So Alone – JFK and the Unspeakable

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters

by James W. Douglass

Orbis Books, 2008

510 pages, with Appendix, Notes and Index.

–

One month before his trip to Dallas, President John F. Kennedy returned to Boston. Stealing away from a Harvard football game with just a few friends and no press contingent Kennedy visited the grave of his infant son Patrick. Standing by the grave JFK said, “He seems so alone here.”

After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, South Vietnam President Diem’s assassination, his threat to scatter the CIA to the winds, his promise to end the growing US involvement in the Vietnam War, his secret rapprochement with the Soviet Union after the nightmare of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his increasing public and private utterances that showed his goal to be not an escalation of the Cold War but its end – JFK’s position among his hard-line subordinates become isolated, and untenable. All these things resulted in the president being “marked out for assassination.”

“JFK and the Unspeakable” is a powerful and important book. Not only is it an important addition to our understanding of the assassination, it is also a valuable resource for knowledge of the Cold War, JFK’s presidency, and “deep politics” (politics, intelligence, and hidden motives).

Kennedy’s WW2 experiences in the Pacific and his later horror at the barely avoided nuclear war that could have resulted from the Cuban Missile Crisis brought JFK to a complete course change. Applauded by audiences across the country when he spoke of peace, Kennedy turned from a Cold Warrior to a peace warrior. The Partial Test Ban Treaty and his extraordinary speech at American University (June 10, 1963) are evidence of this change of heart.

What had been widely unknown until the publication of this extraordinary book is that both Khrushchev and Kennedy had determined to try to end the Cold War. Douglass quotes journalist Hugh Sidey (writing many years after JFK’s death), and Kennedy’s inaugural address to demonstrate JFK’s deep interest in finding a way to peace.

If I had to single out one element in Kennedy’s life that more than anything else influenced his later leadership it would be a horror of war, a total revulsion over the terrible toll that modern war had taken on individuals, nations, and societies, and the even worse prospects in the nuclear age as noted earlier. It ran even deeper than his considerable public rhetoric on the issue. (p.8)

…

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. (quote from JFK’s Inaugural Address; p.9)

Kennedy and Khrushchev’s post-Missile Crisis back-channel dialogue about peace and reduction of tensions is thoroughly documented in “JFK and the Unspeakable”. Kennedy’s shift away from rigid Cold War confrontation (including nuclear first strike) increased his alienation from anti-Castro, anti-Communist forces within and without the government already angered over JFK’s handling of the Bay of Pigs and other matters. For hard-liners Kennedy’s talk of peace was treason to the cause of total victory over communism.

With a deft hand Mr. Douglass interweaves Lee Harvey Oswald’s pre-assassination activities with those of the President; the author has created an understandable context that helps to explain the presence of both men in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. This is one of the book’s many strengths – it brings context to one of the most important (and still unresolved) criminal cases in American history.

The JFK assassination is a complicated but now understandable case. The core research has been done and the American people mainly believe that the assassination was the work of a conspiracy.

Mr. Douglass explains the conspiracy as he sees it – pointing to members of the CIA, military, organized crime and other elements of the US government who were opposed to normalization of relations with communism (and to eliminating the threat that JFK represented to their “interests”). Eisenhower’s farewell warning about the growing danger to American democracy from the “military/industrial complex” is mentioned several times.

Without delving deeply enough into the motivations of Kennedy’s opponents other than to discuss their extremism, excessive and confused (and rigid) patriotism, and greed, the author successfully shows how highly motivated many were to be rid of John Kennedy. In addition, the compartmentalization of information and of people in a national security state is called to account by Douglass as he shows that manipulation of evidence and of people is easier than one might expect and the results nothing less than catastrophic.

Douglass’ lack of coverage of the motivations of Kennedy’s ideological and political opponents tends to result in them being painted as single dimension “bad guy” caricatures. While Douglass’ attention is riveted on JFK and his moves towards acceptance and peace, the world was still mired in an often deadly and brutal Cold War between fundamentally oppositional ideologies and economic systems. It seemed to many at that time that the fate of the world was in the balance and showing anything but strength and fortitude in the face of the tyranny of communism was nothing short of treason.

This lack of “filling out” the two sides in the Cold War, that is neglecting to discuss the horrors and tyranny of communism and explain why many Americans opposed communism then, and still do, is unfortunate. Both Khrushchev and Castro are portrayed in a neutral to favorable light in the book. This portrayal of Kennedy, Khrushchev/Castro as simply leaders of “different” systems denudes the Cold War-related discussion of context.

Essentially, one cannot quite understand from this book alone why there was a Cold War at all. The Cold War is presented as a disastrous situation that simply… exists. Douglass does not explain the fundamental differences between the systems nor the origins of the high stakes struggle between democracy and communism. There is a theme in the book that both sides are basically two sides of the same coin and that their common humanity was more important than any political or cultural differences that separated them. This seems an over-simplification and tends to obscure the motives of people outside of the White House/Kremlin circles, particularly those who went back to Cuba as hopeful liberators during the Bay of Pigs.

The lack of explanation about the philosophical and political differences between the US and the Soviet Union is the greatest flaw in “JFK and the Unspeakable”. Essentially, as the discussions of peace continued and many of Kennedy’s top advisors undermined him behind his back it appears that stubborness and rigidity are the greatest motivators of all, which minimizes the multi-layered conflict between the two leading political ideologies on the planet, democracy and communism. As this information would provide both background and motive to people on both sides of the ideological fence its absence is a problem. Though the reader is left wondering at the extraordinarily strong views of some of the people around Kennedy, the enmity towards him is clear.

The assassination scenario in “JFK and the Unspeakable” includes evidence all of which in combination or individually challenge (in some situations overturn) the conclusion of the Warren Commission Report that the “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. The following is a partial list (in no particular order) of evidence presented by Douglass.

• Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA and FBI affiliations (including his CIA 201 file).
• Oswald’s ease of defecting to Russia (and later returning to the United States) at the height of the Cold War despite having promised the Russians that he would share all that he knew from his military experience. (Oswald had worked on the secret U-2 spy plane program.)
• Eyewitnesses (including a Deputy Sheriff) who saw Ruby at Dealey Plaza moments prior to the shooting.
• Collusion and failure of the Secret Service to protect the President.
• Withdrawal of motorcycle escorts to the rear of the president’s car.
• Foreknowledge of the event – Richard Case Nagell among others.
• Eyewitness accounts of an Oswald double prior to and after the assassination.
• Eyewitness accounts of Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom of the TSBD, not on the 6th floor, as the assassination unfolded in Dealey Plaza.
• “Secret Service Agents” (men who claimed to be Secret Service agents and who showed Secret Service credentials to witnesses) on the grassy knoll just after the shooting – Secret Service stated that they had no agents on the grassy knoll.
• Eyewitness accounts of a shooter behind the fence of the grassy knoll.
• ChicagoJFK assassination conspiracy with a scenario almost identical to what occurred in Dallas, including a disaffected Marine Corps veteran working in a building overlooking the planned motorcade route and a sniper team of 4 shooters, two of whom were arrested then released (without records being taken apparently).
• Oswald and Jack Ruby knew one another.
• Ruby’s ease of entry into the Dallas Police station.
• Ruby’s intelligence, anti-Castro, and mob connections.
• Ruby’s knowledge of Oswald’s activities. (Ruby attended the press conference in which the Dallas police announced that the “assassin” had been captured.)
• The arrest of Oswald at the Dallas theater (escorted by police out the front door) which was followed by another arrest in the same theater twenty minutes later of a man described by eyewitnesses as “Lee Harvey Oswald” (escorted out the back door).
• Ruth and Michael Paine’s deep intelligence connections.
• Oswald’s friend George de Mohrenschildt’s intelligence connections.
• Lee Harvey Oswald’s association with anti-communist intelligence operative Guy Banister. This association occurred during the same time that Oswald was publicly involved with a pro-Castro organization.

The preponderance of evidence as seen by private researchers, authors, and U.S. government bodies is that JFK was murdered by a conspiracy. The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1978, “on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.”

The murder of the president, the fraudulent Warren Commission report, and the underlying corruption and treason behind the assassination shattered the concept that ours is a government “of the people”.

Had JFK survived there likely would not have been a Vietnam War, and the Cold War may have ended during his second term (he expected to win re-election as did those who hated him). JFK wasn’t our only loss on November 22, 1963 – we would lose a great deal more.

Almost 50 years have passed since 11/22/63, and ten since the jihad atrocities of 9/11. We live in a similar situation now as that faced by JFK – but reversed.

Our leaders tell us that Islam is not a threat while Islamist bombs explode around us, and jihadists make their endless statements of hatred and promises of further violence against us– the kafir/unbeliever – often chanting “death to the great Satan”.

The American people know today that the truth about Islam and jihad is the opposite of what our leadership tells us just as most Americans believe that the Warren Report is a lie.

Forty years later, suspicions of a conspiracy endure: Seven in 10 Americans think the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot, not the act of a lone killer — and a bare majority thinks that plot included a second shooter on Dealey Plaza.” (ABC News)

The American people must come to know the truth of a coup/murder plot against their elected president, a plot that changed the course of history, overturned the electoral and democratic processes of our country, and brought death and misery to millions who might not otherwise have died.

JFK’s presidency and his murder are critically important for us as a nation. His death shadows and haunts us; images of the Zapruder film still cause horror, disgust and anger.

Kennedy and Khrushchev changed course after the Cuban Missile Crisis – many in Kennedy’s administration would/could not. The two leaders saw that any war between their two countries would result in millions of deaths which neither wanted. They also knew that any war would likely escalate to nuclear weapons.

“JFK and the Unspeakable” chronicles their shift away from only the concept of “total victory” over the other toward mutual understanding, cooperation, and peace. This shift from Cold Warrior hard-liner to a pursuer of peace likely cost JFK his life.

The May, 1963 bombing of a Buddhist parade in Hue which killed 9 and wounded many more was not a crime of Diem’s security forces as the Buddhist’s alleged, nor was it the result of an attack by Viet Minh guerrillas as Diem suggested. Douglass shows that the Hue attack which destabilized Vietnam and led in large part to the coup against Diem several months later was a crime perpetrated by the CIA.

Though President Diem, his brother (and his wife, “Madame” Nhu) were autocratic and widely unpopular in South Vietnam Kennedy sought a solution in South Vietnam other than a coup (and their likely deaths). Douglas makes a strong case that, in addition to its involvement in the destabilization of the government of Diem, the CIA was also deeply involved in the assassination of Kennedy.

When the Cuban Missile Crisis ended JFK, according to Douglass, had rejected the Cold War paradigm. He seemed to understand that his new path would end, for him, in darkness.

On Sunday afternoon, October 28 (1962), with the crisis over, Robert Kennedy returned to the White House and talked with the president for a long time. When Robert got ready to leave, John said, in reference to the death of Abraham Lincoln, ‘This is the night I should go to the theater.’ His brother replied, ‘If you go, I want to go with you.’ (p.31)

What is the “Unspeakable”? Is it the potential for nuclear war and the deaths of millions of innocents? Is it the assassination itself – that graphic, horrific, public execution of a president that still haunts our national psyche? Perhaps the “unspeakable” is the undermining of American democracy and the destruction of the relationship between the people and their government.

When Lyndon Johnson reversed (NSAM 273) Kennedy’s plan to exit Vietnam (NSAM 263) a fundamental shift had occurred in the highest levels of American government.

One of the unforeseen consequences of the assassination and all its related lies, convolutions, and falsehoods has been a shift in the American polity and culture. A common consequence of hearing lies is a loss of trust. Following a loss of trust is a loss of meaning and, sometimes, identity – this is where we find ourselves today.

Too many Americans now no longer can identify what it means to be an American, or what America’s core values are. Worse, too many believe that our country is of so little value that it is not worthy of defense – as any culture or ideology that might challenge it cannot be good or evil, only just another way to view the world.

Fundamentally, these failures to recognize our own value relative to other concepts (and their lack of relative value), and our inability to acknowledge foundational threats are a function of both post-modernism and multiculturalism, two failed concepts. The profound and lasting damage caused by the assassination of JFK and the subsequent coverup of the truth facilitates cynicism across our culture upon which the frauds of multiculturalism and post-modernism now flourish.

There is no discussion in “JFK and the Unspeakable” of Kennedy’s extra-marital dalliances, connections to mobsters, or of Joseph P. Kennedy’s questionable “business” activities. Some readers might consider such silence a lack of balance. There is no distraction in this book from the key focus of it – a coup against a US president who was moving toward peace against the tide of war.

The greatest problem with this laser-like focus on the coup, the people and organizations involved, and on Kennedy himself is that the greater context of the times is not given the coverage that it should. However, with these issues in mind, this is a very important book that raises many important questions particular those about how our government works, or doesn’t.

Mr. Douglass and the many researchers and witnesses upon whose work and testimony much of his book is based have all prepared our path for us.

When President John Kennedy “went to the theater” we were all, a bit like his brother Robert, there with him.