Yikes, you should read "Reclaiming History." Looks like you need a bit
more balanced perspective of Scott's writings :>)
Another thing that really cracks me up with conspiracists is that Vince
Bugliosi writes the ultimate Kennedy assassination book, and the
conspiracists either only attack him and the book after reading it (or
not), or completely dismiss it as someone with an LN agenda.
If someone were raised in a complete void and had never heard of the
Kennedy assassination and its conspiracies, all they would have to do to
educate themselves is read and study only his book, and that's it. They'd
know all there is to know not only about the facts of the case -- in depth
-- but also the conspiracy viewpoints, and how they can all be shot down.
I'm curious as to why some conspiracists, if they really wanted to know
about and study the assassination -- really research it -- are not
flocking to the bookstores and the web to get their copies of "Reclaiming
History," if only to use it to learn more in-depth details about the
assassination, a reference book for historical facts of the era, complete
bios of Oswald and Ruby, and generally as simply a tremendous source of
valuable information from its massive, in depth stores of knowledge.
Instead, all they want to do is attack him and his book because of its LN
conclusions and its blasting apart the conspiracy tales.
My gosh, talk about shallow thinking!
James
<alowe5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:aaf18ad3-228e-42fa-a310-ddbdc4f1dcf0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> well, I hope she's not your best student, John - otherwise you've got
> a lot of work to do - she writes:
>
> "Scott's failure occurs as throughout the entire book, and even in his
> conclusion (titled "Who Killed JFK?"), he cannot simply label even one
> large and all-inclusive unit, like the government, as being
> responsible for JFK's death. He continually swings back and forth, all
> in the name of deep political analysis, and seems to draw not one
> conclusion but several contradictory ones. "
>
> classic case of missing Scott's point, which is that the web of "deep
> politics" is deep and complex, like the CIA's web of contradictions
> and disinformation. It is to Scott's CREDIT that he does not give a
> concrete solution, though he is MUCH MORE detailed, in this book and
> later essays related to Deep Politics 2, than she gives him credit for
> (sorry John, but this student, like yourself, did too much skimming
> and not enough reading; must have found the Cliff notes for Deep
> Politics) Later work by Scott has included a discussion of the CIA's
> disagreement with JFK on Cuba, on the back channels that were working
> to subvert his Vietnam policy, etc. He is also brilliant on the Oswald
> setup. Scott's discussion of Ruby, which she dismisses as having
> nothing to do with a conspiracy, addresses not just the specifics of
> conspiracy but the false legend that Ruby was not mobbed up - maybe
> she needs to read the Warren Re****t, not to mention Seth Kantor (and
> let's not get back to Reitz's happy citation of Ruby's death bed
> claim, before his mobster brother, that there was no conspiracy; give
> me a break) - the point is that the Warren Commission had to dismiss
> his mob ties in order to de-fang Ruby as a possible consprator; there
> exists tons of cir***stantial evidence that his action was an
> execution, but that's another thread. She also ignores Scott's
> effective linkage of the CIA with the international drug trade, which,
> ironically or not, the CIA basically set up as a business (see Doug
> Valentine) and which, in my opinion, was probably even a stronger
> reason than Cuba for the CIA/mobster/exile renegade hatred of JFK and
> RFK - (follow the money, as a smart man once said) -
> My grade: C- (good penman****p, however) -
> -Allen Lowe
>
|
