Plenty of New Coverage
Yesterday, Russ Baker appeared on the Thom Hartmann Program, and that interview can be listened to in full.
The New York Observer sent reporter Leon Neyfakh to cover the Family of Secrets book release party earlier this week. Neyfakh asked partygoers and friends of the book about its likely reception in the mainstream media. Dan Rather, Judith Regan, and the author himself offered their opinions.
As for that mainstream media reception…Tim Rutten of The Los Angeles Times fired the opening salvo in what is sure to provoke an ongoing conversation among critics and historians about this new book. He blasted the book as “preposterous,” before declaring a personal bias:
I regard the belief that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone as an important indicium of mental health.
According to an ABC News poll conducted in 2003 in conjunction with a Peter Jennings special report, seven in 10 Americans think the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot. (And in 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations found a “probable conspiracy” but did not identify specific perpetrators.) With that in mind, Rutten is making a pretty serious assertion about our country’s sanity.
January 7, 2009 2:48 pm 
Subscribe
By Thomas LaVelle, January 8, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Having just finished Bakers book, one word comes to mind. Garbage. Very little evidence is presented. Conjecture and speculation runs rampant. The JFK assassination contains the usual suspects. The book is about relationships without evidence. Because A knows B and B knows C, then C must know A. It’s written in the tone of a conspiratorial novel. But as they say, mystery outsells history.
By Danny Johnson, January 8, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Over a thousand footnotes in this tome, and reviewer Thomas LaVelle claims that it’s weak on evidence? All the more reason why I MUST read this book.
Also, I have had suspicions about the media-spun-ad-nauseum-for-thirty-five-years Watergate travesty for years. ‘Watergates’ happen on a weekly basis in Washington — so why *that* affair to bring down a presidency? Baker’s book seems to favor the critically thinking, intuitive Patriots of this nation that won’t take the bought-off press and private foundation-funded history texts’ words on ‘the official stories’ on so many confusing elements of modern American and world history.
By Thomas LaVelle, January 9, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
What Mr. Johnson perceives as evidence is not to be construed as truth. These tabloid books are typically short on proof. This book is no different. Baker uses “guilt by association”. Apparently Mr. Johnson has no clue what critical thinking is all about. As Hofstader wrote: “we are all suffers from history but the paranoid is a double sufferer since he is afflicted not only by the real world with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well”.
By Hugh Jarce, January 10, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Mr. LaVelle, how much evidence and truth did you see in the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission reports when you read them? Rightly they are labeled as the Warren Omission and the 9/11 Omission.
By Nathaniel Heidenheimer, January 11, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
The author never claims to “Prove” the JFK assassination and or Watergate was the result of one particular theory or another.
What the book does do is offere starteling new facts that must weigh very heavily toward some new understanding of both events. The new events and conncetions he presents are argued tightly and are documented far better than the Chandler lunch hour at Langley. Then again what kind of standard is that? Should we nickname it Tonkin Gulf, El Mozote, BabyIncubator, or WMD?
By Nathaniel Heidenheimer, January 11, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
… why not Sam…Halperin. The media’s hamburger helper, when serving fresh-ground Kennedy?
By Arthur Fischl, January 12, 2009 @ 7:47 am
The “Thomas LaVelle”s who have been tasked to do hit jobs on heroic exposes of the crime syndicates that have been overrunning our phony republic cannot be taken seriously. Or — insofar as they can be — they are to be identified as being accessories to the traitors themselves
Any honest reading of “Family of Secrets” would swiftly identify “Thomas LaVelle” for what he is: an enemy of truth
By Thomas LaVelle, January 12, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
One can only laugh at the Arthur Fischls of this planet who apparently see conspiracy in their cornflakes in the morning. Mr. Fischl apparently feels anybody disputing a “tabloid book” is a well paid disinformation specialist and/or part of Mockingbird. As for my being an enemy of the truth, perhaps Mr. Fischl might be better served in reading historial documentation of events as opposed to science fiction.
By Connor Kilpatrick, January 13, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
Thomas LaVelle,
Remember when Time magazine mocked Josh Marshall of TPM for seeing a “conspiracy” in the DoJ firings? Remember that? Remember when the Times was forced to apologize to Marshall after it became clear that there was a genuine conspiracy? But hey…Time magazine and Josh Marshall…lunatic fringe, right? “Seeing things in their cornflakes”, right?
The thing about the Bush family is that you really have to bend over backwards, ignoring all cognitive faculties NOT to see shadiness and corruption all around. I’m talking shadiness of all kinds. The fact that you’d label an investigation into these darker areas of this 20th-21st century dynasty as “tabloid journalism” says a lot about you. And none of it is good.
You really think we know all there is to know about Poppy and Dubya? Is that a joke? Both are and were embroiled in genuine public conspiracies from the get-go. Not tinfoil stuff, but you know, actual for-real conspiracies (Iran-Contra, Iraq War WMD intel, mass-torture, mass-rendition, Bush v. Gore/Florida recount, mass-secret-imprisonment, Don Siegelman, the Bush DOJ firings, Poppy’s very blatant lifelong CIA ties, Mike Connell’s plane crash, Zapata Oil and on and on and on and on).
Look at the past eight years. Had a good look? Nothing?
You truly are blind.
By Thomas LaVelle, January 15, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
Calm down Mr. Kilpatrick. You’re exhibiting all the characteristics of of a die hard conspiracy theorist. I for one surely realize conspiricies exist. To believe they do not exist within the political history of America would be foolish on my part. The Bush family are amateurs for example compared to the Kennedy family and yet, we laud JFK, RFK et al.
My comments pertained to Bakers blatant and distored lies about relationships. Not all relationships are conspiritorial in nature…..however that is exactly how Baker interpets them and he does it with conjecture, speculation and innuendo. That is tabloid journalism. Did we and on the moon Mr. Kilpartrick of was that a conspiracy also?
By Arthur Fischl, January 16, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
By Thomas LaVelle, January 8, 2009 @ 2:58 pm :
“Having just finished Bakers book, one word comes to mind. Garbage.”
Let’s not forget how this discussion started
By Thomas LaVelle, January 12, 2009 @ 4:58 pm :
“One can only laugh at the Arthur Fischls of this planet who apparently see conspiracy in their cornflakes in the morning.”
Not in my cornflakes, no, but in the orchestration and cover-up of 9/11 most definitely yes. Shall we review “the historical documentation of events” gleaned from mainstream sources? Mr LaVelle? What do you got?
Hahahahaha “science fiction.” The mother of them all “The 9/11 Commission Report”. Actually I beg pardon: The Omission Report is more of the fairy tale genre, or, better yet, myth. 9/11 Truth blows the lid of secrecy off the shadow gov’t of which the Bushes have played a central role for 60 years
By Thomas LaVelle, January 8, 2009 @ 2:58 pm :
“Conjecture and speculation runs rampant. The JFK assassination contains the usual suspects. The book is about relationships without evidence.”
Russ Baker has proven Poppy was in Dallas and was sophisticated enough to know to conceal this fact. He proves also that Mohrenschildts and Bushes go way back. He proves a great many things, not least the interconnected web of local police, FBI, intelligence, mob, oilmen, and media, elements of all of which were required to do the job and ratify the myth.
By Thomas LaVelle, January 15, 2009 @ 9:55 pm :
“Calm down Mr. Kilpatrick. You’re exhibiting all the characteristics of of a die hard conspiracy theorist.”
This tactic has been sufficient for 40 years.
By Thomas LaVelle, January 9, 2009 @ 2:34 pm :
As Hofstader wrote: “. . .the paranoid is a double sufferer . . .”.
Give that Hofstader-paranoid thing a rest.
We know now
By Thomas LaVelle, January 17, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Mr. Fischl? Are you stating as FACT the U.S. Government planned and participated in the events of 9/11?
quote on
Not in my cornflakes, no, but in the orchestration and cover-up of 9/11 most definitely yes. Shall we review “the historical documentation of events” gleaned from mainstream sources? Mr LaVelle? What do you got?
quote off
By Arthur Fischl, January 17, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Mr Lavelle,
I am stating as FACT that a rogue network — the same network that took care of the JFK, MLK, and RFK hits — with persons in key nodal positions in military, “government,” media, intel, national “security,” law “enforcement,” private contractors etc Made It Happen On Purpose and not probably without help from the intelligence apparatuses of other states.
It is PAINFULLY obvious to people that have been able to shake themselves free of the conditioning, and spend merely a few hours examining the evidence
By Thomas LaVelle, January 22, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Mr. Fischl, pardon my scorn but I do not waste time addressing conspiracy misfits. Same old story since JFK…..we can’t prove conspiracy because the conspiracists won’t allow it. In a city like D.C., where a secret can only remain a secret for a day or two, this vast conspiracy of thousands runs amuck. Sitting presidents such as Nixon, Reagan and Clinton could not keep their fiascos secret yet this “rogue” element reigns supreme. Mr. Fischl, the evidence you suggest, as an example in the Kennedy assassination has never been produced in 45 years. You live in a world of clouds and mirrors. My heart goes out to your family.
By Connor, January 22, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Hey LaVelle,
Maybe your posts (and your know-nothing stance) would have more authority if you could spell worth a shit.
By Thomas LaVelle, January 22, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Mr. Connor, thanx for the comments. I wasn’t aware spelling was a criteria in this venue. Nor was I aware that conspiracy theorists only frequent this area. God save the queen.
By Arthur Fischl, January 23, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Mr Lavelle you’re a waste of time. Pity
By Thomas LaVelle, January 24, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Have no fear Mr. Fischl, there are alot of “kooks” on here to entertain you. Best of luck.
By dahreese, January 31, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
Mr. Thomas LaVelle atempts to brush away “Family of Secrets” as nothing more than just another tabloid book one should not waste time reading. But, he fails.
He might succeed, however, if he would take Mr. Baker’s sources and prove them to be either disjointed, bogus or both. Until then, however, and without citing his sources, Mr. LaVelle is no better than he accuses Mr. Baker of being, just a puff of wind.
Your turn, Mr. LaVelle.
By Thomas LaVelle, February 1, 2009 @ 9:30 am
I am stating as FACT that a rogue network — the same network that took care of the JFK, MLK, and RFK hits — with persons in key nodal positions in military, “government,” media, intel, national “security,” law “enforcement,” private contractors etc Made It Happen On Purpose and not probably without help from the intelligence apparatuses of other states.
It is PAINFULLY obvious to people that have been able to shake themselves free of the conditioning, and spend merely a few hours examining the evidence
It’s interesting to note that the msm, whether in the U.S. or abroad ignored all of the “evidence”, per Mr. Fischl of this vast conspiracy involving thousands. Would it not be the biggest story perhaps in history?
By dahreese, February 1, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Well, you’ve made some accusations. What, of Russ Baker’s book, are you personally able to disprove?
By Thomas LaVelle, February 3, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Mr. dahreese, I would be happy to debate Mr. Baker at any time. This venue does not provide the resources necessary to do so.
By Joey. A., February 23, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
What does that even mean?