JOHN McADAMS ON JIM DOUGLASS' BOOK: "UNSPEAKABLY AWFUL"
David Von Pein
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2009/12/unspeakably-awful.html
I enjoyed John McAdams' above-linked 12/11/09 review of James
Douglass' 2008 book ("JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE: WHY HE DIED & WHY IT
MATTERS") very much.
My favorite excerpts are the following ones (and are destined for
immediate inclusion in my "Quoting Common Sense" blog, to be sure):
"James Douglass treads a familiar path in 'JFK And The
Unspeakable'. It is yet another book that claims John Kennedy was
killed because he had decided to withdraw from Vietnam. ....
"The premise of Douglass’s book...is completely false. To be
sure, what Kennedy would have done had he been in [President Lyndon]
Johnson’s place at the critical juncture is an interesting question.
Besides their different personalities and outlook, the calculations of
a president in his second and last term, as opposed to one aiming to
be re-elected in 1968, might have produced a different outcome.
"But there is not one iota that connects U.S. intervention in
South Vietnam and Kennedy’s assassination, unless one believes that
Lee Harvey Oswald was further inured to the notion of inflicting
political violence after the bloody spectacle of [Vietnam President]
Diem’s overthrow. Douglass’s entire book is based on the most
amateurish error a historian can make: after the assassination,
therefore because of the assassination. ....
"As bad as Douglass’s account of Kennedy’s foreign policy is,
his depiction of a plot to murder JFK is worse--unspeakably bad, in
fact. .... He is utterly uncritical of any theory, any witness, and
any factoid, as long as they [imply] conspiracy. ....
"Douglass’s America, ultimately, is not unlike Douglass’s
Washington. The latter is riddled with treasonous Cold Warriors,
intent on making war, and the former is awash with conspiratorial
goings-on: multiple Oswalds, CIA spooks manipulating housewives who
meet for coffee, and dozens of average Americans who get wind of the
plot but do nothing.
"For some minds, this may constitute an aesthetically compelling
vision. The forces of evil are many and powerful, and the forces of
righteousness few and beleaguered. But history should not be about an
aesthetically compelling vision. It should be about what happened.
"Douglass, fundamentally, doesn’t care about what really
occurred." -- John McAdams; December 11, 2009
aeffects
ROTFLMFAO..... was a little ass licker you are -- a composite one to
boot!
oh, and no advertising shithead!
Gil Jesus
mucher1
Gil Jesus has no business critiquing anyone else.
HERE'S WHY:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=TTTQ9w8AAACIRAuC87fBj5ZuSkBeRxuc
JLeyd...@aol.com
Ah, DVP. there is no use trying to bring religion to the savages. All
you get for your trouble are people like healy/aeffects calling you
"shithead." Poor guty doesn't kbnow any other insults.
JGL
aeffects
> On Dec 12, 1:23 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, DVP. there is no use trying to bring religion to the savages. All
> you get for your trouble are people like healy/aeffects calling you
> "shithead." Poor guty doesn't kbnow any other insults.
you said it Studley.... and most CTer's have known this for years,
hon. It's "religion", now you're on record as stating your belief in
the WCR is based on F-A-I-T-H... Will the Reverand Vinnie daBug come
and give a sermon? LMFAO!
lazu...@webtv.net
not to care about how he died. I just don't see how anyone could like
LBJ,Clinton, Nixon, or Reagan better than JFK. JFK towers over all of
them, because he was the real deal-articulate-smart as hell-truly
righteous-did everything possible to avoid war, but was surrounded by
apparently traitors everywhere not just mob, anti-castro cubans and far
right circles-in the SS, Navy,Big Business, LBJ and Backers, Military,
CIA, FBI..and that mentality has won and flourished.
Sam McClung
the usa and it has not been taken from them since, they give us cheap metal
coins and inflation ever since, the modern day trinkets and beads
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26441-4B2...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
David Von Pein
>>> "If you don't like or admire JFK to some extent, it's easy not to care about how he died." <<<
I have no idea why some conspiracy theorists seem to think that this
equation is accurate:
An LNer = A person who hates JFK.
Where on Earth did that silly idea come from anyway? It's absurd. But
I know that Anthony Marsh, and others, think that the above equation
is generally true amongst most lone-assassin believers.
If anybody has ever tried to force that equation onto me personally,
they're really really nuts, because in my opinion John F. Kennedy was
probably the best President the United States of America ever had.
I never get tired of listening to Jack Kennedy's speeches and watching
film clips of him (as is evidenced by the videos on my YouTube
channel, which is a channel that consists of 80% "JFK", and not nearly
all of it is centered around his assassination).
JFK is by far my favorite President. Always has been, and likely
always will be.
So if the kooks want to foist the "LNer=JFK Hater" label on me, I'm
here to tell them this:
Go take a jump into the middle of Lake Garrison!
François Carlier
Didn't Robert Groden say that it was one of the best books in recent years ?
/Fran�ois Carlier/
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> a �crit dans le message de
news:fe3cbad5-3e8c-4e94...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2009/12/unspeakably-awful.html
I enjoyed John McAdams' above-linked 12/11/09 review of James
Douglass' 2008 book ("JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE: WHY HE DIED & WHY IT
MATTERS") very much.
My favorite excerpts are the following ones (and are destined for
immediate inclusion in my "Quoting Common Sense" blog, to be sure):
"James Douglass treads a familiar path in 'JFK And The
Unspeakable'. It is yet another book that claims John Kennedy was
killed because he had decided to withdraw from Vietnam. ....
"The premise of Douglass�s book...is completely false. To be
sure, what Kennedy would have done had he been in [President Lyndon]
Johnson�s place at the critical juncture is an interesting question.
Besides their different personalities and outlook, the calculations of
a president in his second and last term, as opposed to one aiming to
be re-elected in 1968, might have produced a different outcome.
"But there is not one iota that connects U.S. intervention in
South Vietnam and Kennedy�s assassination, unless one believes that
Lee Harvey Oswald was further inured to the notion of inflicting
political violence after the bloody spectacle of [Vietnam President]
Diem�s overthrow. Douglass�s entire book is based on the most
amateurish error a historian can make: after the assassination,
therefore because of the assassination. ....
"As bad as Douglass�s account of Kennedy�s foreign policy is,
his depiction of a plot to murder JFK is worse--unspeakably bad, in
fact. .... He is utterly uncritical of any theory, any witness, and
any factoid, as long as they [imply] conspiracy. ....
"Douglass�s America, ultimately, is not unlike Douglass�s
Washington. The latter is riddled with treasonous Cold Warriors,
intent on making war, and the former is awash with conspiratorial
goings-on: multiple Oswalds, CIA spooks manipulating housewives who
meet for coffee, and dozens of average Americans who get wind of the
plot but do nothing.
"For some minds, this may constitute an aesthetically compelling
vision. The forces of evil are many and powerful, and the forces of
righteousness few and beleaguered. But history should not be about an
aesthetically compelling vision. It should be about what happened.
"Douglass, fundamentally, doesn�t care about what really
aeffects
ah.... there's the Dave Reitzes-pieces I've grown so fond of......
perk up troll, now you shitheads have an insider like Doug Horne to
fret over... LMFAO