26-06-2013, 05:13 PM
I am rereading Bolden's book.
God, what they did to this guy. As bad as what happened to Nagell and Garrison.
I mean what a good witness he would have been. If you read the book, its pretty clear they did not like the fact that JFK really liked him. There is that one scene where Kennedy has the kitchen help especially serve him lunch while he is on his boat.
I think its from there that they understood that if something went wrong with JFK, he would be a weak link.
Bolden says there were only about 300 or so agents at the time he joined. Let us say it went up to maybe 400 or 500 by the time of the WC. Is it not odd that the SS did as many interviews post assassination as they did?Proportionally, its kind of out of whack versus the number of agents the FBI had. I don't want to read too much into that, but I think its notable.
And what he says then about the guy tailing him in Washington. I think that some of the book is written retroactively. In other words, he understood things after he was arrested that he did not before he was arrested. And its written in that manner, incorporating what he learned after the fact.
Another comment, his professionalism is in such stark contrast to these other jerks. I mean they hand him an AR 15, and he says he never worked with one before. They tell him to fake it. It is no wonder that a jerk like Elmer Moore got hired. And then was one of the prime movers of the cover up.
Rereading his book, it makes an argument for extreme criminal negligence. What he is saying, in one spot literally, is that any perpetrator could see that these guys were a bunch of yahoos and racist pigs who did not give a damn about JFK. They were a bunch of hard drinkers and womanizers. (Which, of course, makes it interesting that Hersh enlisted them for his trashy book.) All that would have been necessary is to have seen how poorly they reacted to previous attempts to be able to predict you could get away with a real one.
I think this jibes with Drago's hypothesis.
I am more convinced now that his book, and the limited exposure he got, was the real reason for the McCubbin book. It exposes them from the inside.
God, what they did to this guy. As bad as what happened to Nagell and Garrison.
I mean what a good witness he would have been. If you read the book, its pretty clear they did not like the fact that JFK really liked him. There is that one scene where Kennedy has the kitchen help especially serve him lunch while he is on his boat.
I think its from there that they understood that if something went wrong with JFK, he would be a weak link.
Bolden says there were only about 300 or so agents at the time he joined. Let us say it went up to maybe 400 or 500 by the time of the WC. Is it not odd that the SS did as many interviews post assassination as they did?Proportionally, its kind of out of whack versus the number of agents the FBI had. I don't want to read too much into that, but I think its notable.
And what he says then about the guy tailing him in Washington. I think that some of the book is written retroactively. In other words, he understood things after he was arrested that he did not before he was arrested. And its written in that manner, incorporating what he learned after the fact.
Another comment, his professionalism is in such stark contrast to these other jerks. I mean they hand him an AR 15, and he says he never worked with one before. They tell him to fake it. It is no wonder that a jerk like Elmer Moore got hired. And then was one of the prime movers of the cover up.
Rereading his book, it makes an argument for extreme criminal negligence. What he is saying, in one spot literally, is that any perpetrator could see that these guys were a bunch of yahoos and racist pigs who did not give a damn about JFK. They were a bunch of hard drinkers and womanizers. (Which, of course, makes it interesting that Hersh enlisted them for his trashy book.) All that would have been necessary is to have seen how poorly they reacted to previous attempts to be able to predict you could get away with a real one.
I think this jibes with Drago's hypothesis.
I am more convinced now that his book, and the limited exposure he got, was the real reason for the McCubbin book. It exposes them from the inside.