Primer synthesis problems

Austin P. So (Hae Jin) nobody at
Sat Dec 11 17:31:30 EST 2004

history," to use Davis' phrase (p. 290). The point of this
blurring of sources is that the Kennedys, in these hands, become
no different than the Dulles brothers, or Nixon, or Eisenhower.
In fact, Davis says this explicitly in his book( pp. 298-99). As
I noted in the last issue, with Demaris and Exner, the Kennedys
are no different than Giancana. And once this is pounded home,
then anything is possible. Maybe Oswald did work for Giancana.
And if RFK was working with Sam, then maybe Bobby unwittingly had
his brother killed. Tragic, but hey, if you play with fire you
get burned. Tsk. Tsk.

But beyond this, there is an even larger gestalt. If the Kennedys
were just Sorenson-wrapped mobsters or CIA officers, then what
difference does it make in history if they were assassinated? The
only people who should care are sentimental Camelot sops like
O'Donnell and Powers who were in it for a buck anyway. Why waste
the time and effort of a new investigation on that. For the CIA,
this is as good as a rerun of the Warren Commission, since the
net results are quite similar. So its no surprise to me that the
focus of Hersh's book has shifted between Oswald did it for the
Mob, and an all out trashing of the Kennedys.

The standard defense by these purveyors is that they go on the
offense. Anyone who objects to their peculiar blend of
misinformation, or questions their sources or intent is labeled
as "protecting the Kennedys," or a "disappointed Kennedy fan," or
a "hagiographer." Tactically, this is a great cover to avoid the
questionable credibility of people like the Alsops, Priscilla
Johnson McMillan, or a flimflam man like Slatzer. It also avoids
acknowledging their descent into the ranks of Hoover and
Angleton. When Summers' book on Hoover came out, which followed
much the same line on the Kennedys

More information about the Methods mailing list