Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I originally really liked this book, buying it for both my uncle (who loves JFK conspiracy theories) and one of my professors (who loves JFK). However, after discussing the book and its merits with others, I have come to conclude that it doesn't prove much and its thesis (JFK was a peace-loving dove and it got him killed) is quite misleading. When I first read the book I felt there were a lot of assumptions made by Douglass but I cast my doubts aside because the story was just too compelling...and entertaining. Yet, I went back and really looked at some of the claims made and discovered a lot of "cherry-picking" and implausible scenarios. Douglass believes just about anyone who has a claim to make about seeing a second Oswald or being intimidated by government agents. The story promoted by Robert Vinson is just one example of the outrageous and unsubstantiated pieces of "evidence" that Douglass uses to prove a conspiracy designed by the CIA and US military. Are we supposed to believe that the high level plotters of an attempt to kill JFK would have allowed for the possibility that a man who had nothing what-so-ever to do with the killing would get on the "special CIA plane" that had the Oswald double on it and then let him live to talk about it? Seems too far-fetched to me. There are many stories like this is Douglass' book that make me doubt his judgment on what is reliable and what is not. Also, Douglass' detailing of Oswald's story is convoluted and confusing. One page Oswald is a willing patsy, another he stops a plot to kill JFK in Chicago, and on another he knows nothing about a plot. 50 years after the murder of JFK there is still no consensus in the conspiracy realm on Oswald's actual role in the murder and this book proves it since the author cannot even pick something and stay with it. To me, all the hard evidence shows Oswald knew something was going down that day. If Oswald was really a patsy, why would he not spill the beans to the authorities in Dallas after he was arrested? Douglass claims Oswald warned of the military industrial complex. But when he had the chance to prove its evils, he clammed up and refused to talk. There is nothing in this book that proves Oswald was framed by the CIA or any other intelligence agency. He may have had connections to them but if he really felt he had been framed, I would think he would have confessed something. Oswald clearly had something to hide. The claim that JFK wanted to radically change US foreign policy is just plain wrong. Yes, he sought a more peaceful world, but every Cold War president before and after him did the same. Eisenhower cut military spending, JFK increased it, a lot-making the claim that JFK was killed because he threatened the profits of the military industrial complex completely moot. JFK opened dialogue with Castro in the last months of his life but he also continued black ops against the dictator until his death. JFK was keeping his options open. We should not forget that JFK ran in 1960 on getting rid of Castro. It seems unlikely he would have given up on this very public campaign promise. Douglass says JFK would have, without a doubt, pulled the US troops out of Vietnam after he won re-election. There is a problem with this theory. First of all, JFK was basing this on overly optimistic assumptions about how the situation in Vietnam would look in 1964. Vietnam began to become an American responsibility shortly after the assassination of Diem, something JFK had a hand in bringing about. However, he was killed before things really started going downhill. Granted, in the end, JFK probably would not have waged the massive ground war Johnson did, but to say he was going to withdraw and leave South Vietnam to the communists is not good history. One thing every historian knows about JFK is that he did not want to be seen as weak against the reds. He would never have opened himself to attacks domestically about being weak. That is why he took a strong stance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin, and South Vietnam-increasing military aid there throughout his presidency. Additionally, if JFK was going to wait until re-election to take the troops out this does not look good in regards to JFK's character. US boys were being killed in Vietnam in 1963. If Kennedy was going to pull the troops out no matter what, waiting until domestic politics made it safe for him to do so means he could not have cared less about American blood being split oversees. It would also prove him a liar, since he stated numerous times publicly that he did not think it plausible to stand by and let SV fall. Another claim Douglass makes is that the military had a hand in killing JFK so they could wage an all out nuclear war with the Soviets. This of course did not happen. But Douglass says it did not happen because the perfect plot was just not perfect enough. In reality, the Joint Chiefs had the chance to wage war when JFK was killed but did not. A recently declassified document shows that the military had standing orders that if the president was killed during a Soviet attack on the US, full out nuclear war would be waged against China and the USSR. If the JCS killed JFK to start a war, this would have been the perfect opportunity no? They could have claimed Oswald was a soviet assassin and the communists fired the first shot. Instead, no nukes were fired and in 1968, LBJ and the JCS cancelled the standing order stating it was "too dangerous." There are indeed many coincidences in this case. And there is no doubt that we do not know the full story. However, I can not buy into the theory that American democracy was subverted by a small group of war-hungry, money-driven powerful people. (Or is it a large group? Based on the theory, there would have to be hundreds of people involved in the planning and carrying out of the assassination and its cover-up.) To say that all these people were involved and not one ever came forward with credible evidence to prove it is not plausible to me. Someone always comes forward.I am not closing the door on the idea that JFK was murdered due to a small conspiracy involving Oswald (I actually do believe in a conspiracy) but evidence that a coup d'etat took place on Nov. 22nd 1963 is just not there. American policy was not radically changed. One last point I would like to make is that Douglass does do a good job showing that a post-assassination cover-up probably took place. But he states the reason in the book: Because LBJ and others felt Oswald was working for Castro, not because they wanted to hide the truth that JFK was killed by his own government. Another good point of the book is that Douglass highlights some facts about Oswald that shows he probably had some connection to military intelligence. But all that information could be found in other books, with out all the far-out assumptions that are so prominent in this book. All in all JFK and the Unspeakable makes for a good read (if you like conspiracy novels like I do), but not good history. The reason for the one star is because it tries to pass as history and I think that is misleading. There is too much "cherry-picking" on JFK's foreign policy for this to be seriously considered history. If it was labeled fiction, it would have gotten 5 stars from me because it is very entertaining. I used to be a big "Oliver Stone theory" type guy but a look at the actual evidence of the case instead of the assumptions and coincidences forced me to change my mind about the coup d'etat theory and this book. I know some people would disagree with me, but I felt the need to give an honest review about how I changed my views about this book. Reviewer's Edit: When I first reviewed this book I was having doubts about Oswald's connections with military intelligence but since then I have reaffirmed by belief that Oswald was in some way connected after reading Anthony Summers' classic, "Conspiracy." "Conspiracy" convinced me more than this book could about Oswald's intelligence background because it was presented in a sensible and believable manner. I highly suggest it.