Bryce Zabel's FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH

Mr. Obama Goes to Washington

EDITOR'S NOTE, ELECTION DAY-AFTER 2008.

It feels like a movie, this rise of Barack Obama. 

Besides its compelling lead actor, this blockbuster has had plot twists, villains, conflict, a heroic journey, incredible stakes and a great ending.  These are all, as it is, also elements expected to be in any film or TV pitch I might make out here in Hollywood.  Dramatically speaking, this one has it all.

So far this year, I've voted for him twice, supported his campaign financially, gone to a rally, and even worked on "Ready to Believe," a professionally-produced song that's been well-received everywhere from YouTube to iTunes.  Mostly, though, I've followed the campaign like a member of an audience glued to an on-screen spectacle. 

President-elect Barack Obama's journey has felt like an epic film, but the way it's sucked us into caring about a character in a show where anything can happen, it's really played more like a TV series.  But there hasn't been a reality show created that could match this one.

No matter who you voted for yesterday, a President Barack Obama promises to continue as a compelling chapter in American history. 

I was born on the exact day the Supreme Court issued Brown -vs- the Board of Education.  My father taught American history and was shamed by having to explain our country's shortcomings in civil rights.  As a kid, I actually remember seeing news coverage of people having dogs and water hoses set on them because they wanted basic dignity.  To see this change in my lifetime -- from the awful images from the south to this man of progress chosen to lead us -- is a profound thing. 

There's so much hard work ahead, but right now a black man just proved that anybody CAN grow up to be president.  That's good for our country and it's good for our citizens, especially our kids.  And, coming back from Europe just two days ago, I believe the support Obama receives from world leaders will help with leading on the global financial mess and getting them to kick in more troops in Afghanistan.

You see: the Barack Obama movie not only has done incredible domestic box office, but it's about to play just as successfully in global markets.

The United States of America, for a few years anyway, has a brand to equal Coke and McDonald's on the world stage.  The President of the United States of America, Barack Obama.

In the fall of 2007, before the first primaries, I first wrote about Barack Obama on the FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH blog.  I just re-read it today and thought it was worth the re-post.  Here it is then, as it was:

The world has probably not been holding its collective breath waiting to find out who the FWIW blog will throw its weight behind in the presidential campaign. We have yet to serve our billionth daily reader, Tim Russert stubbornly refuses to quote us on "Meet the Press," and the campaigns have apparently missed the opportunity to bookmark us on their browsers. Even so, I've been watching the presidential campaign from the sidelines long-enough, and it seems like the right time to get in the game.

I just logged on to the official campaign website and gave a donation to Barack Obama. There are some good candidates I can support if Obama does not get the Democratic nomination but he's my first choice by a mile.

I just can't get behind a George H.W. Bush - Bill Clinton - George W. Bush - Hillary Clinton narrative for America. We try to raise kids to believe that anyone can grow up to be president, and that sends the message that the truth is something else. I just don't buy the "experience" argument anyway. I'm looking for good judgment, character and the ability to make effective decisions by listening to people with different viewpoints and then doing what you think is best, often before all the facts can be known. I'm looking for someone who can then explain those decisions to us in a way that increases our solidarity as a country and not put more distance between us.

President Barack Obama will send a message to the world that America is a new, more hopeful place. It will send a message to Americans that the racial divisions which have plagued our country can begin to truly heal. Hopefully, by being on the ticket, even the election can be about something besides red state-blue state distrust and acrimony. We need a clean break from the past.

The election of Obama, however, won't simply be a message. He's a bright thinker and he brings people together. We've been looking for someone to embody the spirit of John Kennedy for as long as I've been an adult. That's Barack Obama. There is no other candidate in this race for whom that comparison is even possible.

Like John Kennedy having to deal with issues like missiles in Cuba, history won't let Obama simply be the man who opposed the use of force in Iraq but will throw other challenges at him. He will have his own thorny issues to deal with, notably Islamic extremism directed at the U.S., but there will probably be a few we don't even see coming now. From what I can see, he'll be a cool head in the White House and I trust him to make the call for me.

I hope his journey across America during this campaign will allow him to transcend the boxes people want to put him in, and allow him to grow into a leader who will represent all of us.

Anyway, we all know this campaign can't be about who's got the best collection of issue statements and legislative agendas and plans. For me, it's about - "Who do you trust?"

I trust Barack Obama and, for what it's worth, I'd ask you to consider doing the same. Thanks.

FINAL NOTE:  "Ready to Believe" is the title of the rock-anthem I co-wrote the lyrics to that was recorded by LA alt.rocker Cherish Alexander and released a few days before the California primary (while I was on strike for the WGA, no less).  This song has been well-received everywhere from YouTube where it's had over 100,000 plays to iTunes where you can get a quality MP3 of it.  But, because you read to the end of this, you can also get a free copy by clicking here.

The 1968 Politics of Hope: Bobby Kennedy

Sadly, the news of Senator Ted Kennedy's brain tumor reminds of us all the tragedy visited upon the four Kennedy brothers (Joe, John, Bobby, Teddy).  Now we're also coming up on the anniversary of that time nearly forty years ago when hope (of the kind Barack Obama seems to represent for a lot of people) was crushed by another assassin's bullet. This picture you see is done by pop artist Roy Lichtenstein and originally debuted as the cover of Time magazine the week before Robert Kennedy's untimely death during another hard fought, unpredictable Democratic primary season, 1968 style.

Bobby Kennedy was a pop star as Lichtenstein portrayed him,  but he was more complicated than that, too. As Time noted in that last article before his death -- "The Politics of Restoration" --

"They pronounce his boyish name with fear and derision or else with adoration and awe. To many enemies, he is more his father's son than his brother's brother."

During his lifetime, Robert Kennedy was widely seen as his brother's hatchet man, and the word "ruthless" followed him everywhere. By 1968, when he died, though, he had grown. Pat Moynihan said of him, "Much has been given him and taken from him in life, and somehow he has been enlarged by both experiences."

Although Bobby (RFK) has won the California primary on the day of his death, he had also just concluded a slugfest with Senator Eugene McCarthy for the Democratic presidential nomination where the result had hardly been pre-ordained. Kennedy had had to fight McCarthy across the entire nation. When Kennedy triumphantly claimed victory here in Los Angeles at the Ambassador Hotel, he had settled the issue of who would be the anti-war candidate at the upcoming Democratic convention. Then he was murdered. He was 42 years old, even younger than his brother when he was murdered five years earlier.

I've always loved this Newsweek cover about RFK's death ("Once Again...Once Again," June 17, 1968). The photo, taken by Phil MacMullan, captures not only Bobby Kennedy's more soulful, empathetic side but also how the ghost of his brother and that previous assassination hung over him. If you CLICK on this cover, you can see it in even better detail.

Back then, I was living in Oregon where only the week before Kennedy had lost the Oregon primary to McCarthy. It was the first election any Kennedy had lost since their family got into politics. Kennedy desperately needed a win in California to get the momentum needed to take out Vice-President Hubert Humphrey at the Chicago convention that summer. Our family supported McCarthy, but we liked Kennedy a great deal, too. It was a tough choice. I remember seeing him speak in the auditorium at Hillsboro High School right before the election. He was three hours late but we waited because he was a rock star quality politician.

Anyway, Oregon is in the same time zone as California, so it was just after midnight when my dad came and woke me up. "Kennedy's been shot in California," he said. We went downstairs and watched the TV for news and kept up the vigil until he succumbed to his wounds the next day.

Conspiracy? JFK's Got Nothin' on Jim Morrison

Oliver Stone has made one movie about a conspiracy, "JFK," that probably isn't true at all, and another supposedly true story, "The Doors," which isn't about a conspiracy but should have been because that, in fact, is what really happened.

Ah, the irony...

Regular readers know I'm something of a conspiracy buff. I once called the Warren Commission Report "the greatest work of fiction that American literature has ever produced." Then I proceded to create a TV series, "Dark Skies," that had, as its basis, that President Kennedy was assassinated because he knew the truth about Roswell and was going to come clean with the American people in his second term (and, no, I never actually believed that -- it was a TV series!). We even did an episode of that series, by the way, where Jim Morrison was a character.

Now we have two news stories that are upending what people believe about JFK's assassination and about Jim Morrison's death.

Former LA prosecutor Vincent Buglioisi has a new book out, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy."  It's over 16-hundred pages and I'm not done but it make a very persuasive case that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, a lone nut-case who acted alone. Just like the Warren Commission said.

Then there's Time magazine which has a new article, "How Jim Morrison Died" by Vivienne Walt that says the idea he died in his bathtub in Paris is a complete fabrication. The truth, according to Walt, is that Morrison overdosed in a Paris nightclub and that about five or six people participated in taking his body back to his apartment and putting it in that bathtub and that Paris authorities just looked the other way and never did an autopsy.

Imagine how that would have energized the ending of Oliver Stone's movie. Could have happened, too. Sam Bernett who ran the Paris nightclub was described by Time this way.

Bernett says he once met Oliver Stone's mother, and told her: "Tell your son to call me and I'll tell him how his movie should end." Stone never called.

And, yet, just as I'm accepting these new facts, there's something from each story that keeps me guessing.

First, Bugliosi, also writing in an earlier issue of Time about "What We Can Learn From JFK" had this to say about the subject of the vast conspiracy it would have taken to bring down JFK:

"Three people can keep a secret but only if two of them are dead."

Bugliosi has used this line in the famous mock-trial of Oswald he participated in for the BBC, in his book and in most interviews. It's his standard-issue one-liner and it works because, well, it generally is true.

Now let's go to the article about Jim Morrison's death.

"We carried him in a blanket and got him the hell out of there," recalls Chauvel, who was a friend of Morrison. Explaining the cover-up, Chauvel says: "I guess if you have a nightclub and Jim Morrison dies in your toilet, it is not good p.r. The five or six people who knew, who were there that night, agreed to just forget about it."

So, let's see. These six people kept this secret for 36 years now and it only broke because one of them, who's getting on in years, decided to write a book and the others have confirmed it. And they joined the conspiracy because Morrison's drug dealers didn't want their product tied to the rock star in a nightclub. Bad for business.

Maybe Bugliosi's wrong. Maybe even six people can keep a secret, provided nobody thinks there is one in the first place.

Time's New Man-of-the-Year: Still JFK After All These Years

Last month, President John F. Kennedy would have turned 90 years old, had he lived. Even so, JFK is enjoying a banner year of publicity, especially for a dead man.

This week, it's Time magazine joining the fray, giving Kennedy the cover ("What We Can Learn from JFK") and a whopping 18 full pages of print and photo space. He gets a mostly adoring view from the writers who call him "A Warrior for Peace" and an "Icon of American Elegance."

Time joins a veritable publishing bonanza trading on the fascination with JFK-ness. There's Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History which argues the most sensational assassination story you can imagine: namely that Oswald, in fact, acted alone. This book is being made into an HBO mini-series by Tom Hanks & Co. Before Bugliosi, it was Salon's editor David Talbot's Brothers which argued that Bobby Kennedy intended to win the presidency first and then investigate for a conspiracy which he believed in. And, before that, it was E. Howard Hunt who, basically on his death-bed, claimed in American Spy that it was Lyndon Johnson who conspired to see Kennedy shot.

Maybe that's what makes Time so unique with its latest issue. The assassination only gets two pages. One is devoted to Bugliosi's Oswald-acted-alone case and the other to Talbot's Bobby-suspected-conspiracy case. Everything else dissects what made JFK such a great president.

In fact, he was. His speeches were perfect pitch in confronting the Soviet menace and the Cold War, telling the enemy that we would "bear any burden" to oppose tyranny but also extending the olive branch of peace if they wished to be our partners. He was inspirational in other areas from race relations to volunteerism. He literally was of the new generation. He gave Americans hope and he gave people from around the world reason to like Americans.

Amazingly, one of the associated Time articles called "The Swingingest President Ever" is not about the hundreds, if not thousands, of women besides Jackie Kennedy that JFK bedded. It is about his golf game. The closest the writers come to analyzing his personal fall from grace is this single passage from the cover story's introduction:

"In more recent years, he has suffered from a revisionist backlash, portrayed in books and the media as a decadent prince who put the nation at risk with is reckless personal behavior. Journalist Christopher Hitchens has gone so far as to dismiss him as a "vulgar hoodlum." While Kennedy's private life would certainly not pass today's public scrutiny, this pathological interpretation misses the essential story of his presidency."

At the risk of sounding like I'm full of "revisionist backlash," I'm not certain I fully agree.

First, however, as I've said many, many times, I loved JFK and his death made a mark on me like everyone else of my generation. Second, I'm a life-long Democrat.

Still, I'm not inclined to accept Time's analysis that all would have been wonderful if only he'd lived. He lived a life of lies from his medical condition to his now-legendary affairs. He tried to kill foreign leaders. He had friends in the mob who did him favors. And, at the time of his assassination, he was not as universally liked as he was when he became a martyr.

Co-author Harry Turtledove and I have worked through the "if Kennedy lived" scenario and come up with a fairly controversial new conclusion. If JFK survived Dallas, we believe the resulting investigation would have exposed in a very short period of time all the unsavory things that have instead taken over four decades to come out. The backwash would have crippled his presidency and his reputation would be quite different today. It's an alt-history book which we invite you to check out by clicking on the image below.

The Mother of All JFK Books: Oswald Acted... Alone?

After forty-plus years and a thousand books about John F. Kennedy and his assassination, it has become an accepted article of faith to most Americans (75% or more) that JFK was killed by the actions of a conspiracy. The debate has centered only on who was in on the murder plot: the CIA, the mob, Cubans, Castro, even LBJ. The most radical thing anybody can possibly say in this situation is that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and was the only gunman who took at shot on November 22, 1963.

Vincent Bugliosi is that kind of radical. He's perhaps our country's foremost prosecutor. You know him because he's the man who put that evil bastard Charles Manson behind bars for life and, later, made the case against O.J. Simpson so convincingly in his book Outrage. He also prosecuted Lee Harvey Oswald (in absentia) during a 21-hour British television production in the mid-80s where he actually convinced a jury of Dallas citizens who had served on federal trials to return a guilty verdict. Buglioisi has the steely intellect to see through bullshit and the guts to call it the way he sees it.

Bugliosi's new book, Reclaiming History, has been nearly twenty years in the making. It's over 1600 pages (not a typo). For the past four days, I've been reading it like the obsessed Kennedy reader I am. I do not have eye-strain but I do have a strain in my right forearm from balancing this book. It is literally too big to hold comfortably.

I'm betting, also, that it is also metaphorically too big for many people to hold comfortably in their minds because it will challenge their current mind-sets. But, as Bugliosi points out, the JFK assassination is "the most consequential murder case in American history." Therefore, he argues, he has written these 1,612 pages because he wants it to be the definitive piece on the assassination. As a former investigative reporter myself, I am duly impressed by how much work has gone into this.

Personally, like a lot of Americans, I've followed quite a path on the JFK story. As a child, I mourned with everyone else when Kennedy was murdered. And, like most everyone else at the time, I hated Lee Harvey Oswald (who we all assumed did the deed). I hated the fact that my middle name was "Harvey" from that day forward.

Then, like a lot of Americans, I began to have doubts. The conspiracy books started to make their cases. As historians turned up the truth about a lot of Kennedy's personal conduct, and his relations with Castro, and the CIA, and the mob, well, it seemed like there were lots of suspects for a conspiracy. By the mid-90s, in fact, I even turned the JFK conspiracy into an NBC primetime television series, "Dark Skies," which bizarrely welded the two great conspiracies of our time together into a plot-line that had JFK being killed because he was about to tell the truth about UFOs in his second term.

Even before Bugliosi's heavyweight indictment (it's 5.3 pounds), however, I'd begun to have doubts about my doubts. Gerald Posner wrote Case Closed which, also, argued that Oswald acted alone. I wasn't completely swayed, but my mind was open. One thing I learned as an investigative reporter is that in most instances the simplest explanation, even if it is emotionally unsatisfying, is often the right one.

The thing is Bugliosi's book is excellent and he is a powerfully assured organizer and interpreter of facts, particularly in complex cases like this one. Plus, and this is what sets his book apart, he takes the various conspiracy theories to task one-by-one and literally shreds them.

I'm a nut for detail, too. I actually collect Time and Newsweek magazines from the 1960s. Reading the issues about JFK leading up to the assassination and after is so much different than reading what you can find today.

Now I have a confession to make. I am the same man who once described the Warren Commission Report as "the greatest work of fiction ever produced by Americans." And yet I am close to believing that the Warren Commission got it more or less right.

I can't believe I just wrote that.

• Sidebar: Oddly, I've been working on a JFK book for a few years now that, while it is not the centerpiece, also assumes that Oswald probably was the lone gunman after all. My book is an alt-history novel, co-written with prolific author Harry Turtledove, called Winter of Our Discontent: The Impeachment and Trial of John F. Kennedy. It's our contention (at least for novelistic purposes) that if Oswald had shot at JFK in Dallas and missed, the resulting investigation would have exposed JFK's secret life as collateral damage and he would have been impeached a decade before Nixon for crimes large and small.

Monday Memo (4.23.07): 'Manifest' Destiny, Funeral for Camelot, and Motels from Hell

Just returned from Newport Beach where I moderated the screenwriters' panel consisting of Steve Oedekerk ("Ace Ventura," "The Nutty Professor," "Bruce Almighty"), Jeffrey Arch ("Sleepless in Seattle," "Iron Will") and Brad Gann ("Invinceable"). While we were there we also attended the premiere of my buddy Don Most's "Moola." At the afterparty, took this picture with William Mapother who a lot of you may remember as the snoopy, needle-wielding Ethan who is mysteriously missing from the plane's manifest on ABC's "Lost." That's my son, Jonathan, the USC School of Cinema near-grad. And, no, Mapother is not in the least creepy like Ethan. In person, he seems like a great guy, Don loved working with him and he does a very good job in the film.

• Meanwhile, our internet debut of Winter of Our Discontent: The Impeachment & Trial of John F. Kennedy book project continues. Every Monday brings a new installment in the novel-in-progress being written with alt-history author Harry Turtledove. Today begins Chapter 3: Damage Control which deals with a couple of funerals: reporter Lefkowitz attends the Arlington Cemetery burial of Secret Service agent Clint Hill along with a disgruntled LBJ while Duncan gets to fly to Dallas with JFK who's giving the eulogy for Governor Connally who died when the bullet intended for Kennedy took his life instead.

• Over at Movie Smackdown!, we're continuing to add more "referees" to our film critics group. I want to increase the overall content on the site which means I can't do it all myself. This week we introduce recovering TV newsman Mark Sanchez with his look at "Vacancy -vs- Motel Hell." You've probably already noticed Jonathan Zabel weighing in with "Meet the Robinsons -vs- The Incredibles" and "Grindhouse -vs- Pulp Fiction." Last week we add Jay Amicarella who reviewed "Disturbia -vs- Rear Window."

Articles of Impeachment: If Nixon and Clinton, Why Not Bush and JFK?

After Senator Chuck Hagel let loose the "I" word on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, people are buzzing about the possible impeachment of that other George, George Bush. After Andrew Johnson actually got himself impeached back in 1868, it took another century before Richard Nixon resigned to avoid the same fate in 1974. These days it seems we look at it as just another political weapon to use against a vulnerable incumbent -- going after Clinton in 1998 and Bush in 2007.

As you know as a reader of FWIW, Harry Turtledove and I are working on a novel that says impeachment would have been used in 1965-1966 against John F. Kennedy if he'd survived the assassination attempt in Dallas. Our alternative-history book, Winter of Our Discontent: The Impeachment and Trial of John F. Kennedy, has its own site dedicated to stating the case.

There's no question impeachment would have been a very steep hill to climb in the case of John Kennedy. He was still quite popular and he had a large Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. But coming up with possible "Articles of Impeachment" wouldn't have been that difficult. We know, because we've actually done it.

In both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the "Articles of Impeachment" were drawn up in a way where there is a lot of overlap and similarity in form. Like filling in a contract template, we've used those examples to write the "Articles of Impeachment" for John Fitzgerald Kennedy. We plan to modify and finalize them as the novel is completed, but you're welcome to read our working draft by clicking on the link below and downloading the PDF.

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, JFK.pdf 

CLICK BANNER to visit this site

Because many people still think of impeachment as the end result and not part of the process, a basic fact set is probably in order whether you're talking about Bush in today's reality or JFK in our alt-reality.

Impeachment is the expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a high official of government for conduct committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

When it comes to removing a president, the House of Representatives acts as a grand jury bringing an indictment and the Senate acts as the court conducting the trial itself. The Senators themselves vote as a jury would on guilt or innocence. Therefore, Richard Nixon, who resigned before a final vote in the House of Representatives, was not actually impeached, although he was the first president to resign. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was most definitely impeached, but he was not convicted and thus not removed from office.

The people who want to impeach Bush now, or the people who seek the impeachment of JFK in our novel, all had to start with the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 4 states:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Interestingly enough, a minority view on this comes from the man who most directly benefited from the near-impeachment of Nixon. Four years before he became president, back In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria for impeachment as he saw it then:

"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." 

Could Bush be impeached now? No doubt. Could JFK have been? Of course. Bottom line: it's politics.

Winter of Our Discontent: The Impeachment and Trial of John F. Kennedy
Written by Harry Turtledove & Bryce Zabel

JFK: E. Howard Hunt's Death-Bed Confession?

My co-author Harry Turtledove and I seem to have picked an interesting week to start telling the story of WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT: THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF JOHN F. KENNEDY. Just when you think it's safe to dip your toes in the Kennedy conspiracy, along comes radical new information from someone with spy cred and seemingly lots of inside knowledge about the facts...

It's actually a new "old" story getting significantly more play thanks to Rolling Stone. Basically, E. Howard Hunt, the CIA agent who organized the Watergate break-in, says in a new memoir published last month, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond, that the man behind it all may, incredibly, have been Kennedy's vice-president Lyndon Johnson. This idea has existed on the radical fringe of JFK conspiracy theory almost forever, going even past Oliver Stone's "JFK."

Recently, it gained new currency in January during the run-up to the publishing of this book which, for the record, includes Hunt vehemently denying he had anything to do with the JFK assassination. The chapter, however, reads a little bit like OJ's book, If I Did It.

In any case, there is an excellent and comprehensive article about this in the just-out (April 5) Rolling Stone, "The Last Confession of E. Howard Hunt" by Erik Hedegaard. But it's more than a re-tread or synopsis of the book. Because the details of the JFK assassination come from Hunt's son and they were given to him on several occasions, and in writing. And they are in direct conflict with what Hunt says about his own involvement in the book itself. In both cases, though, Hunt's speculation about how it might have happened seems consistent with the point of divergence being his own involvement.

This "story behind the story" told by his son has taken on greater importance since Hunt died two months ago at the age of 88, causing a lot of JFK conspiracy buffs see this as the "death-bed" confession they've been waiting for. There is no doubt, by the way, that Hunt was quite experienced in his career in the art of disinformation. You have to take his word -- even his final word -- with a certain amount of skepticism. And his son who vouches for the details is a recovering meth addict.

The thing is, as a recovering journalist myself, I know that the best sources in seedy matters are not necessarily paragons of virtue. You have to look at the big picture, see it as a puzzle, and that's just what RS's Hedegaard has done. The new magazine is worth buying just to see the detail in that wonderful piece of artwork to the left which goes with the article. It's by Matt Mahurin and it seems to be a spot-on capture of Hunt's spirit as an aging Jack Bauer meets Hunter Thompson.

As for how this plays in our alt-history novel, we can only say that, yes, Lyndon Johnson is a key player in the events that take place after JFK's near assassination in Dallas. Our book is not really about the "whodunnit" part of this mystery (although there is that element, obviously), but really focuses instead on the unraveling of the JFK administration. Our premise is simply that if he survived unharmed, there would have been plenty of reporters asking some tough questions (not to mention the Kennedys themselves). And, instead of anybody worrying about protecting an image of a martyred president or even trying to avoid triggering World War III by inciting revenge for his murder, those same journalists might very well have gone after the story they'd either missed or ignored for years. And the Kennedy brothers would have been hell-bent to find their enemies and to ensure their political survival as well as their physical survival. Our bottom line: when somebody shoots at the president, you can't just let that slide whether you're an observer or the intended victim.

Who shot JFK? Well, if you want Hunt's version, you can check out Rolling Stone or, to a lesser extent, his book (which is less forthcoming). If you want our version, well, the next installment comes out on Monday, March 26.

Here's the link to Chapter One as it stands so far.