No Case Closed is not the title of the book. I have used that phrase in the title to draw attention to an older book published in the 1990s by Gerald Posner, which put forth the lone-gunnman assassination.
Today, nobody will go near that text with goggles and geiger counter. It has been proven so ridiculously full of errors that it is sheer embarassment to the lone-nutters in their artificial respirators otherwise known as the American Television Networks (contrast a serious of recent academic publishers titles -- where the authors are open to peer review in acadmic journals. Just how many lone nut argument to you find there--?reader?)
Yet LORD HAVE ST. LOUIS'S IDEA OF MERCY ON MR. PULITZER-- the press treatment that book received. Because of the media attention, the following is I would guess the case: among those who have only read one book on the assassination for perhaps forty per cent it is this one.
Think of what that means in terms of audience fragmentation.
I have never met anyone who has read more than two books on the topic who believes in the governments narative(s).
Now along comes this excelelnt book about the twelfth to put a nail in the lone nutters invisible coffin. Of course it has hardly recieved any reviews. People should compare it in quality of research to Case Closed. It could do wonders for our understanding of Corporate Media Objectivity.
The book I am talking about is Jefferson Morley's Our Man In Mexico:
Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA. Here is a review I wrote for Amazon.
Fixed Position of Camera Enables the Clear Causal Outline of a Flowchart!, February 29, 2008
By Boyce Hart "bubblegum" (nyc) - See all my reviews
A critical question makes the Kennedy Assassination perhaps more relevant to today than ever:to what extent is the nominal leader, the President, really in control of the permanent military, political, and communications bureacracies that shape his options? In 1961, when Kennedy became president, key components of this permannent bureacracy were thirteen years old. As a parent with a teenager there were moments of tension when one can wonder who or what called the shots. This was uniquely the case in 1960, as for eight years-- the truly formative ones in the developement of the entire post-war US society-- the CIA had been given extreme lattitude. Kennedy's relations with the permanet political and military bureacracy can serve as basis of comparison for how matters of war and peace are decided today, when blame-game controversies sometimes seem mere PR strategies for plausible denial 10.0
Jefferson Morleys book leaves little doubt that no matter what our betters tell us, the CIA was to a very significant degree doing its own things in 1963. The reason this emerges far more clearly than in other books, is that Morley's never allows the ocean of detail to alter his camera agle. It is not a totalizing focus like some other books that mistake thickness for ambition. Rather, it sticks to the Mexico City CIA station, its chief Winston Scott, and his close World War Two friend and possibly his own privatest Idohaon-- the only one weirder than fellow poet and contemporary Ezra Pound-- James Jesus Angleton.
Morley is carefull. When your asking about unauthorized actions of the CIA people who normally talk freely in the New Yorker have a way of clamming up. It is hard to find sources in the middle ground, for example on the question of who knew what when about the Bay of Pigs. Far easier to treat this grey area as the blacktop of the Langley 500, the way Tim Weiner does in his childishly simplified and baldly propagandistic narration of Kennedy relations with the CIA.
How does he get insiders to talk for a book that is lethal to the government sanctioned version of the assassination? By not oversating things. By mentioning enough right wing cubans without so many as to lose sense of thier handlers. By clearly delineating who was in charge of what CIA operation, and who didn't know about them as well. We can see the critical wires cross, and are not confused in a whirl of unessential relations. We can see the extra piece-- George Joannides-- being added like one too many bones in an ankle and the clarity with which one could mistake treason for the logical coorination of a counterintelligence
operation. Individuals are not blamed here, but the flow chart that teaches how the Cubans were "turned" is clear for the first time. At least for me, but I'm gradual.
Also Morley tells the story from the persepctive of Win Scotts family. This "works" in many ways. It might just be the footwear necessary for treading accross one the most contested and and important middle grounds -- between president and permanent bureacracy-- in twentieth and 21st Century history.
This work stands in welcome contrast to recent books that mistake the shere number of mafia people who were involved with anti-castro opperations between 1959-63 with actual causal importance in the assassination of JFK. So often books like Ultimate Sacrifice emphasize the Mafia unconvincingly, because their CIA contacts merely seem outnumbered on the page. Morley goes to the quixotic center of the maypole: one has little doubt of this as he reads about Angletons very different, and very compartmetalized relations with Winston Scott and his secret sharer within the US embassy in Mexico City, David Atlee Phillips.
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Man-Mexico-Wi ... 0700615717
Operation Mockingbird Spartacus:
Operation Mockingbird Education Forum
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... topic=5142