In the finale of “11.22.63′,” saving JFK doesn’t save the world. It heralds the apocalypse. So what’s the ultimate message of the Hulu series?
Be glad President Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963.
Watching a heartbroken and purposeless Jake step back through the rabbit hole into present-day Lisbon, Maine, we get what we were waiting for, and it ain’t pretty: JFK didn’t turn America into Camelot; he turned it into a post-apocalyptic wasteland. As Jake tries to make sense of the wild dogs and gangs of bandits roaming the gray streets, he runs into a familiar face: his old friend Harry Dunning (Leon Rippy) — whose father Jake killed back in the second episode — who explains that JFK’s two-term presidency….
As popular entertainment, King’s fable is entertaining, disturbing, and reassuring: you can dream of the impossible–killing Oswald and saving JFK–but reality is that your hopes are foolish. JFK was destined to be just another failed president. So things turned out for the best on November 22, 1963.
If it sounds familiar, it is.King’s series is a sci-fi remake of the Warren Commission report with the same dramatic message: the system failed but the system worked.
Feel better? If you don’t turn off the TV, you will.
Source: JFK Heralds the Apocalypse, Not Camelot, in ‘11.22.63’ Series Finale | Inverse
72 thoughts on “Stephen King’s JFK myth: the system failed but the system worked”
So I somehow got through the last episode without retching and it has LHO declaring “You don’t understand, I’m somebody important.” It makes as little sense in this fictional scenario as it did in the WR.
If Oswald wanted to BE somebody by killing the president, he would’ve admitted to doing the effin’ crime. Geesus.
Then the entire “rats the size of cats” scenario if JFK lives looks like so much CIA-driven drivel.
The mainstream media/entertainment world still try to rewrite this thing, but it never seems to take.
Lies are fatally flawed simply because they aren’t the truth.
Most of what you need to know about King’s take on the matter is here:
Stephen King committed the same sin as Hoover’s FBI & Rowley’s SS by pulling the SS agents & their car tailgating JFK when he was shot & killed at z-313 of the Zapruder film out of their re-enactments back in 1963-1964. Later Government investigations did not correct this deception & no film maker to date has shown the public what a sniper pointing his rifle at the back of JFK’s head and causing the explosion seen at Z-313 would have seen with all factors that were in play 53 years ago historically accurate. Many, myself included, believe the shot that killed JFK at Z-313 did not originate from the alleged ‘sniper’s nest’ half-opened window because the windshield of the SS Queen Mary, the bodies of the men inside that car along with those standing on the running board blocked a successful shot at the time. JFK researchers can use measurements & math to determine if such a blockage existed 53 years ago, making the film Mr. King shot of his re-enactment particularly valuable to those still trying to solve the crime. That footage can easily be placed on YouTube if Mr. King will work with us & help us. It might come as a shock to him that LHO may not be responsible for the shot to JFK’s head that killed him.
Some believe that the mini-series was a propaganda effort to distract from the research of John Armstrong & Jim Hargrove that call into question the authenticity of the money order that Lee Oswald was alleged to have purchased & mailed to the company that allegedly shipped the weapon to Oswald’s P.O. Box. The money order in evidence has never been endorsed by the US bank system.
Placing the ‘kill rifle’ in LHO’s hands every opportunity King’s screenwriters used in the series was a slick way to endorse the original myth about Oswald & his alleged murder weapon, along with the beatings Marina allegedly suffered from Oswald that have long been rumored (more like slandered)but not proven.
I did enjoy the actors & their acting skills; I saw several award winning performances throughout the series. IMHO, Mr. King excels at startling the popcorn & soft drink out of hands at the drive-in theatre with movies like ‘Carrie’, a mini series like ‘11.22.63’ is a league Mr. King should avoid if he’s in his business to make money. Unsatisfied customers, angry at being played for dumb chumps, make really bad tippers, Mr. King
Brad, you’re serious, aren’t you?
Have you considered that Armstrong was embarrassed and lashed out, presenting no new evidence,
copying details newly discovered and presented last November?
“they” cannot admit that their doppleganger has issues. serious issues. i suggest therapy sessions.
Yes, the question of whether or not JFK’s head would even be visible to a shooter in the Sniper’s Nest, at frame z313, has puzzled many of us for quite some time now. I had started out to build a scale model of the TSBD, Elm St., the limo and the Queen Mary but, unfortunately, never quite got around to finishing it. However, reading your post has piqued my interest again, and I believe I will have another go at completing it. I’ll have to pester Chris Davidson, over at the Ed Forum, for all of the survey figures again.
I don’t know whether or not you’ve ever had a chance to look at Warren Commission Document 298 but, if you haven’t, I highly recommend it.
This FBI report of 20/01/64 to the WC, along with a multi-page visual aid brochure of the many models of Dealey Plaza created by the FBI, places the fatal head shot at 307 feet from the Sniper’s Nest, a good 42 feet further down Elm St. from where the Z film shows JFK hit in the head at z313, 265 feet from the Sniper’s Nest. Their report also claims a bullet struck Connally in the back (and no one else) approximately 3 feet from where the limo was at z313.
I’ve often wondered if JFK’s head was not available to a shooter at the FBI’s original choice of head shot locations, 307 feet from the SN, and that moving the head shot back to z313 corrected this problem.
Oswald was not alone working on the Sixth Floor on 11.22.63 as suggested in the mini series.
A group of workers was working on a new floor for the opposite side of Sixth Floor.
They did leave before noon but two returned for different reasons.
It is very significant no one saw Oswald supposedly setting up for the Assassination.
The Girl on the Stairs also did not see him come down.
That scene in the mini series where it is shows him setting up made me ill. He didnt have that much time!
I thought the series began very promisingly, but took a dive about half-way through. The implication that the world would have been worse off had JFK lived is inexcusable and the writers should be ashamed.
Man in the High Castle however is fantastic and I can’t recommend it enough.
Philip K. Dick was one of the most talented and intriguing authors of our times. His stories went beyond mere fantasy and sci-fi, into the realm of deep mystical/psychological perception and even prescience.
Thanks for the heads up, I didn’t know that ‘Man in the High Castle’ had been made into a miniseries!
simply the best there was
Hi Greg: I didn’t see the series but I did read the book and, more importantly, Robert Caro’s book “Passage to Power” on Lyndon Johnson which describes the legislative logjam Johnson faced after becoming president.
Simply put, Kennedy, if he had lived, would not have been able to pass his civil rights legislation through that Congress, nor many of the other reforms that Johnson ended up enacting. Kennedy was essentially clueless when it came to navigating Congress, especially the Senate, while Johnson was a legislative genius.
For many who mourn Kennedy and ask “what could have been,” there is an answer – civil rights laws would have waited a decade or more to be enacted.
I suppose the subtext of your remark is this: “Thank goodness Kennedy died, otherwise we wouldn’t have gotten any civil rights legislation.”
But there’s no reason to believe this. The Civil Rights Act was made possible by the power of the civil rights movement, not by any president. The movement had become impossible to ignore by 1963, and Kennedy had already boldly sided with the movement in his landmark civil rights speech in June. The momentum of history was on their side. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were inevitable, no matter who was president. Even the most intransigent people in Congress couldn’t have ignored that forever.
Perhaps it’s understandable that Caro, who has spent more than half his life on Johnson, would want to emphasize Johnson’s “legislative genius” in the passage of those bills. And Johnson deserves credit for his bravery and skill in passing them. But consider how different the context might have been under a different president. Suppose Kennedy had been able to continue his efforts at detente with Khrushchev and Castro, and that he had been able to link the two causes he dedicated himself to in June: peace between nations and civil rights at home. What a different world we might have known, and what a different country we might live in today.
Hi J.D, and Pat – I wrote detailed answers to your questions but they are still “awaiting moderation.” I’m fairly new here – is there a word limit? Maybe I was too long in my responses.
Hi Jeremy, I am the comments editor here at JFKfacts.org. There is a 500 word limit per comment. Total words of your three recent comments still pending in chronological order, 790+ 800+ and 500+ .
Try using this – http://www.wordcounttool.com/
Hi J.D. – I’m new here, so here’s my response pared down to sub-500 words!
“The Civil Rights Act was made possible by the power of the civil rights movement, not by any president.”
No, it was made possible by a president who understood the so-called Southern Strategy and who also knew the arcane procedures of Congress so well he could bypass those who sought to block its passage.
The unpleasant reality is that a bloc of racist politicians effectively controlled key congressional committees, meaning they had enormous power to delay and obstruct bills.
Because Kennedy had sent a number of high-priority bills to Congress, all they had to do was delay THOSE bills to avoid even getting to the civil rights bill.
That’s why a rising hue and cry in the streets made little difference as Congressional leaders could point to the legislative work still to be done before the civil rights bill could come forward. And this is precisely what they did.
It’s the same strategy that was in play after the 1948 election when Truman vowed to end Jim Crow laws and northern senators like Hubert Humphrey saw the passage of a civil rights bill as inevitable. In the end, the bill was withdrawn to get passage of their cherished rent control bill.
Kennedy’s tax cut bill was stuck in committee as he introduced the civil rights bill. Johnson saw this as a grave tactical error, and was forced to deal with the mess left by Kennedy to get the civil rights bill passed.
And Kennedy’s death in no way made passage inevitable. Johnson chose very publicly to make its passage a priority within days of taking office, and to get its passage he had to use extraordinary legislative tactics – a highly unusual discharge petition was circulated to release the bill to the House floor for a vote. Similarly, the Senate used unusual tactics to ensure the bill not die a death in the judiciary committee, controlled by segregationist James Eastland, sending it to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Johnson used strong-armed tactics by personally bullying enough wavering members into supporting the bill. Even so, obstructionist Senators filibustered the bill for an incredible 57 days on the floor before the Senate finally enacting cloture, something achieved only once before since 1927.
It’s hard to imagine how Kennedy could have possibly got the bill through, even if re-elected, given his weak legislative tactics. His team didn’t even appreciate the Southern Strategy at play, naively believing getting congressional leaders on board would suffice. Johnson won passage in 1957, 1958, and again in 1964.
As for Krushchev and Castro, perhaps there would have been a quicker detente. But America didn’t subsequently go to war against either, nor in the intervening half-century, so it’s hard to see the massive benefit you seem to suggest we’d have had.
Well, there likely would not have been 58,000 Americans killed in a senseless war in Southeast Asia for starters. For all of LBJ’s supposed “legislative genius”, history makes apparent his lacking as a statesman on foreign affairs.
JFK’s Second Term http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/06/jfks-second-term/302734/
Your premise is that the United States would have withdrawn from Vietnam if Kennedy had lived. This is very doubtful given that Kennedy was the one who escalated America’s role in Vietnam in the first place – HE had made this a priority not Eisenhower, not Johnson. And once they were in, on the premise of stemming communism’s spread given the “domino theory” dominating foreign-policy thinking back then, it’s hard to see how America could have pulled out once the Viet Cong started to gain strength in 1964. Yet that is what the Kennedy apologists would have us believe.
Mere weeks before his own assassination, Kennedy’s administration had engineered the assassination of the inept Vietamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem, in the hope that the South Vietnamese would get their act together. Kennedy, his cabinet and the generals, had reason to believe this would shake up their thus-far ineptness in fighting the Viet Cong insurgency. Unfortunately, by mid-1964, the precise reverse was true. Johnson escalated after that – not because of pressure from military contractors, but because America had made the commitment and the South Vietnamese would have likely lost the war in several years. (And which, of course, they eventually did lose.) Johnson, recall, had virtually the same team of advisers and cabinet as Kennedy did, and they agreed with the policy of escalation.
Those who claim Kennedy would have withdrawn are naive given the worsening of the situation after the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, a failure of Kennedy’s policy, with the attendant “soft on Communism” and “domino theory” critiques surely to follow if withdrawal came. The foreign-policy hawk was Kennedy, not Johnson, who almost alone stood beside the red-baiter Joe McCarthy. Funny how those who claim Johnson merely followed Kennedy’s lead when it came to civil rights, but pretend otherwise when it comes to Vietnam. In Vietnam, Johnson had the unpalatable choice of withdrawing and virtually ensuring a Viet Cong victory and the possibility of the spread of communism to neighbouring countries, or to continue Kennedy’s policy. Since the Vietnamese were clearly not capable of beating back the insurgency, Johnson had little choice but to escalate.
Even Robert Kennedy supported Johnson’s escalation – until it became the disaster it was by 1967.
In the end, the Vietnam War was probably unwinnable from the American perspective, but the fateful decisions to engage were made by Kennedy, not Johnson. In hindsight, it would have been better to withdraw in 1964 or so, many lives would have been saved, perhaps two million Vietnamese, some 50,000 Americans. But it would have been politically very difficult for Johnson to do that.
I thought your recent arguments suggesting that Kennedy was only mildly supportive of Civil Rights legislation had a familiar, unpleasant ring. Now this surfaces: ‘This is very doubtful given that Kennedy was the one who escalated America’s role in Vietnam in the first place’ – Jeremy Gilbert
Your comment feeds into the argument centered on the assertion that Kennedy was planning to escalate the war in Vietnam so why would hawks and the military-industrial complex wish him dead? Similarly, if John Kennedy was only mildly supportive of Civil Rights legislation and in fact was dragging his feet, why would the Birchers and rabid segregationists – particularly in the South/Dallas – want him dead?
The Kennedy Library provides a synopsis to define his position on civil rights. Nothing in this summation – strongly supported by documents held by the library – suggests that Kennedy was anything but unequivocal in his position that Civil Rights was a major concern of his administration:
‘. . . By the 1960 presidential campaign, civil rights had emerged as a crucial issue. Just a few weeks before the election, Martin Luther King Jr., was arrested while leading a protest in Atlanta, Georgia. John Kennedy phoned Coretta Scott King to express his concern while a call from Robert Kennedy to the judge helped secure her husband’s safe release. The Kennedys’ personal intervention led to a public endorsement by Martin Luther King Sr., the influential father of the civil rights leader.
Across the nation, more than 70 percent of African Americans voted for Kennedy . . .
But Kennedy’s narrow election victory and SMALL WORKING MARGIN IN CONGRESS left him cautious. He was reluctant to lose southern support for legislation . . ., he appointed unprecedented numbers of African Americans to high-level positions in the administration and strengthened the Civil Rights Commission. He spoke out in favor of school desegregation, praised a number of cities for integrating their schools, and put Vice President Lyndon Johnson in charge of the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Attorney General Robert Kennedy turned his attention to voting rights, initiating five times the number of suits brought during the previous administration. , , ,
. . . Kennedy defined the civil rights crisis as moral, as well as constitutional and legal. He announced that major civil rights legislation would be submitted to the Congress to guarantee equal access to public facilities, to end segregation in education, and to provide federal protection of the right to vote. Later that fall, the comprehensive civil rights bill cleared several hurdles in Congress and won the endorsement of House and Senate Republican leaders. It was not passed, however, before November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was assassinated. The bill was left in the hands of Lyndon B. Johnson. . . . and with the assistance of Robert Kennedy’s Justice Department and the outpouring of emotion after the president’s assassination, the Civil Rights Act was passed as a way to honor President Kennedy.
Hi again Gilbert. I see you’ve been engaged periodically in the conversation related to the Kennedy assassination. Your comment on this very site in June, 2014:
June 15, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Hi anonymous: Some factual issues here. In terms of the prints on the box, the testimony was within the last 3 days, not older than 3 days. Other experts said that the prints were made within a day or day and a half of being observed. Further the palm print on the large box indicated that Oswald “S A T “ on it, highly suggestive he was there on the day . . . “S I T T I N G “ in the precise position he would have “S A T” in if he was the assassin . . . (emphasis mine)
Yet we see you engaged briefly in discussion under a video on youtube by Anton Batey, which by the way features a debate between frequent commenter on this site, Asst. Prof. John McAdams of Marquette University and jfk researcher Tom Rossley, where you state:
Jeremy Gilbert4 years ago
‘But to suggest they had gathered enough evidence to put someone – anyone – on trial, is nonsense. In fact, the HSCA managed to debunk just all of the conspiracy theories which had piled up over the past decade or so, despite the very real effort to find evidence of a conspiracy, in particular one involving the mafia or elements thereof. . . . This wasn’t “deep politics,” it was “the evidence simply isn’t there.”
In spite of your vehement insistence on this site in 2014 that prints on the large box indicated that Oswald “SAT” on it . . . you make absolutely NO mention that the scenes beginning at min. 1:08 of a fictional sniper portrayed by Gary Oldman clearly show him STANDING in the 6th Floor window, firing at the motorcade.
Maybe you would like to delete your statement on that youtube site, revise it to acknowledge that the producer got the story wrong, or maybe you would elaborate on this site whether or not a sniper was standing or sitting when firing shots from the 6th Floor?
Hi Leslie: I didn’t mean that Kennedy was only mildly supportive of civil rights. However, given the political realities in the Congress of 1963, his approach to get the bill passed would have failed – it WAS failing. Kennedy met with Congressional leaders in the weeks before his death and there were glowing words spoken – but these guys didn’t lift a finger to pry the bill out of committee – until Johnson lit a fire under their asses. Kennedy may have been more passionate on it than Johnson – the problem is he lacked the political skills to get it through Congress, as my posts above detail. Just to get the bill to the floors of the chambers was a titanic achievement, the debate was even harder and stands as the longest continuous Senate debate in U.S. history! THAT’s how strong the resistance to this bill was. It’s hard to imagine anyone else of that era getting the bill passed other than Johnson.
And, this point can’t be over-emphasized – no amount of shaming and inspiring speeches were going to change the minds of the racists who saw fit to block passage of this bill. The Senate, of which the South had control of the key committees with its members and allies, meant no outpouring of public sentiment was going to change anything. Which is why Johnson bypassed them. Interesting that the JFK library gives more credit to Robert Kennedy for the bill’s passage than to Johnson, at least in your excerpt. That speaks volumes as to its reliability as a impartial source.
As for the substance of your Vietnam remarks, my underlying point that the claim that the dark powers or what have you perceived that Kennedy was in the process of winding down the war are not supported by the facts as we knew them in November 1963. We simply don’t know if he was going to escalate or not – we know the South Vietnam govt was bungling the war and without decisive leadership, the Viet Cong would gain the upper hand. Kennedy no doubt hoped getting rid of Ngo Dinh Diem would solve that problem. He didn’t live long enough to find out it didn’t. So, the argument that these dark powers wanted him out is belied by the fact Kennedy dramatically escalated the war to that point, and left America in a position that they’d have to escalate again if the South Vietnamese couldn’t get their act together. Thanks to Kennedy, American foreign policy on the issue had his – and future administrations – boxed in.
You say “so why would hawks and the military-industrial complex wish him dead?” Who outside of the conspiracy crowd actually believes that? Do you claim that to be some historical fact? And, more to the point, why kill the very president who escalated the war and made it a foreign policy imperative? What guarantee was there that Johnson would be any better?
David: One more remark on the Birchers… let’s say they were involved in the assassination, that they wanted him out for his civil rights actions. Well, isn’t it a delicious irony that those civil rights laws were passed because the new president knew how to ram the legislation through? That they would have died in committee had Kennedy lived? While I will grant that the average Bircher likely would not have appreciated that the civil rights bills had no better champion in terms of passage than in the person of Lyndon Johnson, the similar argument that the FBI wanted him out makes no sense for the same reason. Why, especially in the paranoid world of Hoover’s FBI, would they get rid of the one president they ran circles around and replace him with a political cut-throat like Johnson?
Hi Jeremy — first of all, welcome.
I don’t deny LBJ’s skill in getting the Civil Rights Act passed or the importance of his role, but Kennedy had already introduced the bill and failure to pass it would have resulted in a national crisis.
Moreover, this was common knowledge at the time. In the summer of 1964, a writer for Look magazine asked four congressional leaders if Kennedy’s death had made the Civil Rights Act possible. All of them answered that it had made no real difference at all, and that both the Civil Rights Act and Kennedy’s tax bill were certain to pass, even if it “might have taken a little longer” (in Mike Mansfield’s words). (Source: Arthur Schlesinger’s “A Thousand Days,” pp. 1030.)
Conversations about Vietnam have a way of derailing otherwise productive threads, so I’ll simply say that your comments about Kennedy being a “foreign-policy hawk” are at odds with much of what we know about Kennedy: his early support for nationalist movements around the world (seen in his 1957 speech on Algeria), his successful advocacy for a ban on nuclear testing, his open call for peace with the Soviets (seen in his American University speech), his quiet efforts for detente with Cuba (abandoned by Johnson), and his refusal to invade Cuba during the Bay of Pigs or the Missile Crisis. Yes, Kennedy ran on a hawkish platform in 1960 (against the notorious red-baiter Nixon), but there’s a simple explanation for that: He was trying to win. Kennedy did not want to be another Stevenson. His occasionally hawkish rhetoric should be distinguished from his actual record.
Finally, I am genuinely flummoxed by your offhand suggestion that it didn’t really matter whether or not Kennedy’s efforts to end the Cold War came to fruition. The openly hostile relationship between the world’s two superpowers had a deeply corrosive effect on the world between 1963 and 1990. As late as Reagan’s first term, plenty of people still fully expected that it would eventually erupt into actual war. We lost a lot when we lost Kennedy.
“You [leslie sharp] say “so why would hawks and the military-industrial complex wish him dead?” Who outside of the conspiracy crowd actually believes that? Do you claim that to be some historical fact? And, more to the point, why kill the very president who escalated the war and made it a foreign policy imperative? What guarantee was there that Johnson would be any better?” — Jeremy Gilbert
Jeremy, you seem to be attempting to misconstrue my words, perhaps inadvertently? I think not, given the fact you omitted “Similarly, if John Kennedy was only mildly supportive of Civil Rights legislation and in fact was dragging his feet, why would the Birchers and rabid segregationists – particularly in the South/Dallas – want him dead?’
The nuance in this in case it is missed on you is whether or not there were factions in our nation with such a vested interested in their own agenda they would be willing to plot – or row in with a plot – to murder an elected president.
‘What guarantee was there that Johnson would be any better?” — Jeremy Gilbert
Surely you jest.
“David: One more remark on the Birchers… let’s say they were involved in the assassination, that they wanted him out for his civil rights actions. ” — Jeremy Gilbert
Unless I’m mistaken “David” has not discussed the “Birchers” … I have.
‘Well, isn’t it a delicious irony that those civil rights laws were passed because the new president knew how to ram the legislation through?’ — Jeremy Gilbert
You’re using a fallacious tactic to “compare” Kennedy to Johnson rather than debating head on whether or not Kennedy had a robust enough civil rights agenda to incite his adversaries to plot his assassination.
‘That they would have died in committee had Kennedy lived?’ — Jeremy Gilbert
Obviously with Johnson’s arm twisting that would not have happened but to assert that Kennedy was not equally committed is simply false. Kennedy employed his Vice President as have many presidents to advance an agenda; fortunately for Kennedy, Johnson was also a true advocate for the rights of those who didn’t look like him.
‘While I will grant that the average Bircher likely would not have appreciated . . .’ — Jeremy Gilbert
The ‘average’ Bircher is somewhat an oxymoron Jeremy; Birchers were and are extremists, functioning on the fringes of society with – unfortunately for our democracy – funds to ‘buy’ their way into the debate. Let’s not forget that the John Birch Society was in fact founded by the likes of Fred Koch and HL Hunt and members of the National Manufacturers Association – the former considering themselves elevated in all aspects above the average American working class citizen, the latter intent on exploiting low wages.
‘ . . . that the civil rights bills had no better champion in terms of passage than in the person of Lyndon Johnson, the similar argument that the FBI wanted him out makes no sense for the same reason. Why, especially in the paranoid world of Hoover’s FBI, would they get rid of the one president they ran circles around and replace him with a political cut-throat like Johnson?’ — Jeremy Gilbert
Again surely you jest. Hoover and Johnson shared a decades long friendship. The relationship between John Kennedy and his brother Robert with JE Hoover on the other hand . . .
Jeremy, I appreciate the above as your opinion on how Kennedy would have served a second term had he lived, however it’s nothing new with WC apologists on this site and flies in the face of what others have to say who served Kennedy and knew him best.
With all due respect, to lay the blame on JFK’s grave for the disaster Vietnam was is grossly misplaced on your part, albeit typical of Johnson supports, as few as they may be.
No doubt you are aware LBJ was critical of any withdrawal discussions that were going on between JFK and McNamara.
Ted Sorensen: JFK Wouldn’t Have Sent Combat Troops to Vietnam https://youtu.be/ceIsdWSMaQA
Roger Hilsman: How Kennedy Viewed the Vietnam Conflict http://nyti.ms/1yWDz2f
How Kennedy Viewed the Vietnam Conflict; Further Evidence http://nyti.ms/269DHdl
What everyone seems to avoid mention of here is that if Kennedy had not been assassinated, the great likelihood is that Johnson would have been dropped from the ticket and a new VP nominated.
Johnson may have ended up in “the big house” rather than the White House by 1964.
Johnson was in deep hot water at this point of his career as is spelled out in vivid detail in this article:
For those following closely the thread related to Jim Garrison’s investigation and whether or not Zachary Sklar and Oliver Stone were aware of Garrison’s personal conflict of interest in his case against Clay Shaw, note that in this video -one that Jeremy Gilbert weighed in on several years ago – the scene of a shooter from the 6th Floor is from Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK”. Are we to believe that when Stone directed Gary Oldman to portray the alleged assassin in this scene, he was unaware that authorities alleged that the shooter sat on a box and propped a rifle on boxes he had placed in front of him? Why would a skilled director like Oliver Stone present to the public a shooter standing when in fact it was alleged that he was seated? Certainly the effect is dramatic – in fact memorable – far more so than if he had positioned Oldham squatted on a small box, unceremoniously hunched to take the shots. But why take the creative license, and why would Jeremy Gilbert not challenge Anton Bately for using that footage when he himself argued in 2014 on this site that the prints on the box in the sniper’s nest are critical evidence against Lee Oswald? Is this not exemplary of how some have distanced themselves from the facts of the assassination?
Did Oliver Stone have access to WC exhibits/photographs such as those easily found by Googling “jfk sniper’s nest” (note: it’s difficult to find the least complex link to present here; admittedly David Von Pein’s site has a very good collection), clearly showing the boxes alleged to have been positioned by the sniper? Again, why did Stone have Oldman portray a sniper standing while firing? And how would the shells land on the floor on the right side of those boxes as captured in the numerous WC exhibit photos if the shooter/Oldman was standing on the other side? Creative license from an authority on the Garrison investigation?
Return to the scene of the crime.
Hi Leslie: Not sure how comments I made several years ago on a different subject warrant mention on a thread discussing the King series.
Not sure what your point is here, exactly, but if it is that Gary Oldman stood to fire in the Stone film, and therefore no prints would have been left on the box I claim he sat on, I’m sure others would point out that the window sill was so low that the sniper HAD to fire from a seated position. Oliver Stone took some liberties there, perhaps underpinning the, in his view, implausibility of Oswald’s feat. He also depicts Oswald racing down the stairs, dashing past the women who claim they saw no one.
I might add that someone fired from that location, and that the box was there when the nest was discovered. Whoever fired from that location, therefore, had to sit on the box.
“Finally, I am genuinely flummoxed by your offhand suggestion that it didn’t really matter whether or not Kennedy’s efforts to end the Cold War came to fruition. The openly hostile relationship between the world’s two superpowers had a deeply corrosive effect on the world between 1963 and 1990. As late as Reagan’s first term, plenty of people still fully expected that it would eventually erupt into actual war. We lost a lot when we lost Kennedy.”
Hi J.D. Yes, but was there an actual war? And was there not an extended period of detente during the 1970s? There is no guarantee that any detente that Kennedy managed to sustain to 1969 would hold. Subsequent events and subsequent presidents would cause an ebb and flow in the relationship, there is no reason the believe Kennedy, whatever he did, would have made things better. And let’s recall that the Cold War ended not with some grand treaty with the Soviets; it ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. And unless Kennedy could have done THAT, it’s hard to see a huge loss in that department caused by his untimely death.
“Similarly, if John Kennedy was only mildly supportive of Civil Rights legislation and in fact was dragging his feet, why would the Birchers and rabid segregationists – particularly in the South/Dallas – want him dead?’
Hi Leslie: In terms of getting the bill through Congress, I argue, he was doomed to failure. But that was only what the insiders knew then. To the Birchers, he was the one who spoke to the nation about the need to bring in these rights, and he introduced the bill. So, sure, they hated him. My point is that their wish which came true arguably hastened the very civil rights they detested! You seem to see their vitriol towards Kennedy as evidence the bill would have got through.
‘What guarantee was there that Johnson would be any better?” — Jeremy Gilbert
“Surely you jest.”
In terms of civil rights, clearly Johnson was the exact wrong person to take over on civil rights, whether you think the bill would have passed anyway or not. In terms of Vietnam, which I believe my reference was to, I simply am pointing out that Kennedy was the one who escalated – and set the American foreign policy in the direction which, for many reasons I argue, Johnson was compelled to follow. There was no indication that Kennedy would have withdrawn as they had yet to see the results of their move to change the S Vietnamese leadership. SO, in that regard, there was no guarantee Johnson would have been better. Now in the case of civil rights, one can argue that clueless Birchers could have targeted Kennedy not knowing how strong an advocate for civil rights Johnson would be. But you can’t say the same for the military/industrial factions who saw the long game at play with American policy in Vietnam and that, once committed, they were in unless the S Vietnamese suddenly displayed competence. This had been building for more than a decade by then, after all. So there was no push to get Kennedy out and no perceived advantage to Johnson over Kennedy in this regard, despite the comic-book level of analysis I’ve seen from many in the conspiracy community over these basic issues.
” Are we to believe that when Stone directed Gary Oldman to portray the alleged assassin in this scene, he was unaware that authorities alleged that the shooter sat on a box and propped a rifle on boxes he had placed in front of him? Why would a skilled director like Oliver Stone present to the public a shooter standing when in fact it was alleged that he was seated?” etc.
I fail to see your point. We KNOW a sniper had to be seated to fire from there as numerous witnesses saw someone firing and the box was in place when the nest was found. In the Stone film, let’s recall, Oswald’s role as assassin was disputed, so these “mistakes” were deliberate. Don’t we also see Oldman more or less hyper-ventilating as he is firing – how could he possibly have hit a bullseye like that? And, as mentioned above, don’t we also see Oldman dash down the stairs past those women who testified they were alone on the stairs? Clearly, Stone is depicting the case against Oswald as a preposterous fiction.
I find it a little strange that you evidently believe that the entire civil rights movement was just a footnote to the legislative greatness of Lyndon Johnson, while simultaneously insisting that no single president could have affected the course of the Cold War one way or the other. Stranger still is the suggestion that it didn’t matter anyway, because there wasn’t an “actual war.” (And no, the Cold War didn’t end with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991; Gorbachev and Bush Sr. had already declared it over at the Malta Summit in 1989.)
Strangest of all is your apparent determination to argue that we’re all better off because Jack Kennedy was brutally murdered back in 1963. On that note, I think I’ll bow out of this particular discussion.
“I find it a little strange that you evidently believe that the entire civil rights movement was just a footnote to the legislative greatness of Lyndon Johnson, while simultaneously insisting that no single president could have affected the course of the Cold War one way or the other.”
I said nothing of the sort. What I pointed out was that the racists who largely controlled the committees in Congress effectively blocked the chance for change there. Outside pressure – such as the civil rights movement – did nothing to accelerate their stalling tactics – it took Johnson to a) understand the strategy and b) bypass those people. Even then, the racists did all they could to run out the clock, setting an all-time record in the Senate for longest debate on a single bill. Johnson had told the Kennedy team what they were doing – and was ignored. As long as Kennedy stuck to his tactics, the bill would never have passed as the racists would have kept it bottled up in committee.
As for the Cold War, re-read what I said. There was an ebb and flow to the political situation. And that was contingent on the administration of the day in both countries. It is highly unlikely, given the amount of Communist fear-mongering, that any detente would have been long-lasting… until the Soviet Union collapsed. The detente of the 1970s, for example, did not survive into the Reagan administration. And while Gorbachev changed the political dynamic, the crucial event was the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, there was no guarantee that perestroika would survive Gorbachev.
What you seem to be missing, Jeremy, is that LBJ was only able to pass JFK’s legislation because JFK was murdered. JFK was gonna have a heckuva time passing the legislation if he’d lived, but O’Brien and others involved have gone on record saying it was gonna happen either way.
As far as LBJ, he may have had a “genius” for manipulating congress, but he 1) would never have gotten elected on his own, and 2)lacked JFK’s abilities on a personal level. JFK had a legion of “believers” in government and the media who both believed in him, and were willing to help him lead the country to a better day. LBJ lacked this personal magnetism, and quickly drove many of JFK’s strongest supporters away. While he rode Kennedy’s corpse to success in 64 by 66 he was fully exposed, and hated by the public. His own party lost faith in him. His inability to lead then handed Nixon the White House.
No one honestly believes this would have happened if JFK had lived. So, in short, JFK handed the ball to Johnson, who scored a touchdown, but who then took over at quarterback and lost the game.
Hi Pat: Late response as I was too wordy before… I’m new here!
“What you seem to be missing, Jeremy, is that LBJ was only able to pass JFK’s legislation because JFK was murdered.”
Hi Pat: The bottom line is it didn’t matter if they had the floor votes to win passage, it mattered who ran the committees, and it was extremely difficult to bypass them – yet Johnson did it. Howard Smith, head of the House Rules committee was one key person with power – and he had the bill bottled up. James Eastland, who headed the Senate Judiciary committee, vowed to keep the bill tied up. To get past Smith, a highly unusual discharge petition was circulated. And there was Harry Byrd, Senate Finance Committee chair, who had bottled up the tax cut bill for nearly a year. As mentioned in a previous post, part of the Southern Strategy tactics was to delay passage of priority legislation so as not to even get to civil rights legislation. Johnson almost immediately did what Kennedy had failed to do – he got Byrd to get that bill to the floor, to clear its passage. Kennedy not only did nothing to clear passage for civil rights, he didn’t realize what was going on!
These powerful men felt no particular increased pressure to get civil rights through after the assassination– until Johnson started his tactical maneuvers. And I’m not even talking about the titanic floor fight to get the bill passed in the end!
I’d say, in contrast to your assertion, that Johnson got the Civil Right Act through DESPITE Kennedy’s legislative incompetence. Johnson with the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in fact built on the two bills he largely was responsible for – the 1957 and 1958 civil rights bills. And who got those older bills through? It certainly wasn’t Kennedy.
“JFK had a legion of “believers” in government and the media who both believed in him, and were willing to help him lead the country to a better day.”
Then name a single piece of significant transformative legislation that Kennedy, through his inspired leadership, got through Congress. He was president for the complete 87th Congress, half of the 88th.
Johnson may have been an asshole, but he enacted some of the most consequential legislation in American history. Kennedy had arguably his biggest moment with the Cuban Missile Crisis, but did little domestically as he didn’t fight in the trenches like Johnson did.
“So, in short, JFK handed the ball to Johnson, who scored a touchdown, but who then took over at quarterback and lost the game.”
In terms of civil rights, it’s hard to see how he “lost the game,” given that the Voting Rights Act came under his elected term, not Kennedy’s. Or are you suggesting that was some minor “whatever” bill – and it was in large part BECAUSE of the passage of the civil rights bills that Nixon won, using his own “Southern strategy.”
Finally somebody with a realistic view of the political skills of Lyndon Johnson and the lack thereof seen with Jack Kennedy.
Kennedy had neither the inclination nor the patience to shepherd bills through Congress; indeed, he was bored with the Senate and wanted to move on even as a running mate for Stevenson.
History often isn’t as we want it to be.
Here are some facts, supported by a link to the 1960 Congressional Quarterly description of John F Kennedy’s service in the House of Representatives, and from January, 1953, in the Senate.:
Opinions and observations are welcome, but each of us creates an impression on readers. Thousands of submitted comments to an internet site including no supporting links are a broad, ironic statement.
He served on several Senate committees, most prominently the Labor committee.The true measure of his effectiveness is how many of the bills he introduced became law-or even cleared the Congress controlled by his party.
Your source is obviously biased-I do not consider introducing a minimum wage bill that had no chance of going anywhere a great legislative achievement .
Did he not actively pursue the Democratic nomination for Vice President in 1956-an office that at that time that was essentially devoid of influence and would have had even less under Stevenson?
He wanted out of the Senate.
But you sir, or madam, present no source at all, not even a source supporting your criticism of my LINKED supporting source, par for the (your) course.
I already linked to the page that presents this description of the source of what I presented.:
Here is the link, included now for a second time.:
Taken from CQ Fact Sheet on John F. Kennedy, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1960.
CQ was founded in 1945 by Nelson Poynter and his wife, Henrietta Poynter, …..
….Thomas N. Schroth, who had been managing editor of The Brooklyn Eagle, was elected in October 1955 as executive editor and vice president. Schroth built the publication’s impartial coverage, with annual revenue growing during his tenure from $150,000 when he started to $1.8 million.
OF course, Johnson lost the game. HIs decisions regarding Vietnam cost the Dems the Presidency, and opened the door for Nixon. The progressive tide that had been swelling since FDR then came to an end.
” . . . political skills of Lyndon Johnson and the lack thereof seen with Jack Kennedy.”
Let’s consider some grassroots political skills of John Kennedy, a politician who recognized the extreme biases in the country – having endured them personally – and an enlightened politician who knew that change must come from within.
In the words of avid segregationist, John Bircher and US Congressman from Texas, Bruce Alger: “Kennedy is operating as chief executive without regard to the rule of law and is, indeed substituting his own judgment and will for the exercise of the constitutional powers by the Congress and the people. He does not trust the people to handle their own affairs but rather believes in his own infallibility [note the inference to Kennedy’s Catholicism] to do all things for them, using, of course, their money. . . After three black men are promoted to supervisory positions in city post offices – in the wake of a Kennedy decree pushing for equal employment and promotion opportunities – Alger demands a congressional probe. . . . When an NAACP leader from Dallas comes to visit him in Washington, pleading for Alger to support President Kennedy’s civil rights bill, Alger bluntly refuses. … ‘
another vignette: George Wallace, a supporter of General Edwin Walker and vice versa, ‘is the rising star on America’s far right, and he’s chosen as the perfect place to make a special announcement: He is going to run for president against John Kennedy. . . . He has picked Dallas to launch his campaign for a very simple reason: Dallas is the FINANCIAL AND PUBLIC RELATIONS HEADQUARTERS for American’s ultra- conservatives. . . . “People all over the nation are aroused by the implications of the Kennedy civil rights legislation,” Wallace tells [General] Walker and the others in the Dallas audience. “People all over the country are just as disturbed as we are . . . “It is vitally necessary that the people know exactly to what extent the Justice Department civil rights attorneys have consorted with, aided and abetted the flood of beatniks, sex perverts, narcotics addicts and common criminals who have invaded Alabama as so called civil rights workers.”
Lyndon Johnson had from an early age grasped the injustices of discrimination. The Kennedy Administration was tilling the soil to advance civil rights. Perhaps that is where Kennedy and Johnson found common ground.
In fairness to one of the author’s of “Dallas 1963”, Bill Minutaglio continues to consider how the dynamics leading to the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas have shaped our nation:
Tom S, your source is from the JFK Library.
I do not see any references, footnotes or any other mention of the source aside from ” Taken from CQ fact sheet on John F Kennedy , Congressional Quarterly,Inc. 1960.” Perhaps there is more information later in the article, but that is not available on line.
Photon has this right. You notice that no one here could come up with a transformative bill which Kennedy brought to law – despite being president for the entirety of the 87th Congress. And, while Tom’s source lists the Senate committees Kennedy was involved with, this is small potatoes compared to what Johnson was doing at the same time – as Majority Leader in the Senate, getting the first civil rights law through Congress in 80+ years. (The Senate was the key body to work with here – these bills had far easier passage through the House.)
“Lyndon Johnson had from an early age grasped the injustices of discrimination. The Kennedy Administration was tilling the soil to advance civil rights. Perhaps that is where Kennedy and Johnson found common ground.”
I don’t suggest that Kennedy and Johnson weren’t on the same page. But to suggest that Kennedy “till[ed] the soil” so Johnson could succeed with the 1964 Civil Rights Act wildly inflates Kennedy’s achievement – he introduced legislation which built on the 1957 and 1958 civil rights bills, bills largely shepherded through the Senate by… Johnson.
And while few recall speeches from Johnson and most could recite some of Kennedy’s immortal lines (I’m not being sarcastic, they are immortal), the man who brought Dr Martin Luther King to tears via three words in a speech was Johnson, not Kennedy. “We shall overcome.” Because King knew then that Johnson meant what he said and he would realize that dream.
“OF course, Johnson lost the game. HIs decisions regarding Vietnam cost the Dems the Presidency, and opened the door for Nixon. The progressive tide that had been swelling since FDR then came to an end.”
There’s a lot of truth in what you say here, Pat, but there are a few important points here to make.
Johnson’s actions arguably tore the Democrats apart – in terms of the disaster the Vietnam War became, but also in terms of the very civil rights laws he had got enacted into law. (And let’s recall, support for the Vietnam War was a net winner for the Republicans.)
Most historians consider the 1968 election to have been transformative – it re-aligned the parties. Republicans previously were dead in the water in the South, and the Democrats used racially divisive tactics to suppress blacks and to hold onto power. After 1968, the Democrats became the “liberal” party, the Republicans the party of racial division and “the silent majority.” This alignment continues largely to the present time.
But this was due not to Vietnam but the SUCCESS of Johnson in terms of Civil Rights. The ugly scar of racism was in large regard purged from the Democrats (arguably by 1976), but picked up by the Republicans.
And, let’s recall that, despite the “Camelot” mythology promoted by the Kennedys and their allies, Kennedy was in fact from the communist-baiting wing of the Democrats, one of the few Senators who stood alongside Joseph McCarthy, while Johnson was in the FDR “New Deal” camp. It is a historical irony that many presume Johnson’s southern accent and crude tactics indicated he was, at core, racist, while the patrician Kennedy was a true liberal at heart. Johnson grew up with the maligned and marginalized. Kennedy did not – though he no doubt was on their side, he didn’t feel it viscerally like Johnson did. Yet we given Kennedy the credit when the civil rights achievements were for the most part Johnson’s.
Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/apr/14/barack-obama/lyndon-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/ via @PolitiFactTexas
Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist. http://on.msnbc.com/1jyyjHU via @msnbc
Jeremy Gibert, “I don’t suggest that Kennedy and Johnson weren’t on the same page. But to suggest that Kennedy “till[ed] the soil” so Johnson could succeed with the 1964 Civil Rights Act wildly inflates Kennedy’s achievement – he introduced legislation which built on the 1957 and 1958 civil rights bills, bills largely shepherded through the Senate by… Johnson”
I think we’re singing from the same songbook Jeremy. Kennedy was a fledgling politician compared to Lyndon Johnson, no doubt about it. I was merely pointing out that if Johnson’s passion was to advance civil rights, Kennedy was not running interference and in fact was in the trenches (as evidenced by both Wallace’s and Alger’s vehement criticism of his position on desegregation), making a lot of noise for legislators to consider.
‘Kennedy did not – though he no doubt was on their side, he didn’t feel it viscerally like Johnson did. Yet we given Kennedy the credit when the civil rights achievements were for the most part Johnson’s.’
I think you’re discounting the religious discrimination Kennedy faced in the South in particular not to mention the insidious hatred of the Irish just a century prior to his running for political office. Hatred has many faces Jeremy.
“Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.”~David Regan
So he really REALLY had his heart in it…grin
I think JFK was against discrimintation but was weighing the political consequences of going all in.
His phone call to Coretta King was instrumental in his presidential victory and winning over the black vote. Bobby also made sure MLK got released from a dangerous Southern jail. It wasn’t the last time Bobby stepped in to help save MLK from the clutches of racist Southern authorities.
JFK sent federal troops in to integrate the white university in the South.
JFK hired the first black WH Secret Service officer.
I heard a speech JFK gave where he said the wages for labor workers had to be the same for blacks and whites to a disgruntled business audience.
It’s my understanding that JFK’s Hollywood contacts worked to stage the civil rights march with MLK’s famous speech.
I don’t think there’s any doubt where JFK stood on civil rights. But he was dealing with historical Democratic support of bigotry and apartheid. To his credit, he did finally make a call for civil rights legislation.
Would LBJ had risked the Southern vote if JFK doesn’t make that call? Maybe, maybe not.
Great post(s) David Reagan. LBJ was a slime ball. This is well documented.
And let’s not forget the potential ruin LBJ was facing right up until the day Kennedy died..
The Transition http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/02/the-transition via @newyorker
I have never been much of a King fan, and I’ll tell you why. I grew up watching the Twilight Zone, and The Outer Limits and other sci-fi shows, and have always found King’s stories knock-offs of other shows. His take on 11-22-63 turned out to be no exception. It was pretty much a rip-off of the episode of Quantum Leap burped out as a response to Oliver Stone’s JFK.
The producer of that program served with Oswald in the Marines. He had no issues with the Warren Report; that episode only implied that Oswald would have shot Jackie also-without the intervention of the the show’s main character.
Yes, exactly, Photon. The show’s main character was forced to travel through time “correcting” errors. Throughout the two-part episode, he assumed he was somehow supposed to stop Oswald from killing Kennedy, or perhaps detect a conspiracy. But it turned out he was only supposed to stop Jackie from being killed. The show was a knee-jerk response to Oliver Stone’s JFK. It suggested that in the big picture JFK wasn’t worth saving, and that we should all get over it.
any issues with Thornley ?
I’ve been watching another TV drama, “The People vs. OJ Simpson.” I never understood how the jury didn’t convict but after seeing how the LAPD and prosecutors screwed up on Fuhrman’s racist talk and recordings of him admitting the LAPD would frame suspects, I could see how that might create reasonable doubt.
For me, the CIA’s felonious obstruction in this case for the past 50+ years creates a reasonable doubt regarding the official explanation of what happened in Dealey. I leave it up to the CIA to prove me wrong. Won’t hold my breath.
The truly sad part is, with his known popularity as a fiction writer, some will wonder is this what really happened?
I believe the only good thing that came from King’s TV mini-series is the footage he made of the JFK parade car & SS Queen Mary tailgating it down Elm Street during the ambush, especially the view from the simulated ‘sniper’s window’ (used: 7th floor. Real: 6th floor, 1 floor beneath)that could have shown us if what an alleged sniper would have seen at the Z-313 kill spot with clones for the 2 cars & actor stand-ins representing the real people involved made a kill shot possible or impossible with SS guards/car/agents inside & outside on running board, 1 agent dashing to mount JFK’s rear bumper. Predictably, Stephen King didn’t share that view of the ambush he re-enacted in any of the 8 episodes seen on computer screens.
Some of the street level footage cut out of the series appeared not long ago on YouTube; the 7th floor line of sight to the parade car with Queen Mary practically (both with actor stand-ins) was conspicuously missing from what was placed on YouTube.
I urge Mr. King to release the footage he made so that JFK researchers can use it to answer questions about President Kennedy’s murder 53 years ago.
It may be that Mr. King was under pressure not to show the global public what he filmed at the TSBD. Who else but an operation known globally for assassinations & drug running could turn a portion of its own Presidential ‘kill zone’ into a money making tourist attraction business, charge visitors almost 20 bucks a head & NOT allow them (or film crews)to look out the alleged ‘kill window’?
“An alleged sniper”? Brad, there were some 10 witnesses who either SAW a sniper firing from the TSBD, the barrel of the rifle in the window, or heard the shells drop on the floor overhead. There is no “alleged” about someone firing from there.
Further, the line of sight was unobstructed for Z313. It’s not even close, as you can see from the FBI re-enactment and calibrated Nix and Muchmore footage. For an agent to have been blocking a bullet shot from the TSBD at that moment, he would have had to have been standing on the back of the limo.
Dim hack writes dumb novel, cable series based on it turns out to be pile of manure.
Just like the Warren Report.
Dog Bites Man. Yawn.
that was a an excellent review. thanks.
The only way I could see this happening is if John Kennedy was just no longer able to control the people around him that wanted WWW3. But would there actually be any people left? I don’t believe he tried to shoot JFK.
Very disappointed that King went straight for the official narrative, despite everything we know in 2016.
Historians (I include myself, as I have a degree in History), disdain “what if” history, because no one can say what might have happened if A was B and X was Z.
“If the queen had balls, she would be the king.”
Love that quote you ended with Ed,
While there are some well constructed “Alternate History Fiction”, they must be taken for what they are, a type of science fiction fantasy.
As you say, any serious historian knows better than to take such things seriously.
Unfortunately Steven King is unabashed in his acceptance of the official narrative, and he expressed these opinions openly on many interviews with him about the novel ’11/22/63′. It is unfortunate because King wants to convince that the official narrative is true, and wants to do so through science fiction. This is thrice times deplorable considering King’s vast popular audience.
This is why Steven King must be censured on serious historical sites such as JFKfacts. His BS must be taken to task.
I meant to say, censured (not “censored”):
‘This is why Steven King must be **censured** on serious historical sites…’
And if frogs had glass butts, they’d only jump once.
Somewhere, the guilty are smiling widely, especially considering the psychology involved in the playing off of one fiction against another….
Sometimes, Jordan, I believe all we can do is to trust in the existence of a vengeful and exacting God, patiently awaiting the Judgement Day of each of the treasonous rats behind JFK’s murder.
I guess someone didn’t read The Unspeakable?
Thanks for saving me the time of actually watching the Series.
This same exact concept had been done on the 1980s reboot of the Twilight Zone