Previously on this thread I promised to clarify my work as a member of the erroneously labeled "JFK research community" -- erroneous insofar as it begs the inference that scholarly research amounts to the only meaningful contribution one can make to the searches for truth and justice in this case -- a task necessitated by a typically defensive, simple-minded, defamatory, and ultimately disingenuous screed (Drago's "rabid and baseless musings") directed against me by Jim DiEugenio on the Maggie's Drawers forum (see post #7 at https://deeppolitics...ed#.WCc85LIrKM8 ).
Since I am barred from responding to DiEugenio on that site -- (a fact of which he is aware and even celebrates, and which emboldens him to make his borderline libelous chages without fear of direct refutation: "Drago," he writes, "has become more and more toxic, belligerent, and obnoxious since he has now been confined to Greg Burnham's forum. All he does now is take pot shots at everyone else from his forced isolation [emphasis added])" -- I have no recourse but to speak truth to falsehood, ignorance, and envy here.
I thank Greg Burnham for stretching this forum's rules to allow me to clarify the record; he understands that, as I've previously noted:
"There is more at stake here than the bragging rights and ego replenishment that are common to contratemps between two forceful individuals. This is about fairness, personal honor (or lack thereof), trust, truth, and the ongoing search for justice for JFK."
DiEugenio's is a classic strawman attack. "Drago was never any great shakes as a researcher. He essentially began and ended with Evica, his idol. As if GME was the beginning and ending of all JFK research. Well, for Drago that was fairly accurate, for people actually going through the declassified record, it was not. [sic] Since Drago never did, it was a self reinforcing paradigm. [sic]"
REFUTATION ONE -- As early as the 1990s and to this day, whether in a brief bio paragraph for a JFK Lancer program book, in numerous other conferences' materials, and from at least a half-dozen podiums, I make clear the natue of my work: what I contribute in the main to our shared endeavors "is not original research, but rather original thinking". I have never described myself as a "JFK researcher".
REFUTATION TWO -- DiEugenio asserts as fact an undernourished-by-fact and thus fatally flawed supposition when he writes, "Drago never did [go through the declassified record]." DiEugenio clearly hasn't the faintest idea of the manners in which I study this case. In point of fact, the lion's share of my time (literally thousands of hours over more than three decades) spent in pursuit of truth and justice for JFK has been consumed by reading -- thoroughly -- declassified documents and other papers and books focusing on deep politics in general and the Dallas operation in particular. In this instance, DiEugenio lies about me.
REFUTATION THREE -- Far from beginning and ending with Evica, my JFK work was recognized as significant years before I met George Michael. In point of fact, I first made his acquaintance at the first Third Decade Conference in June, 1991, where I presented a paper and served as a discussant for another presentation at the invitation of Dr. Jerry Rose, publisher of the journal. And today my work continues, long after George Michael has shuffled off this mortal coil. Once again, DiEugenio lies about me.
DiEugenio continues his Hearst-worthy hatchet job by opening his kimono and exposing his chafed ego. He describes my nomination of Jim Garrison -- the subject of "his" first book -- for a Profile in Courage Award as a "howler." Why? Because he was and remains incapable of the scholarly synthesis and sheer imagination required to recognize such an opportunity for moving the case forward, and because his ego was shattered by my choice to cite Joan Mellen's book-length study of Garrison's JFK case in the formal nomination papers.
And before you buy DiEugenio's implication that his objection to my method is based on the fact that Mellen's attacks on RFK (of which he implies I was unaware -- another DiEugenio lie) were bound sink the effort almost before it was launched, know that his original criticism, made at the time the nomination was filed, noted only that "his" book had real, honest-to-goodness footnotes.
Moving on: When I took DiEugenio to task for implying that he somehow deserves credit for exposing the fact that the CIA's Mexico City audio surveillance tapes on which the voice of an Oswald imposter is heard were not destroyed prior to the assassination -- I cited the original memorandum in which officials acknowledge listening to it in the aftermath of JFK's murder -- he scurries to find an excuse for his behavior.
"Every LHO did it guy since has used [Blakey's minimizing of the significance of this fact] to discount its importance ... which is why I went and found at least five other sources," he pleadingly asserts.
As if a thousand additional sources would dissuade the LN liars from conducting their operations.
(At this point in his screed, his blood heated to mammalian levels, DiEugenio begins to refer to me as "Chucky" -- which in his witless world rises to the level of bon mot. More of this in due course.)
Continuing to engage in nose-growing behavior, DiEugenio claims that, "[Drago] then says that I think I was the first person to discover Anne Goodpasture. He bases this on me bringing up the Lopez Report to Eddie Lopez and asking him about her. (Which he calls name dropping.)[sic]"
Wrong, James. Again. I was commenting on the manner in which DiEugenio's typically inartful (or, as I suspect, typically self-gratifying and disingenuous) language begs the inference that somehow he bears a meaningful amount of the responsibility for the Goodpasture revelations. In fact, all that DiEugenio does here -- as is the case with the overwhelming majority of his published work -- is cite the efforts of others. Or, if you prefer, declare the obvious with an air of discovery.
Then, as so often happens, DiEugenio, in a frantic effort to have it both ways, refutes his own case: "So what Chucky is saying inadvertently proves my point--that it was [the Lopez Report] that first shined the light on her role in that prior skullduggery."
DiEugenio is fond of praising the "synthesis" that occurs when a researcher/historian reaches conclusions that are greater than the sum of the parts of his/her research -- a phenomenon one rarely encounters in his own published work. The praise ends, of course, when he's writing about my work. In such instances, "synthesis" is dismissed as "speculation".
"Finally, [Drago's] interpretation of the Chicago Plot is just speculation. He may be right, he may be wrong. But that is what Chucky does. He speculates. And he pontificates on the BIG PICTURE. Wait for him to do something original.
This is so pathetic a pleading that I'm tempted to forgo the balance of this response out of sheer sympathy for a mind addled by narcissistic personality disorder.
But I won't, because this poseur must be exposed. And I'm just the guy to do the exposing.
My Chicago-as-ruse hypothesis is in fact a synthesis of the Edwin Black article, my analyses of other works, including but not limited to portions of Hank Albarelli's A Secret Order and James Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable, and exchanges with and about Evica, Mary Ferrell, and Bud Fensterwald. It is wholly original as a synthesis -- just as many of my earlier works are (my essay "In the Blossom of Our Sins", my Lancer presentation on the recognition of Dealey Plaza as sacred ground, my Introduction to Evica's A Certain Arrogance, etc.).
(And speaking of Ms. Ferrell, I don't recall seeing DiEugenio at any of Mary's legendary JFK conference soirees, where, at her invitation, the most august names in our community -- and, upon occasion and for reasons that remain obscure, even I -- would gather in the hotel's presidential suite for fine wine and finer, on- and off-the-record conversation. But I digress.)
To drive home his dagger, DiEugenio closes with a characterization that, in its elements of transference, its ugliness, and its spineless presentation from behind a firewall, perfectly crystalizes all that we need to know about his mind and his character:
"Chucky is starting to remind me of the weird uncle at family gatherings who gets hustled off into a side room and eats and drinks by himself. When its time to go, his kindly sister takes his hat and coat, dresses him and drops him off at his apartment."
And with that, your honors, the plaintiff retires to his lonely room and rests.
"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American
"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings