The Fall of JFK, the Rise of GWB, and Other Traumatic Events
Newsflash: Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.
If that’s not news to you, it sure was to me. During my entire lifetime, the assassination of President Kennedy has been an event mired in speculation, generating generations of conspiracy theorists who have effectively de-filed the event to the unknowable annals of popular history. So when the History Channel, some 40-odd years after the fact, airs a program that emphatically states that Oswald acted alone, I could not help but receive the idea as novel.
Starting with the Zapruder film, the producers were able to recreate the scene at Dealey Plaza with Matrix-like special effects, factoring every relevant detail, from the position of those in the limosine to the trajectory of the bullet coming from the window of the book depository. They not only proved that it was entirely possible that Oswald fired the fatal shots, but that it was absolutely impossible that anyone else could have. Oswald acted alone. End of story.
So why does the speculation persist? I can think of two reasons.
Within the same month I saw this documentary, I also watched the Today Show interview someone who claimed to have been a part of the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. He was below the street, in the sewer that day (if you care to believe him), and though he did not fire any shots, he claimed to know who did.
Had this self-professed mafioso had even a modicum of credibility, I would think that someone slightly more important than Katie Couric would have wanted to talk to him. (And no, I don’t mean Oliver Stone.) Instead he sat before NBC’s cameras, bloviating while Katie listened with rapt attention, confident her viewers would as well.
Speculation persists because it is interesting.
And it is interesting only because of the chance, no matter how illogical or improbable, that it might be true. True or not true is not interesting. But Maybe? Now that’s fascinating.
The disingenuous filmmaker (and no, I don’t mean Michael Moore) who concocted JFK knew as much. Because holding such speculation to reasoned scutiny would be a buzz-killer, Stone took “artistic license” while he made a counterfeit deposit on the public’s consciousness. The Deep Throat-esque character portrayed by Donald Sutherland did not exist—not as an actual person, a composite character, or even an exaggeration. Stone’s most credible witness was a total fabrication. He was, nevertheless, interesting.
The other reason, I suppose, that conspiracy rumors endure is because there are some things too horrible to accept, so we simply refuse to. Could one insignificant man really kill the leader of the free world? We would hate to think so, so we seek alternate explanations. While Oliver Stone (and Michael Moore) may have ulterior motives, many who would accept wild theories do so out of a sense of desperation.
For many liberals, the election of George W. Bush was as traumatic an event as the death of JFK. Thus the conspiracy theories bourne out of the Florida recount that still exist today. And as with JFK, what may have once been an understandable coping mechanism has grown into a full-blown dimentia.
Now consider the events of September 11, 2001. Bob Dylan released an album on that day with a song, “Honest with Me,” that offered the line: “Some things are too terrible to be true.” (Actually, the whole album is laced with lines that are eerie when heard in the wake of that fateful day.) The terror came not only in the massive loss of life, but also in the loss of our innocence. No longer could we consider anything to be both terrible and impossible.
That is the best I can do in trying to understand some people’s current attitude toward the war against Islamic terrorists. Absent steady reminders (which the president has done splendidly in protecting us from), the president runs the risk of losing support from those who now have the luxury of pushing terrible thoughts out of their minds.
In the days that followed the attacks, we were all Americans, as the French had put it. (How ironic is that?) Bush’s approval rating was somewhere upwards of 90 percent and remained there for months. Americans were experiencing a real sense of patriotism—all Americans. So if Bush is saying the same things now that he was saying then, how did the patriotism turn into partisanism?
If you take a group of people desperate to believe something/anything and propose even the most incredible or illogical of theories, some will entertain them. Doubt will take root, resolve will weaken, and a political agenda will have been served. For today’s Democrats, that would truly be a mission accomplished. But let’s get back to JFK.
Is it any wonder that such a cynicism toward government followed the assassination of President Kennedy and the finding by the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone? Has anyone heard of the “magic bullet theory”? That one came compliments of Arlen Specter. So if you can’t explain or can’t accept the truth of what happened, find another truth. And by all means, find an interesting one. Oliver Stone did.
Oliver Stone is also reportedly working on a 9/11 film. What will we learn from this film? If history is any indication, whatever we want to.
If that’s not news to you, it sure was to me. During my entire lifetime, the assassination of President Kennedy has been an event mired in speculation, generating generations of conspiracy theorists who have effectively de-filed the event to the unknowable annals of popular history. So when the History Channel, some 40-odd years after the fact, airs a program that emphatically states that Oswald acted alone, I could not help but receive the idea as novel.
Starting with the Zapruder film, the producers were able to recreate the scene at Dealey Plaza with Matrix-like special effects, factoring every relevant detail, from the position of those in the limosine to the trajectory of the bullet coming from the window of the book depository. They not only proved that it was entirely possible that Oswald fired the fatal shots, but that it was absolutely impossible that anyone else could have. Oswald acted alone. End of story.
So why does the speculation persist? I can think of two reasons.
Within the same month I saw this documentary, I also watched the Today Show interview someone who claimed to have been a part of the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. He was below the street, in the sewer that day (if you care to believe him), and though he did not fire any shots, he claimed to know who did.
Had this self-professed mafioso had even a modicum of credibility, I would think that someone slightly more important than Katie Couric would have wanted to talk to him. (And no, I don’t mean Oliver Stone.) Instead he sat before NBC’s cameras, bloviating while Katie listened with rapt attention, confident her viewers would as well.
Speculation persists because it is interesting.
And it is interesting only because of the chance, no matter how illogical or improbable, that it might be true. True or not true is not interesting. But Maybe? Now that’s fascinating.
The disingenuous filmmaker (and no, I don’t mean Michael Moore) who concocted JFK knew as much. Because holding such speculation to reasoned scutiny would be a buzz-killer, Stone took “artistic license” while he made a counterfeit deposit on the public’s consciousness. The Deep Throat-esque character portrayed by Donald Sutherland did not exist—not as an actual person, a composite character, or even an exaggeration. Stone’s most credible witness was a total fabrication. He was, nevertheless, interesting.
The other reason, I suppose, that conspiracy rumors endure is because there are some things too horrible to accept, so we simply refuse to. Could one insignificant man really kill the leader of the free world? We would hate to think so, so we seek alternate explanations. While Oliver Stone (and Michael Moore) may have ulterior motives, many who would accept wild theories do so out of a sense of desperation.
For many liberals, the election of George W. Bush was as traumatic an event as the death of JFK. Thus the conspiracy theories bourne out of the Florida recount that still exist today. And as with JFK, what may have once been an understandable coping mechanism has grown into a full-blown dimentia.
Now consider the events of September 11, 2001. Bob Dylan released an album on that day with a song, “Honest with Me,” that offered the line: “Some things are too terrible to be true.” (Actually, the whole album is laced with lines that are eerie when heard in the wake of that fateful day.) The terror came not only in the massive loss of life, but also in the loss of our innocence. No longer could we consider anything to be both terrible and impossible.
That is the best I can do in trying to understand some people’s current attitude toward the war against Islamic terrorists. Absent steady reminders (which the president has done splendidly in protecting us from), the president runs the risk of losing support from those who now have the luxury of pushing terrible thoughts out of their minds.
In the days that followed the attacks, we were all Americans, as the French had put it. (How ironic is that?) Bush’s approval rating was somewhere upwards of 90 percent and remained there for months. Americans were experiencing a real sense of patriotism—all Americans. So if Bush is saying the same things now that he was saying then, how did the patriotism turn into partisanism?
If you take a group of people desperate to believe something/anything and propose even the most incredible or illogical of theories, some will entertain them. Doubt will take root, resolve will weaken, and a political agenda will have been served. For today’s Democrats, that would truly be a mission accomplished. But let’s get back to JFK.
Is it any wonder that such a cynicism toward government followed the assassination of President Kennedy and the finding by the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone? Has anyone heard of the “magic bullet theory”? That one came compliments of Arlen Specter. So if you can’t explain or can’t accept the truth of what happened, find another truth. And by all means, find an interesting one. Oliver Stone did.
Oliver Stone is also reportedly working on a 9/11 film. What will we learn from this film? If history is any indication, whatever we want to.
posted by Dan O'Byrne at 8:28 AM
10 Comments:
Outstanding! "Speculation persists because it's interesting." This is one of the best lines you've ever written. One of your best blogs, too. Thanks for providing some clarity in these 'interesting' times.
So if Bush is saying the same things now that he was saying then, how did the patriotism turn into partisanism?
Easy. It's called the war on Iraq which, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people do not agree with. Plus, it wasn't what the Bush said which caused his 90 approval rating- it was the terrorist attacks and people tend to come together in the immediate after-effects of a dramatic experience. Mere speculation, but I tend to think pretty much any pres would have had around the same very high approval ratings in the proceeding weeks as Bush, though there is no pheasable way for anyone to keep such high marks, especially in the increasingly partisan USA "us vs. them" attitude (I qualify USA b/c I dunno about internationally)
Hi John, Thanks for the comment.
You're a bright and resourceful guy. Maybe you can help me find something.
I remember after it was suspected that we might not find WMD, after the war started, before the election, each senator was asked by a major news source if this new information would have changed their vote. In all cases, but three, the answer was no.
Interesting. Keep in mind that was before the election when Democrats feared being viewed weak on defense. To hear them say it now, the only reason they voted for the war was because they were "misled" by President Bush.
I would love to find that source, but Google has not been much help. At school, do you have access to Lexus-Nexus, and would it be easier there?
I have a booklet that I bought on Dealy Plaza that contains an amazingly detailed "record" of evidence that the Warren commision was false. I can't begin to even qualify the information therein as being based on fact or the products of over wild imagination. I have it as bathroom reader right above the 9/12/01 issuse of Newsweek that has a detailed cover story about the "secret vote" (on the Supreme Court) that gave Bush the presidency. Obviously this issue was quickly disregarded in the wake of more newsworthy events while in lanquished on the newsstand. I find them both "interesting."
I've always been fascinated by the Kennedy assasination. I do no subscribe to any conspiracy theory. I have better things to do with my time. But it was a watershed moment for our culture on so many levels. I understand the compulsion to think, "but there must be something more."
9/11 has its own whack job theorists, begining with our own dearly beloved Cynthia McKinney and of course Michael Moore.
They feed the need for the outing of secrets kept. That's what makes speculation so interesting. We all know people with power get there because of their ability to keep secrets. Those of us without power are dying to know what they are. Without knowing them, I suppose idiots like Katie Couric will always help us fill in the needed dirt.
One point of difference though, I thought cynicism towards the Government began with Vietnam and Watergate, not the JFK assasination.
And Mr. Duval is right, despite the rights own conspiracy theories about how the left wants to take down America, there are many plausible arguements against our adventure in Iraq. You never heard this about Afghanistan did you? Some of us think Bush dishonored the tragedy of 9/11 to push a military agenda that predated 9/11.
He certainly did a disgraceful job of linking the two without an outright accusation. Look, it was a sales and marketing scheme. I have heard many impassioned arguements for attacking Iraq that didn't involve innuendo and sloganism. I disagree with them, but they are at least honest. The rhetoric the Bush administration has used to wage this "War on Terror" - scratch that - it is now a "global struggle against violent extremism" is as shifty as a mood ring. That's what I don't trust.
I feel like they are not being honest and to the point. Therefore, my mind is fertile ground for anyone to fill it with "theories" because in my gut I feel, "there must be something more." The theories may be wrong, but I can smell a secret out there.
I do at times wish that Bush had more of Blair's ability to express the need to eradicate the terrorism that the world currently faces. Blair can be downright inspiring in his speeches. Maybe it's just the British accent.
Regardless, I believe the administration's goals in the Middle East are much more far reaching than they are able or willing to admit. (Or perhaps I just don't watch enough news programs.)
I do believe that Bush acted on the WMD intelligence he received - he was convinced of a threat precipitated through Saddam slinging his weapons to the highest bidder. I also believe removing Saddam serves as step one in reshaping the Middle East. The democracy experiement that Iraq is undertaking has tremendous implications for that region. Self-determination, freedom, and opportunity should triumph over the hate bred in desperate and hopeless minds.
We have to get Iraq right. Bottom line.
It's interesting that the prominence of the event is in direct proportion to the persistance and the breadth of appeal of conspiracy theories to explain it. You cover many of the reasons, but there is also a factor that is engaged by the gentleman being interviewed by Ms. Couric. It gets you attention. Conspiracy web sites are all fundamentally the same as they are the brave struggles of 'illuminati' who are not fooled by the transparent cover stories of The Man. That goes for the various assasinations as well as the 'assasinations' of Marilyn Monroe, Vince Foster, etc. Little people in little rooms thinking big, big thoughts. They have *everything* invested in their theories.
I had it marked on my calendar-
Tuesday, 9/11, 12 noon - Run to Bull Moose Music, get new Dylan release.
It was a full week before I remembered that "Love and Theft" had been released on 9/11/01.
I find it impossible to this day to listen to any track on that disc without flashing back to the clear, bright sky of 9/11.
In the order of the tracks:
"They're lying low and they're makin' hay /
They seem determined to go all the way" (Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum)
"Everybody movin' if they ain't already there /
Everybody got to move somewhere /
Stick with me baby, stick with me anyhow /
Things should start to get interesting right about now" (Mississippi)
"Well, I'm leaving in the morning as soon as the dark clouds lift /
Yes, I'm leaving in the morning just as soon as the dark clouds lift /
Gonna break the roof in - set fire to the place as a parting gift" (Summer Days)
"I'm gonna baptize you in fire so you can sin no more /
I'm gonna establish my rule through civil war" (Bye and Bye)
"Well, today has been a sad ol' lonesome day /
Yeah, today has been a sad ol' lonesome day /
I'm just sittin' here thinking
With my mind a million miles away"
and
"Well my captain he's decorated - he's well schooled and he's skilled /
My captain, he's decorated - he's well schooled and he's skilled /
He's not sentimental - don't bother him at all
How many of his pals have been killed" (both Lonesome Day Blues)
"If you ever try to interfere with me or cross my path again /
You do so at the peril of your own life /
I'm not quite as cool or forgiving as I sound /
I've seen enough heartaches and strife" (Floater [Too Much to Ask])
"Coffins droppin' in the street /
Like balloons made out of lead" (High Water [for Charley Patton])
The songs "Moonlight" and later "Po' Boy" offer a brief respite from Dylan's apocalyptic imagery.
In addition to "Some things are too terrible to be true", 'Honest With Me' also offers "I'm here to create the new imperial empire /
I'm going to do whatever circumstances require"
"I'm on the fringes of the night, fighting back tears that I can't control /
Some people they ain't human, they got no heart or soul" (Cry A While)
And finally "Every moment of existence seems like some dirty trick /
Happiness can come suddenly and leave just as quick /
Any minute of the day the bubble could burst" (Sugar Baby)
Yeah, obscure I admit, but then, Dylan has always offered songs that lend themselves to myriad interpretations.
I will leave you with one of Chesterton's observations of Islam, lest we lose sight of the target:
"There is in Islam a paradox which is perhaps a permanent menace. The great creed born in the desert creates a kind of ecstasy out of the very emptiness of its own land, and even, one may say, out of the emptiness of its own theology. It affirms, with no little sublimity, something that is not merely the singleness but rather the solitude of God. There is the same extreme simplification in the solitary figure of the Prophet; and yet this isolation perpetually reacts into its own opposite. A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude of lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mahomet produces an endless procession of Mahomets. Of these the mightiest in modern times were the man whose name was Ahmed, and whose more famous title was the Mahdi; and his more ferocious successor Abdullahi, who was generally known as the Khalifa. These great fanatics, or great creators of fanaticism, succeeded in making a militarism almost as famous and formidable as that of the Turkish Empire on whose frontiers it hovered, and in spreading a reign of terror such as can seldom be organised except by civilisation…" (From GK Chesterton's "Lord Kitchener, 1917)
I agree with some of the previous criticisms, but have to give you a great review for originality. You can always revise details later, but the concept, as far as I know, is truly original and has some meaning.
The comments sort of took off on their own however... which again, indicates you hit a nerve.
I don't have any regrets about going into Iraq. Something had to be done about the Middle East. Action was needed. Everyone at the time, including the Democrats, were on board. I think what turned the tide of patriotism to partisanism was the 2004 presidential election. Dems wanted power back and took the opportunity to to so by using 20/20 hindsite and pretending they were never for it in the first place.
But it is not going well. Regardless of the president's speeches and Rush and Saun', take on things, there are some major problems. The ultimate blame is of course on the enemy, Muslim fanatics bent on destroying Western Civilization. In the current US political atmosphere, it is also expected that Bush is not going to come out and admit things are fucked up. It would be suicide and give the enemy a great psychological victory.
When we went in, we thought all we had to do was defeat the Republican Guard and get Saddam. Mission Accomplished.
Only it wasn't.
Whose fault is that? Intelligence? CIA? NSA?
It is obvious we did not understand the extremist Muslim psychology. Iraqi citizens who were all for us are turning against us. We need to get control of the situation, now!
Mission Accomplished needs to be MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!! Then get the hell out.
The War on Terror will continue. Getting out of Iraq does not mean the war is over. It needs to be based on Intelligence. Cruise missles and guided bombs. THAT is how Bush can leave a legacy. Build up intelligence.
Just remember - newspapers and magazines are in the business of selling newspapers and magazines. They are NOT in the business of telling objective fact. Television shows must generate "ratings" in order to sell advertising. They are NOT in the fact business. (Just as polticians are in the business of getting re-elected).
So if it appears that the media are pandering to the masses with conspiracy theories that are interesting - it is because they are pandering to the masses to get in their wallets.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, I highly recommend "Nemesis: The True Story of Aristotle Onassis, Jackie O. and the Love Triangle that Brought Down the Kennedy's" by Peter Evans. His evidence that Onassis provided the money for the assassination of Bobby Kennedy is compeling. (Onassis carried an insatiable grudge against RFK for discovering his illegal purchase of U.S. surplus T2 tankers.) The book is full of more covert meetings, rumors and confessions than an international spy novel. It does not paint a pretty picture of either the Kennedy Clan or the Onassis family.
Post a Comment
<< Home