the CIA,
this is as good as a rerun of the Warren Commission, since the
net results are quite similar. So its no surprise to me that the
focus of Hersh's book has shifted between Oswald did it for the
Mob, and an all out trashing of the Kennedys.
The standard defense by these purveyors is that they go on the
offense. Anyone who objects to their peculiar blend of
misinformation, or questions their sources or intent is labeled
as "protecting the Kennedys," or a "disappointed Kennedy fan," or
a "hagiographer." Tactically, this is a great cover to avoid the
questionable credibility of people like the Alsops, Priscilla
Johnson McMillan, or a flimflam man like Slatzer. It also avoids
acknowledging their descent into the ranks of Hoover and
Angleton. When Summers' book on Hoover came out, which followed
much the same line on the Kennedys as Goddess, he got a guest
spot on The Larry King Show. There, Hoover aide Cartha De Loach
called his book a collection of "sleaze." Summers fought back by
saying that Hoover and De Loach were peddling "sex tapes" about
Martin Luther King to the press. At that point, if Larry King
weren't such a stiff, he would have stepped in and noted, "But
Tony, we expect that kind of thing from a guy like Hoover. What's
your excuse?"
So Where are the Kennedys?
In a deeper sense, it is clear now that no one in the major media
was or is "protecting the Kennedys." The anti-Kennedy genre has
now become self-sustaining. Summers used the Collier and Horowitz
book for Goddess. He even uses Priscilla McMillan to connect JFK
with Monroe! (p. 244) Will Liz Smith call him on this? Will Ben
Bradlee? Far from "protecting the Kennedys" the establishment
shields these writers from potentially devastating critiques. The
reason being that the Kennedys were never part of that
establishment. No one protected JFK in Dallas. No one protected
RFK in Los Angeles. The ensuing investigations did everything
they c