back to JFK | ratville times | rat haus | Index | Search | Tree

( text-only format )

Article: 289 of
From: (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Subject: Oliver Stone's upcoming movie on JFK
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1991 22:06:59 GMT
Lines: 310

Date:       Wed, 18 Sep 1991 19:18:29 CDT
From:       Rich Winkel <>
Subject: LOOT: "Who Killed JFK? The Media Whitewash"
To:           Multiple recipients of list ACTIV-L <ACTIV-L@UMCVMB>

Who Killed JFK?
The Media Whitewash

By Carl Oglesby
Lies Of Our Times, September 1991

[See JFK Scriptratitor]

Oliver Stone's current film-in-progress, JFK, dealing with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, is still months from theaters, but already the project has been sharply attacked by journalists who ordinarily could not care less what Hollywood has to say about such great events as the Dealey Plaza shooting of November 22, 1963.

The attack on Stone has enlisted (at least) the Boston Globe (editorial), the Boston Herald, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and Time magazine, and several other outlets were known to have been prowling the JFK set for angles. The intensity of this interest contrasts sharply with 1979, when the House Assassinations Committee published its finding of probable conspiracy in the JFK assassination, and the mass media reacted with one day of headlines and then a long, bored yawn.

How are we to understand this strange inconsistency? It is, of course, dangerous to attack the official report of a congressional committee; better to let it die a silent death. But a Hollywood film cannot be ignored; a major production by a leading director must be discredited, and if it can be done before the film is even made, so much the better.


JFK is based chiefly on Louisiana Judge Jim Garrison's 1988 memoir, On the Trail of the Assassins (New York: Sheridan Square Press), in which Garrison tells of his frustrated attempts to expose the conspiracy that he (and the vast majority of the American people) believes responsible for the murder at Dealey Plaza.

Garrison has argued since 1967 that Oswald was telling the truth when he called himself a "patsy." He believes that JFK was killed and Oswald framed by a rightwing "parallel government" seemingly much like "the Enterprise" discovered in the Iran-contra scandal in the 1980s and currently being rediscovered in the emerging BCCI scandal.

The conspirators of 1963, Garrison has theorized, grew alarmed at JFK's moves toward de-escalation in Vietnam, normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba, and detente with the Soviet Union. They hit upon a violent but otherwise easy remedy for the problem of JFK's emerging pacifism, Garrison believes, in the promotion by crossfire of Vice President Lyndon Johnson.

Stone hardly expected a movie with such a challenging message to escape notice, but he was startled to find himself under sharp attack while JFK was still being filmed. "Since when are movies judged," he said angrily, "sight-unseen, before completion and on the basis of a pirated first-draft screenplay?"


The first out of his corner was Jon Margolis, a syndicated Chicago Tribune columnist who assured his readers in May, when Stone had barely begun filming in Dallas, that JFK would prove "an insult to the intelligence" and "decency" ("JFK Movie and Book Attempt to Rewrite History," May 14, p. 19). Margolis had not seen one page of the first-draft screenplay (now in its sixth draft), but even so he felt qualified to warn his readers that Stone was making not just a bad movie but an evil one. "There is a point," Margolis fumed, "at which intellectual myopia becomes morally repugnant. Mr Stone's new movie proves that he has passed that point. But then so has [producer] Time-Warner and so will anyone who pays American money to see the film."

What bothered Margolis so much about JFK is that it is based on Garrison, whom Margolis described as "bizarre" for having "in 1969 [1967 actually] claimed that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy by some officials of the Central Intelligence Agency."

Since Margolis and other critics of the JFK project are getting their backs up about facts, it is important to note here that this is not at all what Garrison said. In two books and countless interviews, Garrison has argued that the most likely incubator of an anti-JFK conspiracy was the cesspool of Mafia hit men assembled by the CIA in its now-infamous Operation Mongoose, its JFK-era program to murder Fidel Castro.

But Garrison also rejects the theory that the Mafia did it by itself, a theory promoted mainly by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel of the House Assassinations Committee (HAC) of 1978 and co-author (with HAC writer Richard Billings) of The Plot to Kill the President (New York: Times Books, 1981). "If the Mafia did it," Garrison told LOOT, "why did the government so hastily abandon the investigation? Why did it become so eagerly the chief artist of the cover-up?"

More important, Garrison's investigation of Oswald established that this presumed leftwing loner was associated in the period just before the assassination with three individuals who had clear ties to the CIA and its anti-Castro operations, namely, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister.

Garrison did not draw a conclusion from Oswald's ties to these men. Rather he maintains that their presence in Oswald's story at such a time cannot be presumed innocuous and dismissed out of hand. The Assassinations Committee itself confirmed and puzzled over these ties in 1978, and even Blakey, a fierce rival of Garrison, accepts their central importance in the explanation of Oswald's role.


The most serious attacks against the JFK project are those of the Washington Post's George Lardner, perhaps the dean of the Washington intelligence press corps. Lardner covered the Warren Commission during the 1960s, at one point ran a special Post investigation of the case, and covered the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s.

Lardner's May 19 article on the front page of the Sunday Post "Outlook" section, "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland," ran to almost seven column feet, and by far the greater part of that was dedicated to the contemptuous dismissal of any thought that Garrison has made a positive contribution to this case. Stone must be crazy too, Lardner seemed to be saying, to be taking a nut like Garrison so seriously.

And yet Lardner's particulars are oddly strained.

Lardner wrote, for example, that the Assassinations Committee "may have" heard testimony linking Oswald with Ferrie and Ferrie with the CIA. Lardner knows very well that the committee did hear such testimony, no maybes about it, and that it found this testimony convincing. Then Lardner implicitly denied that the committee heard such testimony at all by adding grotesquely that it "may also have" heard no such thing. Why does Lardner want unwary readers to think that the well-established connections between Oswald, Ferrie, and the CIA exist only in Garrison's imagination?

Lardner stooped to a still greater deception with respect to the so-called "three tramps," the men who were arrested in the railroad yard just north of Dealey Plaza right after the shooting and taken to the police station, but then released without being identified. Lardner knows that there is legitimate concern about these men. For one thing, they were in exactly the area from which about half of the Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses believed shots were fired. For another, they do not look like ordinary tramps. Photos show that their clothing and shoes were unworn and that they were freshly shaved and barbered. But Lardner waved aside the question of their disappeared identities with a high-handed ad hominem sniff that, even if the police had taken their names, those who suspect a conspiracy "would just insist the men had lied about who they were."

Lardner next poked fun at the pirated first-draft version of Stone's screenplay for suggesting that as many as five or six shots might have been fired in Dealey Plaza. "Is this the Kennedy assassination," Lardner chortled, "or the Charge of the Light Brigade?" As though only the ignorant could consider a fifth or even, smirk, a sixth shot realistic.

But here is what the House Assassinations Committee's final report said on page 68 about the number of shots detected on the famous acoustics tape: "Six sequences of impulses that could have been caused by a noise such as gunfire were initially identified as having been transmitted over channel 1 [of police radio]. Thus, they warranted further analysis." The committee analyzed only four of these impulses because (a) it was short of funds and time when the acoustics tape was discovered, (b) the impulses selected for analysis conformed to timing sequences of the Zapruder film, and (c) any fourth shot established a second gun and thus a conspiracy. All four of these impulses turned out to be shots. Numbers one and six remain to be analyzed. That is, the acoustics evidence shows that there were at least four shots and perhaps as many as six.

Lardner's most interesting error is his charge that JFK mis-states the impact of the assassination on the growth of the Vietnam war. No doubt Stone's first-draft screenplay telescoped events in suggesting that LBJ began escalating the Vietnam war the second day after Dallas. Quietly and promptly, however, LBJ did indeed stop the military build-down that JFK had begun; and as soon as LBJ won the 1964 election as the peace candidate, he started taking the lid off. Motivated by a carefully staged pretext, the Gulf of Tonkin "incident," the bombing of North Vietnam began in February 1965. It is puzzling to see such a sophisticated journalist as Lardner trying to finesse the fact that Kennedy was moving toward de-escalation when he was killed and that the massive explosion of the U.S. war effort occurred under Johnson. In this sense, it is not only reasonable but necessary to see the JFK assassination as a major turning point in the war.

Strangest of all is that Lardner himself has come to believe in a Dealey Plaza conspiracy, admitting that the Assassinations Committee's findings in this respect "still seem more plausible than any of the criticisms" and subsequently restating the point in a tossed-off "acknowledgment that a probable conspiracy took place."

The reader will search Lardner's writing in vain, however, for the slightest elaboration of this point even though it is obviously the crux of the entire debate. My own JFK file, for example, contains 19 clippings with Lardner's byline and several Washington Post clippings by other writers from the period in which the Assassinations Committee announced its conspiracy findings. The only piece I can find among these that so much as whispers of support for the committee's work was written by myself and Jeff Goldberg ("Did the Mob Kill Kennedy?" Washington Post Outlook section, February 25, 1979).

If the Warren critics were a mere handful of quacks jabbering about UFOs, as Lardner insinuates, one might understand the venom he and other mainstreamers bring to this debate.

But this is simply not the case. The Post's own poll shows that 56 percent of us-75 percent of those with an opinion-believe a conspiracy was afoot at Dallas. And it was the U.S. Congress, after a year-long, $4 million, expert investigation, that concluded, "President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."


So what is it with the American news media and the JFK murder? Why do normally skeptical journalists reserve their most hostile skepticism for those who have tried to keep this case on the national agenda? What is it about Dealey Plaza that not even the massive disbelief of the American people and the imprimatur of the Congress can legitimate this issue to the news media?

As one who has followed this case closely and actively for nearly 20 years-and who has often heard the charge of "paranoia" as a response to the bill of particulars-I find it increasingly hard to resist concluding that the media's strange rage for silence in this matter presents us with a textbook case of denial, disassociation, and double-think. I hear frustration and fear in the reasoning of Lardner and Margolis and their comrades who constantly erect straw men to destroy and whose basic response to those who would argue the facts is yet another dose of ad hominem character assassination, as we are beholding in the media's response to Stone and Garrison:

  • Frustration because the media cannot stop Stone's movie from carrying the thesis of a JFK conspiracy to a global audience already strongly inclined to believe it.

  • Fear because the media cannot altogether suppress a doubt in their collective mind that the essential message of JFK may be correct after all, and that, if it is, their current relationship to the government may have to change profoundly.

And perhaps a touch of shame, too, because in the persistence of the mystery of JFK's death, there may be the beginning of an insight that the media are staring their own greatest failure in the face.


It is true that Garrison could not convince the New Orleans jury that Shaw had a motive to conspire against JFK. This is because he could not prove that Shaw was a CIA agent. Had Garrison been able to establish a Shaw link to the CIA, then JFK's adversarial relationship with the CIA's Task Force W assassination plots against Castro would have become material and a plausible Shaw motive might have come into focus.

But in 1975, six years after Shaw's acquittal and a year after his death, a CIA headquarters staff officer, Victor Marchetti, disclosed that Garrison was right, that Shaw, and Ferrie as well, were indeed connected to the CIA. Marchetti further revealed that CIA Director Richard Helms-a supporter of the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro-had committed the CIA to helping Shaw in his trouble with Garrison. What the CIA might have done in this regard is not known, but Marchetti's revelation gives us every reason to presuppose a CIA hand in the wrecking of Garrison's case against Shaw.

George Lardner is not impressed by the proof of a CIA connection to Shaw. He responds dismissively that Shaw's CIA position was only that of informant: Shaw, he writes, "was a widely traveled businessman who had occasional contacts with the CIA's Domestic Contact Service. Does that make him an assassin?" Of course not, and Garrison never claimed it did. But it certainly does-or ought to-stimulate an interest in Shaw's relationship to Oswald and Ferrie. Is it not strikingly at variance with the Warren Commission's lone-nut theory of Oswald to find him circulating within a CIA orbit in the months just ahead of the assassination? Why is Lardner so hot to turn away from this evidence?

How fascinating, moreover, that Lardner should claim with such an air of finality to know all about Shaw's ties to the CIA, since a thing like this could only be known for a certainty to a highly placed CIA officer. And if Lardner is not (mirabile dictu) himself an officer of the CIA, then all he can plausibly claim to know about Shaw is what the CIA chooses to tell him. Has George Lardner not heard that the CIA lies?

—Carl Oglesby

Reprinted with permission from Lies Of Our Times, September 1991, copyright © 1991 by the Institute for Media Analysis, Inc. and Sheridan Square Press, Inc. Subscriptions to LOOT are $2year (U.S.), from LOOT, 145 W. 4th St., New York, NY 10012.

daveus rattus               
yer friendly neighborhood ratman


ko.yan.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language)   n.   1. craz y life.   2. life
in turmoil.   3. life out of balance.   4. life disinteg rating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

back to JFK | ratville times | rat haus | Index | Search | Tree