Kennedy gets to Washington in
1947, this note is immediately struck with "women's underthings
stuffed into the crevices of the sofa" (p

over primary sources. Finally, he respects himself and
his subject, which allows him to question sources before arriving
at a judgment on someone's credibility. This last quality allowed
him to arrive at what is the most satisfactory conclusion about
the death of Monroe (Spoto pp. 566-593). The Kennedys had nothing
to do with it. I have no great interest or admiration for Monroe
as an actress or a personality. But I do appreciate good
research, fine writing, and a clear dedication to truth. If any
reader is interested in the real facts of her life, this is the
book to read.

Sy Hersh's "Truth"

Seymour Hersh apparently never read it. And in fact, as Robert
Sam Anson relates in the November 1997 Vanity Fair, Hersh never
thought there was a conspiracy in the JFK case (p. 108). But in
1993, a friend at ABC proposed an investigative segment for the
network on the 30th anniversary of the murder. Apparently, the
idea fell through. But by that time, Hersh had hooked up with an
old pal, Michael Ewing. Hersh then decided that a book on the
Kennedys-not necessarily the assassination- would bring him the
big money that he craved. Thro

over primary sources. Finally, he respects himself and
his subject, which allows him to question sources before arriving
at a judgment on someone's credibility. This last quality allowed
him to arrive at what is the most satisfactory conclusion about
the death of Monroe (Spoto pp. 566-593). The Kennedys had nothing
to do with it. I have no great interest or admiration for Monroe
as an actress or a personality. But I do appreciate good
research, fine writing, and a clear dedication to truth. If any
reader is interested in the real facts of her life, this is the
book to read.

Sy Hersh's "Truth"

Seymour Hersh apparently never read it. And in fact, as Robert
Sam Anson relates in the November 1997 Vanity Fair, Hersh never
thought there was a conspiracy in the JFK case (p. 108). But in
1993, a friend at ABC proposed an investigative segment for the
network on the 30th anniversary of the murder. Apparently, the
idea fell through. But by that time, Hersh had hooked up with an
old pal, Michael Ewing. Hersh then decided that a book on the
Kennedys-not necessarily the assassination- would bring him the
big money that he craved. Thro

"Jeff C" wrote in message
news
You have been trolled, and duped into polluting
news.admin.net-abuse.email.

And you have continued the chain.

If you guys know the server being used, why haven't you got them to
shut down this perp yet?

Take care when you're posting to make certain that you post is going
to where you think it is.

I replied the same places you have.

jim menning

"Jeff C" wrote in message
news
You have been trolled, and duped into polluting
news.admin.net-abuse.email.

And you have continued the chain.

If you guys know the server being used, why haven't you got them to
shut down this perp yet?

Take care when you're posting to make certain that you post is going
to where you think it is.

I replied the same places you have.

jim menning

in the Senate was headed by Idaho's Frank Church.
Other leading lights on that committee were Minnesota's Walter
Mondale, Colorado's Gary Hart, Tennessee's Howard Baker, and
Pennsylvania's Richard Schweiker.

As writers Kate Olmsted and Loch Johnson have shown, the Church
Committee was obstructed by two of the CIA's most potent allies:
the major media and friendly public figures. In the latter
category, Olmsted especially highlights the deadly role of Henry
Kissinger. But as Victor Marchetti revealed to me, there was also
something else at work behind the scenes. In an interview in his
son's office in 1993, Marchetti told me that he never really
thought the Agency was in danger at that time. He stated that
first, the CIA had infiltrated the staff of Church's committee
and, second, the Agency was intent on giving up documents only in
certain areas. In Watergate terminology, it was a "limited-
hangout" solution to the problem of controlling the damage.

The Escape Route

The issue that had ignited so

in the Senate was headed by Idaho's Frank Church.
Other leading lights on that committee were Minnesota's Walter
Mondale, Colorado's Gary Hart, Tennessee's Howard Baker, and
Pennsylvania's Richard Schweiker.

As writers Kate Olmsted and Loch Johnson have shown, the Church
Committee was obstructed by two of the CIA's most potent allies:
the major media and friendly public figures. In the latter
category, Olmsted especially highlights the deadly role of Henry
Kissinger. But as Victor Marchetti revealed to me, there was also
something else at work behind the scenes. In an interview in his
son's office in 1993, Marchetti told me that he never really
thought the Agency was in danger at that time. He stated that
first, the CIA had infiltrated the staff of Church's committee
and, second, the Agency was intent on giving up documents only in
certain areas. In Watergate terminology, it was a "limited-
hangout" solution to the problem of controlling the damage.

The Escape Route

The issue that had ignited so

" (Anson p.
122) This from a man who intimidated witnesses with his phony
papers and waved them aloft while damning the Kennedys with them.
I believe his tears as much as I do the seance that Ben Bradlee
and Jim Angleton attended to speak with the spirit of Mary Meyer
(see Part One). At the end, Hersh joins in the con job: "I would
have been absolutely devoted to Jack Kennedy if I had worked for
him. I would have been knocked out by him. I would have liked him
a lot." (Ibid) With what Anson shows of Hersh, I actually believe
him on this score. He would have loved his version of Kennedy.

Anson's article begs the next question: who is Hersh? As is
common knowledge, the story that made Hersh's career was his
series of articles on the massacre of civilians at the village of
My Lai in Vietnam. Hersh then wrote two books on this atrocity:
My Lai 4 and Cover Up. There have always been questions about
both the orders given on that mission and the unsatisfactory
investigation after the fact. These questions began to boil in
the aftermath of the exposure of the Bill Colby/Ted Shackley
directed Phoenix Program: the deliberate assassination of any
Vietnamese suspected of being Viet Cong. The death count for that
operation has ranged between twenty and forty thousand. These
questions were even more intriguing in light of the fact that the
man chosen to run the military review of the massacre, General
Peers, had a long term relationship with the CIA. In fact, former
Special Forces Captain John McCarthy told me that-in terms of
closeness to the Agency-Peers was another Ed Lansdale.

By the time Hersh's s

" (Anson p.
122) This from a man who intimidated witnesses with his phony
papers and waved them aloft while damning the Kennedys with them.
I believe his tears as much as I do the seance that Ben Bradlee
and Jim Angleton attended to speak with the spirit of Mary Meyer
(see Part One). At the end, Hersh joins in the con job: "I would
have been absolutely devoted to Jack Kennedy if I had worked for
him. I would have been knocked out by him. I would have liked him
a lot." (Ibid) With what Anson shows of Hersh, I actually believe
him on this score. He would have loved his version of Kennedy.

Anson's article begs the next question: who is Hersh? As is
common knowledge, the story that made Hersh's career was his
series of articles on the massacre of civilians at the village of
My Lai in Vietnam. Hersh then wrote two books on this atrocity:
My Lai 4 and Cover Up. There have always been questions about
both the orders given on that mission and the unsatisfactory
investigation after the fact. These questions began to boil in
the aftermath of the exposure of the Bill Colby/Ted Shackley
directed Phoenix Program: the deliberate assassination of any
Vietnamese suspected of being Viet Cong. The death count for that
operation has ranged between twenty and forty thousand. These
questions were even more intriguing in light of the fact that the
man chosen to run the military review of the massacre, General
Peers, had a long term relationship with the CIA. In fact, former
Special Forces Captain John McCarthy told me that-in terms of
closeness to the Agency-Peers was another Ed Lansdale.

By the time Hersh's s

public interest in the
hearings had been that of assassination. CIA Director Bill Colby
very clearly drew the line that the CIA had never plotted such
things domestically. Colby's admission was a brilliant tactical
stroke that was not appreciated until much later. First, it put
the focus on the plots against foreign leaders that could be
explained as excesses of anti-communist zealotry (which is
precisely what the drafters of Church's report did). Second, all
probes into the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK would be off-
limits. The Church Committee would now concentrate on the
performance of the intelligence community in investigating the
death of JFK; not complicity in the assassination itself. This
distinction was crucial. As Colby must have understood, the
Agency and its allies could ride out exposure of plots against
Marxists and villains like Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo
and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. The exposure of
domestic plots against political leaders would have been lethal.

Colby's gambit, plus the strictures put on the investigation as
outlined by Marchetti above, enabled the intelligence community
to ride out the storm. The path chosen for limited exposure was
quite clever. The most documentation given up by the CIA was on
the Castro assassination plots. Further, the Agency decided to
give up many documents on both the employment of the Mafia to
kill Fidel, and the AM/LASH plots, that is, the enlistment of a
Cuban national close to Castro to try and kill him. Again, not
enough credit has been given to the wisdom of these choices. In
intelligence parlance, there is a familiar phrase: muddying the
waters. This