5 comments about On the Trail of the Assassins.

1. Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books used as the basis for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" (the other was Kim Marrs' "Crossfire"). On that basis alone, highly recommended (for it led to the JFK Act and the ARRB). That said, this is a very good but not a great book. I would put James DiEugenio's book ON Garrison ahead of this one. Still, a good "read" with some good moments.
   Vince Palamara



2. The late Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was in large part the basis for Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK", which is a film containing so many lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations of the facts surrounding John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, it's literally difficult to keep up with all of them.
   
   I cannot watch one single scene of Oliver Stone's film without finding some distortion of the evidence in the real JFK or J.D. Tippit murder cases. Some are small things being distorted; and some are great big ones. One example (among dozens) being: Oliver Stone's version of shoe clerk Johnny Brewer's testimony re. Lee Harvey Oswald's manner of dress when Brewer encountered Oswald shortly after Oswald had shot and killed policeman Tippit.
   
   Stone, in his film, has Oswald (Gary Oldman) wearing a jacket as he enters the Texas Theater and is seen by Brewer....and in one of the movie's "Deleted Scenes" (on the DVD version of the film), Kevin Costner (playing Garrison) even does a voice-over (lie) re. Brewer's testimony, with Costner saying "Brewer said the man was wearing a jacket".
   
   Brewer, in reality, said exactly the opposite during his Warren Commission testimony:
   
   Mr. BELIN -- "Will you describe the man you saw?"
   Mr. BREWER -- "He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all. ... And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out."
   Mr. BELIN -- "Any jacket?"
   Mr. BREWER -- "No."
   
   Another interesting part of the Tippit portion of the movie "JFK" is Oliver Stone's Audio Commentary during this part of the film, which is riddled with inaccuracies. Stone has the audacity to spout the following lie re. the Tippit shooting on the DVD's Commentary soundtrack:
   
   "Not one credible witness has really identified Oswald as a single shooter {of Officer Tippit}. In fact, the only significant testimony applies two to three shooters." -- O. Stone
   
   Therefore, per Mr. Stone (and Garrison said pretty much the same thing years earlier), the "only credible" witness must have been Acquilla Clemmons, who, as far as I am aware, was THE ONLY witness who ever said there was more than one person involved in the Tippit slaying.
   
   Stone, like Jim Garrison before him, would simply rather believe his OWN version of events, rather than the multiple witnesses who never saw more than one shooter (with that one single shooter being positively identified as Oswald by said witnesses).
   
   It's interesting, indeed, that Stone thinks the "only significant testimony" re. the Tippit crime came from Clemmons. Whereas, people like Markham, Tatum, and Scoggins (who were all closer than Clemmons to the scene of the murder) are deemed less "significant", merely, no doubt, because they don't fit into Stone's (or Garrison's) "CT Landscape" surrounding the murder.
   
   I wonder if people realize just how many outright lies are contained in Oliver Stone's 3-hour, 15-minute motion picture? The number is simply staggering. And that number of distortions is increased considerably on the DVD version of the film, when the Audio Commentary Track by Mr. Stone and all of the "Deleted and Extended Scenes" are included as well.
   
   And a great deal of this deliberate misinformation put forth on the movie screen came directly out of this book authored by Jim Garrison.
   
   Another great place to see more of Mr. Garrison's skewed views of the JFK case is to read Garrison's 1967 "Playboy Magazine" interview. Like Stone's movie, that Playboy article will keep you busy as you try to keep up with the inaccurate things Garrison keeps saying in that lengthy piece. The whole interview can be read here:
   
   www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
   
   
   Selected examples of Mr. Garrison's paranoia and loony-toon conspiracy talk, taken from that Playboy interview, are provided via the quotes below. My own rebuttal arguments follow each quote:
   
   
   "Though he {Oswald} may not have known why he was instructed to do so, this was undoubtedly why he got the job at the Texas School Book Depository Building. The conspirators knew this would place him on the scene and convince the world that a demented Marxist was the real assassin." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   The above Garrison gem totally distorts (or just flat-out ignores) the true and documented facts about how Oswald got his job at the Depository in mid-October of '63. It was suburban Dallas housewives Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine who were directly responsible for placing Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD, by way of ordinary garden-variety happenstance.
   
   Garrison must, therefore, believe that Mrs. Paine, who arranged Oswald's job interview with Depository boss Roy Truly, was one of the main "conspirators" who was setting up Oswald to take the fall for JFK's murder the following month (which would also have to mean that Paine had detailed knowledge of the President's motorcade route more than a month before November 22). Garrison must also think that Roy Truly was a big part of the patsy plot, because it was Mr. Truly who actually hired Oswald (even though nobody was holding a shotgun to Truly's head forcing him to hire Lee).
   
   The commonly-held belief that Lee Oswald was "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository by evil plotters prior to 11/22/63 is a desperate attempt by CTers like Mr. Garrison to attach unprovable and unsupportable conspiratorial "strings" to a random event that involved several individuals...individuals whose collective and synchronized actions could not possibly have been foreseen and controlled by a group of behind-the-scenes conspirators.
   
   ---------------
   
   "Anyone who takes the time to read the Warren Report will find that of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who were able to assess the origin of the shots, almost two-thirds said they came from the grassy-knoll area in front and to the right of the Presidential limousine and not from the Book Depository." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   This is pure nonsense. There were, indeed, several witnesses who said they heard shots coming from in front of JFK's car, but Garrison has severely skewed the stats to support his claim of Knoll shooters. His "almost two-thirds" figure is not even close to being accurate when talking about the number of witnesses who said they heard frontal shots. And even amongst other CTers, virtually no other pro-conspiracy author has ever rigged those stats in such an out-of-whack manner.
   
   The fact is that more than half of all earwitnesses heard shots coming from the direction of the Book Depository, and not from the Knoll. And an even more illuminating statistic reveals that less than 5% of all earwitnesses heard shots from more than just a single general location (front vs. rear). That stat speaks volumes....because even CTers admit to SOME rear shots.
   
   An interesting tabulation of this data can be found below:
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
   
   ---------------
   
   "The second shot struck the President in the back; the location of this wound can be verified not by consulting the official autopsy report, but by perusing the reports filed by two FBI agents who were present at the President's autopsy. Both stated unequivocally that the bullet in question entered President Kennedy's back and did not continue through his body." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Therefore, Mr. Garrison is, in essence, saying that he is much more likely to trust the word of FBI agents (who, of course, were not doctors and were not conducting the President's autopsy) rather than take the word of the three physicians who each signed the official autopsy report. After all, why believe the autopsy doctors when you COULD just trust as Gospel the word of a bystander? ~sarcasm alert~
   
   Plus: Why didn't these two FBI agents get the conspirators' memo which, if CTers are right about the success of the Patsy Plot, must have been passed out to nearly everyone in Officialdom on 11/22, a memo that probably said: "Attn. All Agents -- We're framing Oswald tomorrow; so remember to falsify as much evidence as humanly possible to ensure conviction of patsy".
   
   Evidently some people who needed to see it never received that important document.
   
   ---------------
   
   "We have also located another man who was not involved in the shooting but created a diversionary action in order to distract people's attention from the snipers. This individual screamed, fell to the ground, and simulated an epileptic fit, drawing people away from the vicinity of the knoll just before the President's motorcade reached the ambush point." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Yet another outright lie from the lips of District Attorney Garrison. The man who had the so-called "simulated epileptic fit" was fully identified by the FBI on May 26, 1964. His name was Jerry Belknap, a man who had a history of epilepsy since childhood. Belknap also proved to the FBI that he had paid the ambulance bill ($12.50) after he was taken to Parkland Hospital.
   
   ---------------
   
   "President Kennedy was killed for one reason: because he was working for a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro's Cuba. His assassins were a group of fanatic anti-Communists with a fusion of interests in preventing Kennedy from achieving peaceful relations with the Communist world." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Any solid, verifiable proof of such accusations, Mr. Garrison? Any physical evidence whatsoever that shows JFK was killed by more than one gun? .... The answers to those two questions are: No and No.
   
   But the lack of physical evidence never stopped a hard-boiled CTer....that's been proven over and over again by a vast assortment of conspiracists who have more theories up their sleeve than a dog has fleas.
   
   ---------------
   
   "In summation, there were at least five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no more than a spectator to the assassination -- perhaps in a very literal sense. James Altgens snapped a picture that shows a man with a remarkable resemblance to Oswald, standing in the doorway of the Depository. The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been shooting Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the motorcade. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   It seems as though these devilishly-clever conspirators forgot one important thing when they were setting up LHO -- they forgot their brains. For, who WITH brains would allow their lone "Patsy" to casually drift outside and be photographed and seen by countless witnesses when the plotters need to have Lee Harvey on the 6th Floor at 12:30? Per Mr. Garrison's account of Oswald possibly being "Doorway Man", evidently the real assassins were indeed brainless and lacked the common sense to keep Oswald where he wouldn't be able to establish a credible alibi for his 12:30 whereabouts.
   
   Just think about these Garrison remarks for a moment longer too -- "At least five or six shots were fired at the President from front and rear ... by at least four gunmen".
   
   Doesn't a "4-Shooter, 6-Shot, 1-Patsy" assassination plot seem a bit unlikely to anyone else but this writer? Would any professional killers actually attempt to "frame" a lone fall guy in that type of overkill fashion? In my opinion, no pro hit men would go about the complicated task of setting up Oswald (or anybody else) in such a needlessly-reckless way.
   
   A single "pro" hit man could have easily killed JFK with one or two shots (probably just one) from Oswald's "nest", without the need to clog the works with needless back-up gunmen hiding all around Dealey Plaza.
   
   There is no possible way the conspirators could have ensured the success of a multi-shooter plot to frame JUST Oswald in the minutes during and after the shooting. No way. There are way too many uncontrollable factors that could block the success of that One-Patsy venture that Jim Garrison placed his faith in.
   
   "Uncontrollable" items such as:
   
   1.) A frontal shooter might very well have been seen by witnesses (and to think that EVERY witness under the sun could be easily "bought", "taken care of", and/or coerced by these plotters is, again, just too much wishful thinking on the conspirators' part, IMO).
   
   2.) A frontal shooter might strike other occupants in the car, or strike somebody else in Dealey Plaza. But even if ONLY Kennedy is hit by a frontal gunman, there are massive problems to be "corrected" by the conspirators....bullets to be hidden and, of course, who knows how many obvious frontal wounds on the victim to be (somehow) eliminated -- and eliminated immediately before any non-conspirators can spill any beans. .... Only a person straight out of the booby hatch could believe that anyone, regardless of "power" or "pull", could get away with such a thing. It's just plain loony.
   
   3.) The one "Patsy" (Oswald) could have easily, by pure accident and happenstance, established a perfect alibi for himself at the time when he was supposed to be on the 6th Floor shooting the President (as Mr. Garrison apparently DID think occurred, with Oswald being seen in a photo taken as the bullets were flying; even though all reasonable researchers know full well that "Doorway Man" was actually Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald; Lovelady even testified to that effect in 1964). ....
   
   Plus -- If Oswald had really been in that doorway at 12:30, WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T HE SAY HE WAS THERE?! If he's got an ironclad alibi like that, why wouldn't he use it? Instead, he says not a word about being outside on the steps at 12:30, and even tells the police a provable lie re. his whereabouts (the lie about "having lunch with Junior {Jarman}" at the time of the shooting). How much sense does that make if Oswald had really been in the Depository doorway? ....
   
   And the very fact that Oswald did NOT have a usable, provable alibi for exactly 12:30 PM is absolutely remarkable IF he had really been wandering around on the lower floors of the Depository (or was outside the building), as many CTers firmly believe; and even the most rabid of conspiracy theorists have got to admit, that from the "CT/Patsy" POV, Oswald's not having a usable/believable/solid alibi is certainly, by far, the biggest piece of LUCK in the whole "Patsy Plot". ....
   
   These amazing Patsy Plotters just lucked out, evidently, in that Oswald was not seen by a single person inside or outside the TSBD at precisely the time of the assassination -- except by Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, and Robert Edwards, of course, who saw Oswald or a nicely-arranged Oswald "imposter" in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 or just seconds before 12:30.
   
   4.) And the likelihood that all of the non-TSBD bullets are going to somehow get swept under the rug is extremely remote, especially in a Bob Groden-like scenario. Mr. Groden (per his book "The Killing Of A President"), incredibly, has ZERO of the shots coming from the Oswald window, and a total of up to TEN shots being fired...and ALL OF THEM coming from rifles other than the one rifle these idiot plotters are going to attempt to frame Oswald with! Could Groden's scenario BE any more reckless and preposterous?! I doubt it.
   
   5.) And a biggie, that most CTers evidently don't think could have ever happened before 12:30 on November 22nd -- The one Patsy (Mr. LHO) could "get wise" to the plot that is brewing all around him and take measures to guarantee he could never be blamed for the actual assassination of John Kennedy.
   
   When thinking about any "Frame Lee Oswald As The One Patsy" plan, I just cannot visualize any professional assassins (even for a minute) contemplating the use of multiple shooters; let alone some gunmen firing from the Grassy Knoll, i.e., the exact opposite direction from where their single dupe is supposed to be located.
   
   ---------------------
   
   As the previously-mentioned quotes from the mouth of Mr. Garrison amply demonstate, if anyone has a desire to set out "On The Trail Of A Lunatic Conspiracy Theorist" -- look no further than Earling Carothers (Jim) Garrison.



3. I avoided reading this book when it was first published thinking it was but a mere rehash of Garrison's earlier book "A Heritage of Stone." However, thirty years on, I have pleasantly discovered that I was greatly mistaken. "On the Trail of the Assassins" is not a rehash, but stands quite sufficiently on its own.
   
   More than anything else, it is first a devastating critique of the Warren Commission's Report; perhaps the best there is so far. Second, it is written by a first-class legal mind. And whatever else one might say about Jim Garrison, it is difficult to ignore the fact that he has one of the best legal minds in this nation. Third, it is a summary report of the Garrison investigation, which again, it is difficult to ignore that Garrison, on a shoe string budget, and with a handful of mostly volunteers, did a much better job investigating the JFK assassination than all of the nation's institutional police and intelligence machinery combined. And finally, the book is Garrison's own defense of the case he lost against the only man ever to be charged with JFK's assassination, Clay Shaw.
   
   As a critique, Garrison attacks the slipshod way in which federal and Texas investigations pursued (or failed to pursue) the evidence and suspects -- other than the "carefully prepared patsy" Lee Harvey Oswald. Among these ways is the fact that Oswald was interrogated for more than 30 hours without a transcript; that the three tramps found in the rail car a few feet from the grassy knoll were released without even recording their names; and the general lack of curiosity on the part of the FBI and Dallas police authorities in following leads, protecting evidence, and in interrogating witnesses.
   
   Garrison's legal astuteness is on display in a number of ways in the book: in the way he corralled information from informants; the way he collated and peeled back his evidence to attain maximum courtroom effect; the way he shaped theories based on where the evidence led; and in the way he parried defense moves and the counter-moves against him made generally by the federal authorities, who curiously always viewed him as a threat and hindrance to their limp but "predetermined" investigation.
   
   With only a handful of investigators, researchers and contributors, Garrison fell just short of cracking the crime of the century. One must wonder out loud what would have happened if, instead of trying to derail and undermine his investigation, the government would have supported him?
   
   It seemed clear even to Garrison, that his case against Clay Shaw was a lost cause even before he entered the courtroom. However, if one looks carefully at the theoretical framework Garrison constructed, in which Shaw was just one of a number of important elements, it is clear that Garrison was on the right track; and that Shaw's acquittal was more about the lack of witnesses to confirm Garrison's evidence, than it was about Shaw's guilt or innocence. That is why after forty years, a great deal, if not all of Garrison's theory has been borne out.
   
   .Whether you believe Garrison's theories or not, this book is a report on investigative, legal, and police work of a very high order. Five Stars.



4. Now, maybe some people aren't interested in Mr. Garrison's point of view - but I am. And so are many others who repeatedly give On The Trail Of The Assassins a deservedly high mark. He was there in New Orleans and KNEW PERSONALLY most of the major players. How many investigators can say that? His overall conclusion of conspiracy is the same as many, many other independent researchers and the conclusion of 80 percent of the general public (Bugliosi be damned), only he was way ahead of his time. Had he known nothing of the truth surrounding the assassination, the CIA would never have bothered to smear his character or try ruin his investigation of JFK's murder by stealing his files for the trial of Clay Shaw. And yet it is Garrison who is accused of not playing fair. That's right... black is white, and white is black.
   
   This book is one of my favorites in the assassination canon. It is brilliantly written, soulful, human, and full of observations about gov't and how it sometimes changes without the people being invited to the party. He knew of Oswald (murdered by Ruby), Ferrie ("suicide"), Bannister ("heart attack" in 1964) and Shaw (no autopsy ever done) - and had most of them not died under conspicuously strange circumstances, Garrison would never have been placed in the position of being the Lone-Nut scape goat for their lack of honesty and insight into this murder investigation - an investigation that is still continuing, though with little help from some of the people who should have known better after all these years.
   
   Garrison's investigation and the trial of Clay Shaw were the inevitable result of the corrupt Warren Commission cover-up. Had the Warren Commission done its job and followed up leads in the first place, Garrison would never have ended up in the position of being the whipping boy for the Oswald as Lone-nut contingent. It was only through the efforts of Garrison that the Zapruder film ("back... and to the left") was viewed for the first time and the public began to see how dishonest the Warren Commision and the CIA were in lying to the American people about at least one more shooter.
   
   Recent revelations about secret CIA assassinations plots can no longer be denied and now are out in the open in recent news events. It's your country. You might think of the 40-year tailspin the country has been in since our president was killed and the efforts of private citizens who've tried to expose the CIA skullduggery during the Kennedy years and beyond. Garrison took on these covert agencies in the name of justice, and had not Clay Shaw lied his head off under oath during his trial, it's conceivable that Garrison would have won and Shaw end up on a chain-gang where he belonged. In a conversation with Oliver Stone, Judge Haggarty, who presided over the Shaw trial, said that he himself never believed a word Shaw said. (This is discussed on the JFK special features dvd.)
   
   The people of the country know all too well that Oswald didn't act alone - that is, if he shot anyone at all - and they're not about to let this conspiracy investigation end until the Federal gov't comes clean with what it knows. Every year more is being found out about certain participants, such as H. Howard Hunt's involvement, or David Morales, who was quoted as saying he was involved with the assassination of both JFK and RFK. Such revelations further vindicate Garrision's conclusion that the CIA was involved in the murder of Kennedy. Hunt and Morales (a man Hunt mentions) were both CIA. Gee, there seems to be a pattern here unless one has been playing ostrich with these recent CIA revelations.
   
   In the meantime, those who continue to smear Garrison are only making themselves small in comparison. They're not worthy to shine the shoes of this great man - a hero in every sense of the word in this sordid tale of political corruption, murder and media cover-up. Ten stars for On The Trail Of The Assassins and Jim Garrision. ZERO stars for the now documented CIA interference of Garrison's investigation and the perjury on the witness-stand of Clay Shaw. Even certain pro-conspiracy researchers wrongly denegrate Garrison and they should be ashamed of themselves now that Garrison's conclusions are being vindicated. They haven't half the courage of a Garrison, and no one other than he and Mark Lane have ever had the balls to take any of these arrogant, politically criminal jerks to trial (H. Howard Hunt by Lane) for lying about their complicity in the murder and cover-up of Kennedy's assassination. And I'm not the only citizen who feels this way. For more information on the coup d'etat in Dallas, read District Attorney Garrison's revealing book and witness courage under fire.... Grow up, America.



5. The year was 1969, and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was preparing to make history. The often criticized Garrison had arrested local/international businessman Clay Shaw in conspiring to assassinate the President of The United States, John F. Kennedy. Garrison would accuse Shaw of Conspiring primarily with the CIA, to overthrow the Kennedy regime so that the Military/Industrial Complex could invade and overthrow Cuba and start a war in Southeast Asia. A mere three days after President Kennedy had been gunned down, the new President (Lyndon Baines Johnson) signed National Security Action Memo 273, which reversed Kennedy's withdrawl plans from Viet Nam and escalated the conflict, which eventually led to what is now known as the Viet Nam War. This outline is the backdrop for Garrison's book.
   
   As is well-known, "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books credited in creating the motion picture and Academy Award Nominated Movie: JFK (along with Jim Marr's fine book "Crossfire"; please see my review of that book too!). So if you're looking for an exact duplication of the movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that Garrison goes into much more detail and background then even the three-hour movie-thriller could provide. The one drawback and criticism that I have of the movie, the book, and of Garrison himself, was the lack of detailed information surrounding Jack Ruby's connections and associates who may have assisted the CIA in murdering the President. There are very few investigators these days who would rebuke Garrison on suggesting that the intelligence community within the United States orchestrated and carried out the murder of our 35th President. However, without even mentioning Ruby's role, even if it was only in taking orders from our government, Garrison undermines his own investigation and therefore this otherwise excellent book.
   
   In closing, this is an extremely well written book, with lots of behind-the-scenes info that only a very few were privy to. Garrison is an excellent writer, and more importantly, was most likely correct in almost all aspects of the conspiracy. If this book is not in your own personal library, then most likely you're not fully aware of all the nuances of this case. This book is a must read!

5 comments about The President's Assassin.

1. Brian Haig is a new author I just tried and I love him, his style and the character of Sean Drummond. I look forward to reading all of you books.



2. I love his sense of humor and his writing style. I have yet to read a book of his that I didn't love.



3. Master of the political thriller, Brian Haig, again mobilizes his acerbic, sarcastic, yet inevitably efficient U.S. Army JAG lawyer with a special forces background, Major Sean Drummond in the stirring "The President's Assassin". Drummond, on loan to the CIA is tagging along with FBI agents investigating a professionally accomplished massacre scene is the posh Washington D.C. suburbs. He is partnered with the attractive, tightly wrapped FBI special agent Jennifer Margold, Phd. in psychology and superstar of the Quantico Behavioral Sciences Unit.
   
   Upon entering a McLean, Virginia mansion they discover a bloody scene already crawling with agents. Six corpses including the White House Chief of Staff, his wife and a four person Secret Service detail have all been dipatched in execution style. The murder scene also contained a note presumably from the perpetrators threatening the demise of the President within 48 hours. They also learn that a website had been created promising a payoff of $100 million to kill the President.
   
   Drummond proves to be instrumental in analyzing the murder scene making Agent Margold look good to her boss Assistant Director George Meany, who happened to have been a rival for the affections for Drummond's main squeeze. The threat to the president heightens the response in every government agency.
   
   Within short order White House spokesperson Merrill Benedict and Supreme Court justice Fineberg are killed in spectacular fashion using U.S. military issued weapons. Investigations conducted by Margold, ably aided by Drummond seem to point to young Secret Service agent Jason Barnes, presently unaccounted for. Barnes' father Richmond federal judge Calhoun Barnes, recently considered for a seat on the Supreme Court had shamefully been disgraced as they combed through his past. A motive had been established.
   
   Drummond and Margold proceed to locate and thwart Barnes before his plans can come to fruition using psychological profiling to move in the right direction.
   
   Haig, a talented writer falls a little short in presenting a convincing enough argument in identifying the bad guys in his novel. He is quite obviously setting us up for a twist as the novel concludes. The interplay between Drummond and Margold, which teems with both psychological and sexual conflict was very effectively portrayed.



4. I stumbled upon this book, having never read anything from Brian Haig before. What a find. It was a can't-put-it-down type of book. Well written. Nice fleshed-out characters.
   
   It was fun.
   
   Now I'm off to find another book by this author.



5. Brian Haig is a genius. The President's Assassin was a fast paced book that was very hard to put down. I read it cover to cover in two days. I need some sleep.....

5 comments about Like A Man.

1. This is an exciting book as real as the events it tells about. Like A Man begins at a very high level where the wartime mission is conceived and leads us through the turmoil of give-and-take espionage on the streets. Almost everything that can go wrong does for the two men who are told to carry out the assassination against all odds. That they did is a tribute to their courage. Chacko gets us on the ground from the first parachute jump and keeps us there all the way to the furious end.



2. LIKE A MAN is a first-rate read and a great piece of historical writing. The wartime atmosphere, the importance of the mission, two dedicated commandos, and well-drawn supporting characters, including Churchill, Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, along with many members of the WWII underground, make for a fascinating picture of men under orders to do the impossible. They did it, and their story is one for the ages.



3. LIKE A MAN is a stirring book that keeps coming until the last page plus two. A real mission performed by real people becomes in David Chacko's hands a well-wrought tale of action and suspense. Anthropoid (which probably means "like a man") was a team that parachuted behind German lines into Occupied Territory. Their mission was to assassinate the man who coordinated--and usually ran--the most terrible Nazi policies of brutality and extermination. History remembers him, but would remember much better if he had lived to fulfill his destiny as Hitler's successor. That he did not is a tribute to these two men, who were eventually joined by a third man as they entered the wartime underground, disappearing from the Gestapo radar until it was time to surface and close out their mission. When they do, the facade of Nazi Germany invincibility is shattered in bursts of violence that are meant to terrorize. Instead, the outrage it inspired fed the Allied war effort. All the large historical figures are here to give background and tastes of their character--Churchill, Hitler, Himmler--but the men who took their mission to its end against the longest odds are the ones who should be remembered. They were men and this is Like a Man.



4. This book gives you a good feel for what it must be like to drop behind the lines, try to blend in, and carry out resistance operations. It moves right along, not too fast or slow, and builds to the tragic climax. If you like WW II fiction this is a book for you.



5. I ordered three of this author's books and have to say I am not a fan. I found the writing flat and uninteresting. The story idea is better than the actual story. I would not recommend these books.

5 comments about Case Closed.

1. My search for JFK assassination material began when I booked a trip to Dallas for a football game. I really didn't have any preconceived notions on whether the assassination was a conspiracy or not. I simply wanted to educate myself on what I would be looking at when I visited the Dallas School Book Depository. After reviewing most of the well known theories on wikipedia.com, I decided to purchase a book that went into depth on why Oswald acted along.
   
   "Case Closed" does a good job giving the reader an insight on what Lee Harvey Oswald was all about. It also goes in depth on the background of Jack Ruby. Most impressively, Posner does a fantastic job citing where and how his information was obtained.
   
   When I finally got the the sixth floor of the Depository, I quickly came to the conclusion that the shot from the window was not a difficult shot to make (esp in 3 attempts). I also made a point to go down to the grassy knoll. I couldn't help but think to myself, "the grassy knoll sure is close to location where the president was shot. If the shots came from there how could not everyone notice?"
   
   What sealed the deal for me was watching the assassination on youtube.com. One can clearly see that when the second shot is fired, both the President and Governor react as if they have been hit at the same time. You have to ask yourself, if it wasn't a "single bullet" that hit them both, what is the probability that a conspirator(s) could make it appear as if it were a single shot?
   
   In my opinion, if Jack Ruby hadn't shot Oswald, there would be no conspiracies.



2. ...I've seen in print to capture the logical progression of what likely happened. Naturally, ANYTHING is possible. We can never know with absolute clarity everything about the JFK assassination. Over the years, I've found myself intrigued by the various alternative ideas of what happened, and even now I find it difficult to consider the various sinister associations of the principles in the case and arrive at a "2 independent lone killers" hypothesis. However, we are left at this point 45 years later having no real choice but to make do with the most plausible and demonstrable alternatives among the world of competing theories. I think this is it, or at least as close to it as we're ever going to get.
   
   Mind you, I TOO believe that Mr. Posner sometimes gets too far afield in some of his speculations. He sometimes shows his lawyer training by appearing to present more of a slightly stretched legal brief than an objective evaluation of the facts. Nevertheless, on balance, he's hit a home run. Much of the technical scientific data appears so sensible as to be beyond dispute. His strongest argument against an involved conspiracy in my opinion has to do with the nature of SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. For example (one of many): How does Oswald (as a logical result of a conspiracy) end up working at the Depository well in ADVANCE of the decision of JFK to drive by that particular building, in that particular city? I think most conspiracy theories over the years have tied themselves in knots trying to deal with straightforward questions like that. In the process, they have tended to become more and more convoluted, and less and less plausible. Mr. Posner brings a lot of this back to earth, and this really is pretty near to "closed" in my opinion.



3. I can't even give it a star but it's a requirement. Part surmise part fact, this is not definitive in any aspect of the word. He cherrie picks his way through the evidence.



4. Years ago I came to the conclusion the assasination MUST have been a conspiracy. But later in life after some research started to be open minded to the idea that Oswald acted alone.
   I read this book with the hope, that it would close this case (for me). Incredibly, what Posner did for me, was leave me thinking that it is impossible all these events are just a series of random coincidences.
   It is clear after reading the book that Oswald was not just some nut who acted alone. .



5. Gerald Posner's book, Case Closed is a real eye opener. If, like many people, you base all of your opinions on the JFK assasination on the Oliver Stone film, then you need to read this book.
   
   Posner's book, incredibly well researched and annotated, demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Stone's film, while remarkably entertaining, plays fast and loose with many of the facts surrounding this historical event.
   
   As Posner details, most of the so-called "evidence" of a conspiracy presented in the film does not stand up to close examination. Some of it is no more than wild speculation, much of it flat out untrue, but has through years of retelling entered the public consciousness as if it were fact. For instance, the alleged eyewitnesses featured in the movie have largely been discredited over the years, many changing their stories several times, others having been shown not to have even been in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Posner also takes on the so-called scientific evidence of the conspiracy buffs, dismantling their arguments piece by piece in convincing fashion.
   
   The important thing to realize about this book is how thoroughly and meticulously researched it is. There is no conjecture - merely cold hard facts, presented as found. As convinced as I was before I read this book that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, I am just as convinced now that there was not.

5 comments about The Assassins.

1. I've enjoyed all three books, but this one is the best of the three. There's less incindental religious pretext (which you can only assume is there to push a point), and a lot more suspense. The build up is long, but enjoyable, and the action at the end is addicting. The only bad thing I'd have to say about it is that you're reading what would be unfolding right now, and it isn't. The "good" state of things in the middle east doesn't exist, and reading it in the future might be a sad reminder of the political mudfest of the time.



2. Stories about real-life possibilities and the likely actions agencies around the world take to cause and prevent them. I am very impressed.



3. This is as usual, a great book written by Oliver North. Shipping was fast. Book looks great.



4. This was the first book I have read voluntary in years, and what a great book. Really a great way to come back to reading. The book was gripping from the first page and you just need to read one more page...till your done with the book. An eary realism to the book and the time relevance of our time is great and something awesome to relate to. It is like watching the prime news at night.



5. I enjoyed the action North put into this story. With his military back ground as suport, the realism and pace of the story was enjoyable. Read it in two evenings.

5 comments about We Saw Lincoln Shot: One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts.

1. This is a wonderful, very informative book. It's the only written collection of eye witness accounts ever published on the Lincoln assasination. Every Lincoln buff needs to add this one to his or her library.



2. I had to read a book on American History for my college course. I am interested in President Lincoln's assassination and this book caught my eye! Very interesting and hard to put down! Highly reccommended to anyone, old or young.



3. Very comprehensive book- the only one out there like it. It is interesting to read what the people in the theatre that terrible night actually saw and heard. I learned some things I didn't know by reading this book, and would definately reccommend it to anyone interested in the Lincoln Assasanation.



4. Good's book captures the immediacy of a dramatic and tragic moment in U.S. history: when John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theater in April 1865. Reading the accounts of eyewitnesses, we can all feel as if we were there--the lights are down, the actors are saying their lines, a gunshot pierces the air, a man leaps from the presidential balcony onto the stage, he yells something and waves a knife and disappears. Pandemonium ensues.
   
   This book would make a good companion volume to James Swanson's Manhunt. Read them in chronological order (this book first) and be transported back 140 years.
   
   Richard Salva--author of Soul Journey from Lincoln to Lindbergh [UNABRIDGED]



5. This is an outstanding book for anyone who really wants to get a glimpse of the Lincoln assassination as though you were there, or at least hearing about it via contemporaneous accounts. It helps sort out what probably happened from a lot of the embellishments that came later, but now seem to be accepted as facts in many places.
   
   My biggest concern in buying this book was that so many accounts of essentially the same things would become repetitive. As it turns out, not the case at all--not only are the accounts about many different aspects of the assassination and many different perspectives among those, the editor/author adds enough commentary to place each in context.
   
   A must-read for anyone interested in the Lincoln assassination.

5 comments about Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

1. Steers write one of the most accurate and detailed books on the Lincoln assassination. He provides a history of the times when the "black flag" of warfare was raised after the Union's infamous Dahlgren raid that was part of a two prong attack on Richmond. The mission was to free prisoners and disrupt Richmond and allegedly included plans to kill Davis and his cabinet. This controversial raid, As Steers points out, may have raised the ante of warfare without rules as the Confederates start their own controversial plans such as biological warfare that included an attempt to spread yellow fever. Steers starts breaking myths early with the Baltimore controversy where Lincoln switched trains to avoid a real plot to assassinate him as his train passes through Baltimore earlier than scheduled with no sop on his way to his inauguration. Steers documents how surprisingly accessible Lincoln was to the public and how he was relatively poorly protected or at times not at all at his request due to his intuition that anyone could commit the crime regardless of a guard detail. The author provides fascinating detail on Booth and his companions as they initially plot the kidnapping of Lincoln and in failing to do so, turn to assassination as the war is closing and Lincoln's sentiments toward "black human suffrage" raises Booth's ire to an intolerable level. The high points of the book are the well documented associations between Booth with not only his immediate quadrant of conspirators but also with Mary Surratt and a number of Confederate agents in Maryland, D.C. and Virginia. Steers' analysis breaks any myth that Dr. Mud was innocent of aiding and abetting Booth. A recent book offers that Mud may have not recognized Booth when Booth appeared at Mud's home during his escape but that seems circumspect since Mud met Booth several times before and Booth was a relatively famous actor. The manhunt for Booth is covered in great detail and it is extraordinary fascinating as Booth escapes to Virginia with the help of established agents. Steers describes the temporary haven that Booth and Herold finally reach outside of Bowling Green at the Garrett farm but Stanton's dragnet discovers Booth's trail in Virginia. Although quite by accident, that accident puts them amazingly right on the trail of Booth at Port Royal, Virginia just west of Fredericksburg and a handful of miles from Booth's quiet and seemingly safe haven. As Steers notes, there is some interesting speculation as to why the three Confederates, who provide Booth assistance to his temporary haven, suddenly turn up to offer assistance at Port Royal. The author also presents excellent bios on the men involved in the conspiracies; the incompetent George Atzerodt who not only abstains from killing Andrew Johnson at the last minute but leaves evidence and a relatively easy trail to follow; Lewis Powell, the mysterious young veteran soldier who wounds virtually the entire Seward family in his attempt to kill the Secretary of State and goes stoically to the hangman; and young David Herold who deserts Powell but is Booth's guide in his escape through Maryland and into Virginia. Along with these prime conspirators, Steers brings in Booth's early associates that also get captured in the dragnet even though they withdrew from Booth's later plans. And finally Steer's aptly dismembers the theories that Booth escaped and that an imposter was buried in his name. Steer's even tells of an odd character that drags a corpse around for years eerily claiming it is Booth in an attempt for notoriety and money. The final chapter covers Lincoln's long funeral train trip that stopped at several large cities on his long trek back to Springfield, allowing a large population to view Lincoln's open casket. As the author notes, Lincoln returned to his hometown as he inferred when he left, that he might not return with the ability to enjoy his homecoming.



2. Last year, I visited the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Musuem in Springfield, Illinois. At the Musuem, they had a temporary exhibit called "Blood on the Moon". It was a fascinatating exhibit and when I saw that the exhibit's name was taken from a book, I started looking for the book to go slightly more in-depth about the assassination. The book is pretty good. The beginning is good and I liked all the photos that were included in the book. But there are two reasons why I couldn't give this book 5 stars: there were parts that I had a hard time keeping myself interested in. A slight bit of dry reading. The second reason is the author's repeated repeatings of somethings in the book. I'm not quite sure if the author forgot that he had already mentioned those facts or perhaps is underestimating the readers intelligence in remembering what they've read but I was annoyed that some things that I had already read kept popping up. I prefered the parts of the book when the author wasn't just reeling off facts and put things into action. The story of the assassination was fascinating and I liked how the author included maps of all the various Booth getaways. I also found the information about Lincoln's final trip back to Springfield very interesting.
   
   So I wouldn't say this would be a book for anyone who is more interesting in maybe the story-telling aspect of this part of history since the telling of fact upon fact might bore some people slightly. But I would recommend this to anyone who is interested in learning about the Lincoln assassination and especially anyone who was lucky enough to see the Blood on the Moon exhibit at the Abraham Lincoln Musuem.



3. Edward Steers wrote one of the best accounts of Lincoln Assassination in recent history. Although his writing style is bit dry as many reviewers in the past have noted, his research is untouchable and this is a very readable account to anyone who have any interest in this subject. The author laid everyone and everything out in a clear and understandable matter. He take a careful reading to all who was involved, their backgrounds and the roles they played during the war. He also take study to Lincoln's own lackluster desire for security and how that encouraged men like Booth to take him on. Lincoln didn't realized that perception of protection can deter an assassination then the actual protection itself. The author take the efforts to debunked many myths and self-serving stories surrounding Lincoln assassination plot including if the real John W. Booth was really died on the porch of the Garrett house. The author also explained the legal definitation of the case and how it may be applied even in modern era.
   
   One of the great services of the book comes surrounding the role Dr. Samuel Mudd played. The author made it loud and clear that Mudd was clearly guility of the role he played and richly deserves his life sentence although he only served four years before being pardoned. Dr. Mudd is definitely not an innocent bystander and he was deep into the plot to assassinate Lincoln. Most of Mudd's guilt ironically come from Mudd himself which is a testament to the author's research. Mary Surratt's role was also clearly pointed out. Whether she deserves to hang or not is up to the moralists but she was definitely guility as Mudd.
   
   If I had a singular gripe, I would have to say that the author could have included the very last photographs of Lincoln taken on 10 April 1865 (by Alexander Gardner), the one which have him smiling would have been a better choice then his Nov 1863 photo on the cover of the book or Lincoln's Springfield photo since the author states quite often in his narrative how happy Lincoln seem to be during his last days.
   
   I would regard this book as a mandatory reading material for anyone interested in the Lincoln's assassination story. Although it little dry but still readable, superbly research and highly informative.



4. Without a doubt this is the most accurate accounting of Mr. Booth and Mr. Lincoln leading up to and after April 14th, 1865. Ed Steers, Jr. did his research well and has the talent to present the story in an enjoyable fashion. The final page tells it all. A must read.



5. this is , in my opinion, the definative book on the lincoln assassination, and the escape of john wilkes booth. not only does the author give a clear and concise accounting, he takes us out of the vacuum and explains the minute details of the very knotted relationships between the conspirators, and the links of the confederate underground to canada and back. there is no mistaking the intention of any one of the people involved. he also establishes the money trail that funded booth. im surprised that more people were not prosecuted. it doesnt let anyone off the hook.

5 comments about The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat As Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of The Marquis de Sade (or Marat Sade).

1. Written in the early sixties, the play frequently abbreviated as Marat/Sade is set in 1808, yet many of the comments are distinctly directed toward current events, notably the upheavals in Eastern Europe. Now, with the fall of the Soviet Union behind us, the play takes on even greater significance. Despite the reassurances of the asylum director, whether a mere fifteen years or well over two hundred years have passed, the nature of revolutions, and the fanatics who cause them, has not changed. Combining historical events with modern theatrics, Weiss has produced what has been and will continue to be one of the most disturbing, as well as one of the most important works ever to be performed on stage.



2. I first heard of this play around 30 years ago when it was performed by the upper classes of my school in England. I never forgot it and decided recently to purchase the play and to read it.
   The story takes place in an insane asylum in France around the time of the French Revolution, where The Marquis de Sade was kept for a number of years. He wrote a play about the revolutionary - Jean-Paul Marat, which was performed by the inmates of the asylum.
   However, the play is much more than that. It really is a commentary about about how people behave toward one another during terrible periods of time.
   I think it is a remarkable play - sometimes a little horrifying - but very well worth while picking up to read. I whole heartedly recommend it.



3. Maybe you have seen the film "Quills" and it has sparked an interest in you about the Marquis de Sade. Or maybe you are a history buff and are interested in the time of the French revolution, or perhaps you just love a really good thought-provoking play. If any of those things holds your interest you are in for a really marvelous read. 'The Persecution and Assassination of Jean Paul Marat as performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under The Direction of Marquis de Sade"(by Peter Weiss) is the full title of this book, but is AKA "Marat/Sade" and various editions may be found under either title. The edition I am reviewing is the English version(original is German) by Geoffrey Skelton.
   
   So Marat/Sade is a play within a play with definite messages concerning "Revolution" and the effects on both the masses and the leaders. The setting is a fictional one, but uses the basis of historical events and characters to tell the story. The play inside this play is written and produced by Sade and performed by the inmates of Charenton where he spent so many years imprisoned for his writing, considered socially unacceptable and outrageous. The year it is being performed is 1808 but the events surrounding the story are happening on July 13, 1793, the day Charlotte Corday stabbed Jean-Paul Marat.
   
   It is the day of the assassination. Marat, Sade, Corday,and political activists of the time argue back and forth about the reasoning and atrocities surrounding the Revolution and the state of Terror. The points going back and forth(sometimes in song) has the inmates(the rest of the cast), being easily swayed and worked up into a state of frenzy, all the while building to the stabbing. What is morally right and wrong? Heads are rolling - literally - who are the sane ones here - are the inmates running the asylum - so to speak?Even Columier(progressive director of the institution and supporter of freedom in arts)has trouble with the play when he feels it goes to far against the establishment.
   
   This book, first published in 1965 grasps not only the horrific events of the 18th century, it is also certainly a statement on the international events of the 1960's. It will still provoke thought and may translate to some of the atrocities going on in the world today. Author Peter Weiss, seems to have really gotten into the heads of Sade, Marat and the others giving intellectual and provocative dialogue to the players. The scenes are well set for the stage, and excellent descriptions are given for each character making it very easy to visualize the entire play.
   
   The books includes character descriptions - even down to subtle items in the wardrobe that would distinguish their roles, author's note on the historical background of the play,the music and words to the songs, and a brief bio of Weiss. I don't speak German(the 2 semesters I took in college nearly 40 years ago is long forgotten), but I have to say I don't feel like anything was lost in the translation of this play.
   
   I would highly recommend this play to anyone who enjoys historical fiction, politics, infamous characters, and even if you are part of an acting group looking for an interesting and provocative play, you should have a look at this one.
   
   This is a keeper and one to be read repeated times...enjoy the read...Laurie



4. I found the title of Peter Weiss's play so interesting that I bought his play on an impulse. I half expected it to be unreadably pretentious, but in fact I thoroughly enjoyed it. I would love to see it actually performed, but I live over a thousand miles from where that might be happening. One advantage of reading the play is that the author's comments are available.
   
   I knew very little beyond the superficial about Sade or Marat, so I was somewhat surprised to discover that Sade actually wrote plays while confined in Charenton that were performed by the inmates, and that Marat was a scientist who expressed ideas well ahead of his time. I was inspired to learn more about Marat, so I read his essay ARE WE UNDONE, in which he urges: "The cutting off of five or six hundred heads would have guaranteed your peace, liberty and happiness." In the play he justifies this savagery by insisting (p. 113): "We do not murder we kill in self-defence." (It might very well be our beloved president speaking). If Marat was made the scapegoat for the Reign of Terror, it was not without foundation.
   
   Weiss writes that what interested him "in bringing Sade and Marat together was the conflict between an individualism carried to extreme lengths and the idea of a political and social upheaval. Speaking to Marat, Sade says (p. 131), "these cells of the inner self are worse than the deepest stone dungeon as long as they are locked all your Revolution remains only a prison mutiny to be put down by corrupted fellow-prisoners." This dovetails interestingly with Sade's comment to his wife when she complained that one could not approve of his mode of thought (p. 147): "My mode of thought is the result of my reflections, it is a part of my life, of my own nature. It is not in my power to alter it, and if it were in my power I should not do it." This brings to mind Schopenhauer's reflection that "You can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want." Thus do Sade and Marat imprison themselves within their own grubby little minds. Sade claims, in this play at least, (p.72), "In a criminal society I dug the criminal out of myself so I could understand him and so understand the times we live in." His mode of thought makes this sort of understanding improbable.
   
   However, as with all pessimistic assertions, this is not really true. With just a moment's honest reflection it is obvious enough that most of what makes up our "nature" is purely haphazard, and our "reflections" are just an obsessive rehashing of petty grievances and sexual fantasies that that we come to mistake for our true nature.



5. While certainly a brilliant play, I should mention that this edition differs slightly from the edition I used while in the United Kingdom. Aside from the typical spelling changes, certain words were changed slightly in meaning (Coulmier's "This is outright defeatism!" vs. "...outright pacifism!"). The biggest crime, however, was a drastic reduction of the final scene.
   
   The UK edition features an extended Epilogue, including an explanation from Sade, the "resurrection" and counter-explanation of Marat, and a giant poster of Napoleon during the parade scene. In this edition, some of the Herald's lines were given to Coulmier to apparently bridge the gap.
   
   All of the descriptions, introductions, notes, and even inclusion of musical scores remain identical. If given a choice, I would certainly look for that edition, as it is somewhat more fulfilling. (It features a standard black & white cover with no pink trim)

5 comments about The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome.

1. Michael Parenti's book, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome, might be read most profitably in conjunction with Goldsworthy's new biography, Caesar: Life of a Colossus. Parenti's work focuses on a specific issue--Caesar as "populist," murdered by wary elitists. Goldsworthy's book is much more detailed, provides much more context. Parenti's book can be viewed within the larger context.
   
   Parent's thesis, outlined on page 3, is straightforward: "Caesar's sin, I shall argue, was not that he was subverting the Roman constitution--which was an unwritten one--but that he was loosening the oligarchy's overbearing grip on it. Worse still, he used state power to effect some limited benefits for small farmers, debtors, and urban proletariat, at the expense of the wealthy few."
   
   Some other reviewers are appalled at this thesis and the manner in which Parenti writes. This is typical of Parenti's work more generally. He has a position and normally writes in such a way as to address that view in no uncertain terms. Some will appreciate this; others won't. But the question should not be whether or not one likes his passionate writing. The question should be: Does he make his case? This is why reading this book in concert with Goldsworthy's makes sense. In the latter volume, much the same theme is advanced, although presented in a much more nuanced, and, in fact, more convincing manner.
   
   This book is most useful in laying out a perspective that is straightforward and not subtle. Sometimes, the lack of subtlety undermines the logic of the analysis. Still, the volume provides a thesis that places Caesar in a political context.



2. The most brilliantly thorough and readable analysis of the late roman republic I have ever read, its politics as well as its personalities, bringing to life a pivotal period in world history.
   
   Having read several related books over the last few years, it has always struck me how many books about the ancient roman republic and the imperial period just concentrate on personal motives, superficialities and/or gossip, completely dissociated from the deeper political motives of the participants and/or the economic forces of the period. Also how many authors simply recycle ancient judgements on many personalities like Cicero, Sulla, Augustus etc... even though the (scant) historical record simply indicates otherwise.
   
   In fact most books on this salient period of western civilization raise more questions than they answer, either because they lack fundamental research, recycle old conclusions or just simply are unable to analyze the reasons and impact of this watershed event. Unlike those timid authors Parenti uses his prodigious scholarship and clear marshalling of historical sources to resurrect a long lost period of history with disturbing connotations to the present. Not only is this a brilliant analysis of the late republic but it puts into context both the events leading to the assasination of Caesar and the rise of the Augustan dictatorship.
   
   That Parenti doesn't analyse every single incident of Caesar's life or dissect every event or incident during this period is nonsense as a criticism. He keeps a clear focus on the subject at hand - to explain to a lay audience the main events leading up to the most famous political assassination of western civilization and, more importantly, the major motivations behind this murder. In this he succeeds brilliantly and the book has my highest recommendation!



3. Anyone familiar with the historical scholarship dealing with Julius Caesar and the late Roman Republic will find this book frustrating and disappointing -- not because that reader is wedded to some supposed "gentlemanly conservative" take on the fall of the Republic, but because this book is a maddening stew. Michael Parenti claims to be offering a new and iconoclastic view of Roman history, shattering a carefully-constructed myth designed to steal agency from the people and those who sought to help them and to celebrate as republican heroes the aristocrats and toadies who kept the people down. But the problem with his caricatured view of Roman historiography is that what's good about his book is not new and what's new about his book is not good.
   
   What's new is his attempt to reinvent Caesar as some sort of revolutionary statesman seeking to bring justice to the Roman poor. It is not at all clear that Caesar was sincere about his populism or was a far more gifted manipulation of the people than, say, Catiline, the target not only of Cicero but of Sallust, a Caesarean historian who had little use for Catiline's supposed populism or for the posturing of Cicero, who brought Catiline down.
   
   What's good here is really not new, and Parenti should be embarrassed by his attempt to persuade readers of his originality. Many fine scholars, such as Sir Ronald Syme [a true iconoclast] and Peter Brunt and Michael Crawford, already have shown that many of those who conspired against Caesar feared that he would unleash the plebeians against them and their entrenched privileges and locks on political power. So, too, Cicero has not wanted for criticw who have denounced him for self-congratulatory massaging of the record, or for cuddling up to those wielding power. Finally, many of the finest studies of this period emphasize the differences between Julius Caesar and his eventual successor Octravius who became Augustus. Augustus donned the mantle of Caesar and fastened a dictatorship on Rome under the guise of reviving and reforming the Republic -- but scholars have long abandoned the tendency to confuse the Augustan regime with what Caesar intended to found or perpetuate.
   
   The problem, ultimately, is that we do not know what Caesar planned to do and we guess at his plans with the risk of falling on our faces -- in great measure because Caesar, as gifted a politician as any in history, navigated from point to point and never left or recorded a clear plan as to what he wanted his legacy to be, or his solution to the problems of Rome. It is as difficult and frustrating to seek Caesar's intentions as it is to find Lincoln's intentions for what he wanted to do and what he wanted the nation's policy to be after the end of the Civil War. In both cases, assassination almost certainly cost us any clear answer to these endlessly fascinating questions.
   
   Thus, Parenti's claims to have revealed a new and clear understanding of Caesar's era and his fate fall to the ground. Readers should turn instead to Rom Holland's slightly over-jazzed but nonetheless entertaining RUBICON, or, for a more sober account, to the classic biography of Caesar by Matthias Gelzer or the recent life by Adriaon Goldsworthy.



4. This is a fascinating book, beautifully written, compellingly informative, with engrossing details and surprising accounts. It is an analysis not only of Rome's Late Republic but of the conservative and manipulative prejudices and tacky scholarship of many writers on the subject.
   
   One reviewer here attacks Parenti for claiming to be the first to show that the conspirators killed Caesar because he was moving against their privileges. That is a false statement, as Parenti makes no such claim. Parenti explicitly notes that other scholars before him, including Arthur Kahn and most notably G.E.M. de Ste. Crois, have offered this thesis. He quotes Kahn who says however that they are just "a handful."
   
   Also contrary to that reviewer, Parenti never said that scholars "confuse the Augustan regime with what Caesar intended to found or perpetuate." All Parenti does is note how unconcerned the senators were when their "beloved" Republic was undermined by Augustus. They readily went along with the emperor because he secured their material interests. That was their concern--their wealth and property. That's why they supported Augustus and hated Caesar--Caesar refused to leave their immense wealth and class privileges untouched. He dared to demand that they share a bit of it.
   
   That issue, like so much else in this book is all too relevant for the conditions of today. Parenti is a remarkably versatile and powerful writer. No one so capably combines such thoughtful, engaging analysis and perspective with such interesting storytelling.



5. This book was very informative, objective and entertaining at the same time. NOt only it tells you about the real face of the senators in Rome at the time but it also keeps a balance between good and bad in Julius Cesar. The book is also full of very interesting details about common life in Rome and the parallels that you can establish as you read it with the politics of our times is unbelievable! I highly reccommend it!

5 comments about Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism.

1. Lee Harvey Oswald was Kennedy's would-be lone assassin. I said "would be lone assassin" because the circumstances surrounding Kennedy's death were a little more outré than those suggested by the Warren Commission. Interested readers should refer to the suppressed out-of-print gem "Mortal Error" by Bonar Menninger.
   
   That having been said, Oswald was as guilty of Kennedy's murder as if he'd fired the shot to the head that killed him and he was the only individual morally responsible for Kennedy's death. He acted as a committed Marxist-Leninist in order to fulfill Marxist-Leninist ends. Those who would argue otherwise are either stupid, ill-informed, or evil (or a combination of the three), and their arguments are a product of their deficiencies.
   
   James Piereson bypasses the conspiracy theorists, musing how fanciful conspiracy theory changed identities after the fifties, becoming a tool of the far left, instead of the far right. This shift was indeed a result of JFK's death, and the change in the appearance of left-liberalism in the aftermath is what Piereson primarily focuses on.
   
   Notwithstanding the Left's control of the news media, the academic theocracy, and the entertainment industry, I'd long wondered how Kennedy's death (largely) at the hands of a committed Communist had somehow merged into a bloody shirt around which the LEFT (not the Right) was able to rally.
   
   Piereson provides as coherent explanation for this development as any. It could have been more concise though. There was no need to fill out his 2006 Commentary article into the size of a small book. By doing so, Piereson allowed his argument to become somewhat repetitious.
   
   Still, his explanation "works" and a lot of it has to do with the loony widow herself, Jacqueline Kennedy. Piereson tries to contrast the cool detachment that the former Mrs. Onassis displayed after the homicide with the mental unraveling displayed by Mrs. Lincoln. But I'd say that both widows were mentally unhinged in their own way -- Mrs. Kennedy maybe a little more so before the fact.
   
   For the pink-pillboxed ditz to decry that her husband didn't even die for "civil rights" but instead died at the hands of "some silly little Communist" shows incredible ignorance of Cold War realities - especially given that her stupid observation was made only a little over a year after that Cold War came close to exploding into a Mega-Hot One. Jackie was a silly little First Lady.
   
   And "Camelot" was entirely a myth created post-mortem by the loony widow, and Piereson shows how that myth helped change the face of liberalism from forward-looking and optimistic to that of dark, brooding, and vengeful after Kennedy's death. After all, the ORIGINAL myth of Camelot, which Piereson goes into an interesting description of here, does suggest that the good times are over with the passing of the kingdom.
   
   But I think that Piereson is exaggerating the change that he describes - liberalism and leftism have always had their dark sides. Maybe Kennedy's death just brought them closer to the surface. But again, his description of the synthesis is well worth reading.
   
   What's needed now are a second and maybe third part to Piereson's narrative. If the Left misappropriated JFK, so did the Right, in general, and the neo-cons, in particular. Piereson doesn't really discuss that misappropriation. But if JFK wasn't really a closeted Cumbaya-singing Sixties peace activist, neither was he a die-hard Reaganaut. He was a consummate Democratic pol who used what means were at his disposal to try to destroy the Right when he was alive.
   
   So why did Reagan and others successfully assume the mantle of JFK and why did they want to, in the first place? More to the point, what can knowledgeable individuals of all stripes who recognize the fraud inherent in the myth of Camelot do to educate the yokels of its dangers and thereby help create a world without Kennedys?



2. The premise of this work is that while assasinating President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald put American liberalism in its grave. The contortions that liberals had to go through to avoid the idea that their hero had been killed by a communist transformed them, in the end, from the optimistic, future oriented people they were in 1963 to the hateful and hating maniacs that they are today. The irony is that if JFK were to be brought back to life today, he would shortly be drummed out of the modern, Democrat Party.



3. There are no guarantees when buying books. We often eagerly anticipate a release hoping it will be a classic but soon discover that it belongs on the ash heap of history alongside the collected works of Marx, recordings of the Back Street Boys, and every single movie featuring Madonna. Occasionally however, we unfurl a package and find that its contents widely exceed our expectations. One such work is James Piereson's Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism.
   
   Whatever the angle or line of rumor, the one thing for certain is that a sizable plurality of Americans agree that Oswald was who he said he was...just a pawn in the game. Piereson's text dispassionately, but skillfully, refutes this thesis. In one of his strongest chapters, "Assassin," he reexamines the facts of Oswald's life. To say that his case history lacks nuance is an understatement. The man who liquidated our 35th President was a diehard Marxist and anything but a shill for the military. Oswald's acceptance of Marxism came in 1953 after he was handed a bill advocating clemency for the Rosenbergs. His allegiance to communism meant, as it does for so many angry radicals, that this alienated and troubled young man would no longer be alone.
   
   The infamous gunman had nothing but contempt for American history and its institutions. He hated the radical right and attempted to kill segregationist, General Edwin A. Walker, six months before he trained his sights on Kennedy. Oswald went to the Soviet Union to savor the worker's paradise but found a bureaucratic nightmare instead. He returned, albeit begrudgingly, to his homeland. The FBI's refusal to take him seriously was a disgrace and a testament to their incompetence; while the media's refusal to consider the possible significance of his visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies [in Mexico] is a testament to their bias. That he conferred with KGB agent Valeriy Kostikov a few months before taking aim should be of interest to anyone in pursuit of the truth.
   
   Why did Oswald do it? Mr. Piereson's explanation resonates far more than the conspiracies contaminating our public square. His purpose was to get the attention of Fidel Castro and also to preserve the life of the dictator. The Cuban Marxist was the last leader for whom Mr. Oswald had any faith. After he threatened the president in a 1963 interview, the deluded and alienated communist may have interpreted his words in the same manner as King Henry II's deputies. Oswald happily answered the question, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" by stepping forth to the window of the book depository in Dallas.
   
   By itself, reminding the world of who Oswald actually was is an important achievement, but it is just one of the many rejuvenating and provocative arguments elucidated in Camelot and the Cultural Revolution. His discussion of "punitive liberalism" is potent and completely transferable to the present day. The practitioners of this school deem America--in lieu of its historical crimes--as a land and country in need of punishment. The founding of the new world coincided with slavery, the death of hordes of Indians, and, eventually, the internment of Japanese citizens during the Second World War. The punitive liberal believes that we deserve a comeuppance for what we have done.
   
   Piereson destroys this emotive reasoning with aplomb. Blaming America for the slaughter of the Kennedy brothers is entirely irrational. The punitive liberal hates everything about his homeland, but becomes outraged whenever this is pointed out to him. For some reason, conservatives allow the left to frame the debate on this issue. Many timidly retreat from coming out and saying that left is unpatriotic. This is puzzling because their anti-Americanism is blatantly obvious. When they gaze at Old Glory "jingoism and vengeance and war" come to mind.
   
   Mr. Piereson's concise account is a tour de force and not merely a historical study. It is a theoretical work which increases our understanding of both the past and present. Of a book we can ask for nothing more.



4. Over the years, I have heard many Left-wing people explain that it was the Kennedy assassination of 1963 that destroyed their faith in the system, and radicalized their politics. In this fascinating book, author and political thinker James Piereson examines the mythology that surrounds the Kennedy administration, how it was created, and the strange, unhinging effect it had on the American Left.
   
   This book came highly recommend to me, and I can see why. The author does an excellent job of showing how we got from the intelligent Left of the immediate post-War era to the loony Left of today. In the 50s, the loonies were on the Right, finding Communists under their beds, and fighting such devious plots as fluoride in the water. And now we have Fahrenheit 911 and Leftists seeing a "vast Republican-wing conspiracy." Want to know how we got here? Then read this book and find out!



5. As someone that lived through the events depicted, and someone who was enamored with JFK, I found the book quite good. Its a mixture of fact and opinion and is quite successful in bringing the two together.Its focus is on how the legacy of JFK differs from the facts, and how opinion about him was shaped beginningthe day of his death. I found it to be persuasive.