My Take on LBJ, the Rob Reiner Film now on Netflix

When I saw LBJ show up on Netflix I assumed it to be a new film about our 36th president. After a couple recommendations I decided to watch it. I was surprised to learn at the outset that this was a Rob Reiner film, surprised only because of his recent passing. I then assumed it must have been his last film, but nope. LBJ, starring Woody Harrelson as the gritty Texas senator who became our 36th president, was released in 2016. 

Those familiar with Rob Reiner know that he was a political activist who used his celebrity status to bring attention to equal rights and social issues. In this film, Reiner exercised great restraint and allowed the story to tell the story. Besides being an up close and personal profile of Lyndon Baines Johnson, it's essentially the story of how the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed into law.

Having dabbled with Hollywood screenwriting, I'm always intrigued by how a director chooses to tell a story. I've read numerous books that were translated to celluloid over the course of a lifetime. From Planet of the Apes to The Godfather to No Country for Old Men, many of these books have become film classics. Others, Like Bonfire of the Vanities and Ironweed, were disasters, despite the A-Team casts and the highly praised novels they inhabited.

As regards LBJ, Reiner knew he had his lead in Woody Harrelson. And the script itself was good, beginning with the choreographed events of that fateful visit to Dallas on November 22, 1963, interspersed with flashbacks highlighting LBJs character and the times he lived in as he rose to power.

The film centers on LBJ's complex role in pushing forward the Civil Rights Act amid personal insecurities, political rivalries (especially with Bobby Kennedy), and the weight of national tragedy. 

Woody Harrelson delivers a standout performance as Lyndon B. Johnson. When the film opened, my thought was, "That's Woody Harrelson acting like LBJ." But as the film played out I was surprised how effectively Harrelson "became" LBJ.

All movie making involves trade-offs and risks. The actors playing John and Bobby Kennedy were "adequate" but how much money do you want to spend to make every actor a replica of the characters they played. The important ones to get right were LBJ and "Lady Bird."

Harrelson captures LBJ's larger-than-life personality: the crude, profane, arm-twisting Texan wheeler-dealer with a mix of ambition, vulnerability, and genuine commitment to civil rights. His portrayal is energetic, entertaining, and often vivid, bringing the "Master of the Senate" to life through barking commands, colorful obscenities, and moments of raw emotion. Jennifer Jason Leigh was solid as Lady Bird Johnson, adding warmth and grounding to the story and providing a foil where Lyndon's insecurities could be shared.

The film made me wonder what other presidents' insecurities might have been and to whom they shared them. 

The screenplay keeps things focused on a pivotal few years, beginning with JFK winning the nomination at the Democratic Convention. I'd forgotten that part of the story when I read Theodor White's The Making of a President 1960. What I recall most from White's account was the degree to which the Kennedys were organized and the dirty tricks they play on Humphrey to impede his campaign. 

Johnson wanted that opportunity to head the ticket and had the foresight to see that the Kennedy clan was aiming for dynasty, not just an election. 

The film emphasizes not only Johnson's political maneuvering, but his post-assassination determination to honor Kennedy's legacy by passing civil rights legislation. It's a sympathetic portrait of LBJ, painting him as an under-appreciated pragmatist who rises to the occasion. 

Critics described it as pedestrian or by-the-numbers, with a mixed reception: Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 55% critics score (average around 5.7/10) and a more favorable audience rating, while Metacritic sits at 54/100. For me, it was a refreshing look at a president I've not had the highest regard for due to his aggressive insertion of our nation no the Southeast Asia conflict known as Vietnam, among other things.

Overall, LBJ is a solid, watchable historical drama elevated by Harrelson's committed, entertaining adaptation of the persona. It's not groundbreaking, but it offers an insight into a transformative moment in American politics. We've all read much about the Kennedy assassination from a hundred perspectives, but I can't recall seeing or reading about that day from the perspective of the man whose life was most dramatically impacted by the events of that day.

Why the JFK Assassination Still Intrigues and Rankles America

More than sixty years after November 22, 1963, the assassination of John F. Kennedy remains the wound America cannot stop picking at. It is not simply that a young president was murdered in broad daylight; it is that the nation watched its own innocence die on live television and then spent the next six decades arguing about what, exactly, it saw.

The intrigue begins with the sheer improbability of the official story. A lone gunman, a misfit Marine with a mail-order rifle, fires three shots in six seconds and changes history forever. The Warren Commission assured us this was possible, yet every subsequent investigation, from the Ramsey Clark panel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, has nibbled away at that certainty. Acoustic evidence suggested a fourth shot; the “magic bullet” still performs geometric miracles no ballistics expert can fully replicate. Doubt metastasized into a thousand theories because the evidence itself seemed to conspire against closure. (Read The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh.)

But the deeper rankling is existential. Kennedy’s death arrived at the precise moment when postwar optimism was curdling into cynicism. Vietnam was escalating, the CIA was running rogue operations, and organized crime felt untouchable. If a president could be erased with such apparent ease, then no one was safe and nothing was sacred. The assassination could easily be labelled the original sin of modern American paranoia: the moment citizens realized their government might lie to them not out of incompetence, but by design.

What keeps the fascination alive is not the hope of solving the crime; most serious researchers now accept we never will. It is the recognition that JFK’s murder marked the fracture line between the America that believed its myths and the America that could no longer afford to. Every new document batch, every grainy Zapruder frame slowed to agony, is less about finding the killer and more about staring into the abyss of what we became when we stopped trusting the story we were told. I think here of Kurtz's stark observation in Heart of Darkness upon staring into that abyss: "The horror."

For those who lived that moment in time, every one of us remembers exactly where we were, what we saw, what we felt. It was quite similar to having you car struck by a speeding vehicle that ran a red light, leaving you dazed and confused. We were suddenly lost in a nationwide concussion. 

In remembrance of that day and event, here is a collection of links to some of my past blog posts about the JFK assassination as well as the life of JFK.

Did Lee Harvey Oswald Act Alone? Here's a Fresh Analysis and Disturbing Conclusion

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2025/08/did-lee-harvey-oswald-act-alone-heres.html

Flashback Friday: Will A.I. Finally Solve the JFK Assassination?

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2024/11/flashback-friday-will-ai-finally-solve.html

Notes of Infamy: Paul Metsa's Song About the Shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2023/11/notes-of-infamy-pul-metsas-song-about.html

JFK -- Murder Most Foul and the Debate Goes On

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2020/04/jfk-murder-most-foul-and-debate-goes-on.html

More Thoughts on Murder Most Foul: Most Foul Indeed

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2020/07/more-thoughts-on-murder-most-foul-most.html

JFK's Speech to the Northland Shows What Hibbing Was Like During Dylan's Youth

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2020/04/jfks-speech-to-northland-begins-by.html

Latest Dylan Release Brings Back Memories of JFK's Three Visits to the Northland

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2020/03/latest-dylan-release-brings-back.html

Dylan Dishes Up A New Meal with a Feast of References: Murder Most Foul

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2020/03/dylan-dishes-up-new-meal-with-feast-of.html

Wordless Wednesday: The JFK Assassination

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2012/01/wordless-wednesday-jfk-assination.html

11/22/63, The Rest of the Story

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2012/01/112263-rest-of-story.html

A Midpoint Book Review: 11/22/63 by Stephen King

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2012/01/midpoint-book-review-112263-by-stephen.html

A Book That Changed History

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2009/10/book-that-changed-history.html

A Few JFK Quotes

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2009/09/few-jfk-quotes.html

Where were you on this day in 1963?

Why the U.S. Failed in Vietnam: Key Reasons Behind a Costly Conflict

The Vietnam War remains one of the most controversial and analyzed conflicts in U.S. history. In the Sixties it was on the evening news every day and every teen at that time had to think about what they would do if they were called to go serve. Despite the country's military superiority, the United States ultimately failed to achieve its objectives in Vietnam. 

Over the years I've heard many people propose that had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated we would never have gotten mired in that costly, useless war. Seymour Hersh, in his JFK expose The Dark Side of Camelot, shows very clearly that Kennedy was himself a hawk on the war, having mis-read it as Cold War action instead of what it was, an effort to achieve Vietnam's independence from foreign colonial rule. 

Misunderstanding the nature of the conflict was America's chief failure. We believed we were stopping the spread of Communism. U.S. leaders underestimated the importance of Vietnam's quest for national identity. Proponents for the war continuously repeated, as did their media mouthpiece, the Domino Effect theory, insisting that all Southeast Asia would fall to Communism if we failed to stop them here. We failed, and Southeast Asia did not fall.

In addition to this, the U.S.lacked a clear military objective, unlike World War II, where the goals were well-defined (such as the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan). The U.S. in Vietnam had a more ambiguous mission. Initially, it was to support the South Vietnamese government against communist insurgents, but the lack of a clear exit strategy or concrete end goals made it difficult to measure progress. As a result, the U.S. military found itself trapped in a prolonged war of attrition, with no clear understanding of what "victory" looked like.

The U.S. also severely underestimated the capabilities and resolve of its enemy. (See WWAUA) The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) were highly adaptable, using guerilla tactics that made conventional U.S. military strategies less effective. The terrain in Vietnam, from dense jungles to rural villages, was ideal for guerilla warfare, and the U.S. military struggled to adapt to these conditions. (See: Battle of Dien Bien Phu)

Additionally, the Viet Cong had the support of many South Vietnamese civilians, which made it difficult for American forces to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. The extensive use of airpower and large-scale bombing campaigns like Operation Rolling Thunder, intended to demoralize the enemy, often had the opposite effect, stiffening the resolve of the Vietnamese. I remember reading somewhere that for every innocent South Vietnamese civilian we killed, we created 10 more Viet Cong soldiers and sympathizers.

While the war raged on in Vietnam, public support for the conflict steadily eroded in the U.S. By the late 1960s, the anti-war movement had gained significant traction, fueled by increasing media coverage of the war’s brutality, the high number of American casualties, and the perception that the government was not being truthful about the war’s progress. The 1968 Tet Offensive, although a military failure for the Viet Cong, was a psychological victory that significantly weakened U.S. public confidence in the war effort. Mounting protests, political pressure, and a divided public eventually forced the U.S. government to de-escalate and seek a way out.

Finally, the U.S. was supporting a weak and corrupt South Vietnamese government that lacked popular support. Successive leaders in South Vietnam were seen by many Vietnamese as out of touch with the needs of the people and overly dependent on U.S. aid and military assistance. This lack of legitimacy made it difficult for the South Vietnamese government to maintain order and effectively combat the Viet Cong insurgency. U.S. efforts to build a stable, democratic government in South Vietnam were constantly undermined by internal divisions, corruption, and the perception of the government as a puppet regime.

Bottom Line: Vietnam became a "tar baby" for each successive administration from Kennedy to Nixon. Like Brer Rabbit, the more the U.S.got involved, the more entangled we became in a war we could not win, ultimately leading to one of the most significant military and political defeats in American history.

Did Lee Harvey Oswald Act Alone? Here's a Fresh Analysis and Disturbng Conclusion

It's hard to believe that we are still discussing the JFK assassination of 1963. Even more remarkable is the notion that we still debate the legitimacy of the Warren Commission and the "lone gunman" theory. If you don't trust your government, then it's easier to accept the possibility of rogue elements conspiring to eliminate a sitting president for dark purposes. 

The arguments in favor of Oswald being a lone gunman have been trotted out endlessly. I remember a special edition of Nova in which Walter Cronkite demonstrated how each of the anomalies could have happened. Stephen King, in his novel 11.22.63 (about the assassination) concludes that Oswald acted alone. Yet the doubters remain undaunted. 

A few weeks ago a Substack post by Doomberg deviated from its normal themes to shed light on the Kennedy assassination. It's very straightforward, and I would like to share as much as I can get away with.

Despite the critical role eyewitness testimony plays in Western judicial systems, witnesses are not always accurate in their recollection of events. This is especially true when people are surprised, have only a few seconds to observe their surroundings before a crime concludes, and are untrained in the skill of putting important details to memory under duress. If the woman to the left of you in line at the grocery store is suddenly mugged, it is understandable that you might get the color of the assailant’s shirt wrong when telling your story to the police. It all happened so fast, and your attention quickly turned to helping the woman up from the floor in the moments after the assault. You think it was orange, but it could well have been brown.

As far as witness quality goes, those doctors and nurses at Parkland Memorial were as good as they come. All were trained professionals, they were put on notice ahead of the president’s arrival, and they had ample time to observe his condition mere minutes after he was shot. The lighting was good, the setting familiar. They shared observations among themselves as they tried in vain to save his life, and they had treated countless gunshot victims during their careers. Most importantly, they also knew the full weight of history would soon fall on their shoulders, and they would be wise to pay extreme attention to detail.

In the hours after the president’s body was hurriedly removed and flown back to Washington, the Parkland medical team followed protocol and put to paper copious notes of what had just transpired. Some were written by hand, others typed. More than 50 years after the tragedy, those notes still exist at the US National Archives and Records Administration, open for any curious citizen to peruse. This set of documents is all one needs to come to a definitive conclusion about what happened in Dallas on that fateful day.

Why?

Because the doctors and nurses at Parkland were not yet aware of what they were supposed to write and so they simply wrote the truth. 

The truth told in those notes is clear, definitive, and comprehensive in its unanimity. The president had a giant, gaping wound in the back right corner of his head, a significant part of his brain had been blasted outward from front to back, and he was all but dead before he arrived at the hospital. That’s what the best trained and least biased witnesses with the most intimate access to Kennedy in the minutes after he was shot universally claimed, and there is no legitimate reason or compelling counterevidence to refute those observations.

Doomberg points out that the discrepancies between the autopsy photos and the Parkland medical notes suggest issues with the photos rather than undermining the reliability of the notes as evidence. Similarly, contradictions between the Zapruder film and the Parkland notes point to questions about the film’s current condition rather than diminishing the notes’ evidentiary weight. The fact that some Parkland doctors later altered their accounts likely reflects external pressures they faced rather than questioning the credibility of their original notes.

The notes are all you need to read, and doing so will permanently alter your perspective on the ugly history that follows.

In other words, a key advantage of reviewing the Parkland notes is the ability to set aside the contentious elements of the Kennedy assassination debate, many of which bear the signs of deliberate misdirection by intelligence agencies. There’s no need to delve into theories about throat injuries, the single-bullet theory, Lee Harvey Oswald’s movements, or various films. Does the well-known Altgens photo number 6, capturing the assassination, show Oswald standing at ground level, dressed in the same clothes he was arrested in? It’s irrelevant. The critical fact is the large exit wound in the back of the president’s head, which is the only detail that truly matters.

* * * 

Related Links

Occipital Region (Doomberg)

JFK Autopsy Report

JFK's E.R. Doctors Share New Assassination Details

 

GROK Summarizes the Parkland Notes

The medical notes and testimonies from the doctors at Parkland Hospital who attended to President John F. Kennedy after he was shot are critical historical documents. These notes provide detailed descriptions of the wounds and medical procedures attempted to save his life. Here’s an overview of where to find these documents and some of the key observations:

Key Observations from the Doctors:

1. Dr. Malcolm Perry: Dr. Perry described a small, round wound in the front of Kennedy's neck, which he initially thought might be an entrance wound. He performed a tracheotomy over this wound.
2. Dr. Charles Carrico: Dr. Carrico was the first to examine Kennedy in the emergency room. He noted the President's lack of vital signs upon arrival and described the severe head wound, with brain tissue exposed and significant damage.
3. Dr. Robert McClelland: Dr. McClelland provided detailed descriptions of the head wound, noting a large, gaping wound in the back of the head, which he believed indicated an exit wound.
4. Other Doctors: Several other doctors, including Dr. Paul Peters and Dr. William Kemp Clark, also provided crucial observations and supported the descriptions of severe head trauma and the throat wound.

Sources for Medical Notes and Testimonies:

1. Warren Commission Report: The testimonies and medical notes were included in the Warren Commission Report, which investigated the assassination. The report and its associated volumes include detailed medical testimonies and diagrams.
• Warren Commission Report
2. The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB): The ARRB collected and published many of the documents related to the Kennedy assassination, including medical records and testimonies.
• JFK Assassination Records Collection
3. Parkland Hospital Archives: Parkland Hospital itself holds records and notes from the medical staff who attended to Kennedy. Some of these documents may be accessible through direct request or research institutions.
• Parkland Hospital History

Notable Publications and Analysis:

1. "High Treason: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" by Robert J. Groden and Harrison Edward Livingstone: This book provides detailed analysis and reproduction of medical notes and testimonies.
2. "Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy" by David Lifton: Lifton's work includes detailed analysis of medical evidence and testimonies from Parkland doctors.

These sources collectively provide a comprehensive view of the medical observations and attempts to save President Kennedy's life, offering insight into the immediate aftermath of one of the most significant events in American history.

Flashback Friday: Will A.I. Finally Solve the JFK Assassination?

"From Dallas, Texas, the flash apparently official, President Kennedy died at 1 p.m. Central Standard Time, 2 o'clock Eastern Standard Time, some 38 minutes ago." 
--Walter Cronkite, excerpt from his broadcast, Nov. 22, 1963

More than a week before the 2016 presidential election an A.I. supercomputer predicted, despite what all the polls were predicting, that Donald Trump would be our next president. I read the story on TechCrunch or some other tech eNewsletter, but you can read it here in this U.S. News & World Report story. The article stated, 'If Trump loses, it will defy the data trend for the first time in the last 12 years,' the AI's developer says.

Well, with the JFK assassination anniversary today I couldn't help but wonder if one of our A.I. supercomputers could help us out a little bit on this unsolved mystery.

Sunday's NYTimes published a story about Microsoft's latest foray into quantum computing. Artificial Intelligence and quantum computing have been big stories this year, in part as a result of Big Blue's victory in Jeopardy and the DeepMind A.I. that defeated the world champion Go player. The Times article stated, There is a growing optimism in the tech world that quantum computers, superpowerful devices that were once the stuff of science fiction, are possible — and may even be practical. If these machines work, they will have an impact on work in areas such as drug design and artificial intelligence, as well as offer a better understanding of the foundations of modern physics.

And maybe useful in helping solve one of the biggest mysteries of our lives...

The New York Post just published this twist on the JFK assassination, that a Cuban double agent led the plot. The evidence comes from secret diaries and the details are contained in a new book that tells all.

Another book has just come out that tells how a famous journalist who was hot on the trail of the killers was herself "taken out" before she could break her story.

Her name was Dorothy Kilgallen and after 18 months of research she was nearing the completion of a book on the JFK shooting that debunked the "Oswald acted alone" theory. Random House never received the manuscript and her findings remained buried now for more than 50 years.

That's the essence of criminal defense lawyer Mark Shaw's book titled, The Reporter Who Knew Too Much. The title hearkens back to the Hitchcock thriller starring Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day, which was a re-make itself of Hitchcock's earlier version of a story by the same title. The pre-release publicity for this book indicated that Kilgallen's the one reporter who was getting it right while the others pushed theories with "cherry-picked" facts designed to confirm their own notions of what happened at Dealey Plaza shortly after noon 53 years ago today.

For additional reading check out this article published yesterday on the failed investigations of JFK's murder. Public sentiment leans away from blindfolded acceptance of the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. What I'd like one of our contemporary supercomputers to do is sift through all that has been written and draw for us a conclusion that is totally convincing. Big Blue? DeepMind? ChatGPT? Are you ready?

Originally published November 22, 2016

Notes of Infamy: Paul Metsa's Song About the Shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald

Wednesday was the 60th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. 

Today is the 60th anniversary of the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald as he was being escorted out of the jailhouse. The event made an impression on me, as it no doubt did on many others who witnessed it as it happened.

The shooter was Jack Ruby. 

Bob Dylan wrote Murder Most Foul, a song about the shooting of the president. This other singer/songwriter from the Iron Range, Paul Metsa, wrote a song about the gunman who shot and killed the man fingered as JFK's assassin. You might call it Paul Metsa's "Signature Song." 

Moment of Impact

In the first one-third of this three-part drama, the song's structure is an echo of Frank Sinatra's "It Was A Very Good Year." Both tell the story of a life--Sinatra's being his own biography, Metsa's being Jack Ruby's, at 15 living in Capone's Chicago, at 21 taking an interest in guns, at 35 setting up shop in Dallas, etc.

The second act details the dramatic event at Dealey Plaza, culminating with the suggestion that Oswald was a patsy. The final third of the song explores the variety of theories as to what really happened in Dallas that weekend.

Metsa has a gruff attention-getting style of singing, and he's good at getting his blood up when singing this song. And it grows on you when he barks that chorus, "Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby in a Cavanaugh hat...."

Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby in a cavanaugh hat
Whoever taught you to shoot a pistol like that
Oh, you snuck in the basement and you stood in the back
Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby in a cavanaugh hat

Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby when you were fifteen years old
On the south side of Chicago you looked up to Capone
Stole girls lunch money beat boys on their way home
Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby when you were fifteen years old

Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby when you were twenty-one
you traded brass knuckles for a caliber gun
In the Sherman Hotel bootleg whiskey did run
Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby when you were twenty-one

Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby when you were thirty-five
Set up shop in Dallas, had nothing to hide
A nightclub with hookers and cops side by side
Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby, when you were thirty-five

Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby when you were forty-nine
At the Carousel Club you kept the judges in line
J. Edgar Hoover said there's no organized crime
Jack Ruby, Jack Ruby when you were forty-nine.

Read the rest of the lyrics here:
http://www.marcogiunco.com/Testi/001982_03.htm

Cavanaugh Hat from the JFK Presidential Library and Museum

Paul Metsa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNxKhY-C8MA

JFK -- Murder Most Foul and the Debate Goes On

Is the JFK assassination the most controversial event of the past century? It certainly ranks high on the list of unresolved mysteries. I once read that more than 80% of Americans disbelieved the Warren Commission report, and to this day the event appears to be an incubator of more conspiracies than any other event in history.

The question of whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is just one aspect of the controversy. Once one accepts the possibility that he did not act alone, you open the much larger can of worms as regards who was really behind it all. 

The official investigation, led by the Warren Commission, concluded in 1964 that Oswald acted as the sole gunman in the assassination and that there was no evidence of a conspiracy. Unfortunately, there are plenty of noteworthy unexplained riddles surroundinng this tragedy. Questions about regarding how many shots were fired, the gunman on the grassy knoll, the "magic bullet" theory and unexplained deaths of people who may have expose the truth had they lived.

Here are some stories I shared a few years back:

Why the Public Stopped Believing the Government Narrative
How the CIA Came to Doubt the Official Story (Politico)

And this one, which dropped during Covid, unexpectedly. Dylan delivers a wild ride of an ode called Murder Most Foul (lyrics). And yes, it is original and not like anything I can recall ever hearing. 

It begins....

‘Twas a dark day in Dallas - November ‘63
The day that will live on in infamy
President Kennedy was riding high
A good day to be living and a good day to die
Being led to the slaughter like a sacrificial lamb

Say wait a minute boys, do you know who I am?

Here's the video from YouTube.

You can listen in full or listen in part, 

and you'll see how he sees it while seeing his art.

The amazing part of Dylan's version is how he switches point of view, including a segment where we're inside JFK's head...