Born after his death on the opposite side of Pacific, I cannot clearly imagine what America had been like during administration of JFK.

Soviet Union threatning US with nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba. Black young men actually denied to enter his university. West Berlin in blockade. Ok, it's impossible for us to compare difficulties of those with the threats today's US faces but for sure the one of JFK's can never have been easy.

One of the greatest abilities (personalities) in JFK is to encourage people, in their difficult times, with his absolute power, vitality and sincereity of abundance. As Sorensen pointed out, perhaps sometimes his words conveyed messages of what was beyond or above people, couldn't be achieved as it's simply too difficult.

Nevertheless in my opinion, statesmen have to tell LONG vision, things people don't want to hear but need to while politicians merely telling what people want to hear. He's supposed to have made "a step" in many subjects, which later leads to one "thousand miles" as he always said.

Recently I watched movie "13 days" and, very impressed with his decisiveness, I just happened to want to go through his speeches all over again to have bumped into this book on Amazon.com. With it in mind that the author, Ted Sorensen, was a speech writer of JFK, I believed this was the one. I wasn't wrong.

The book is very organized, subject by subject, which makes it easy to find what you need in this book although I read this from cover to cover. With statements and interviews included, let alone all important speeches, you can have a clear picture for creeds of JFK's.

Far more complicated and different as is the current world, simple and direct application of his wisdom might be not so realistic but, again, his power, vitality, sincerity and whatever are all in this book, which definitely moved world citizens at that time, and for sure could, in our time.

It might be different from reader to reader or from his social position to position, what impression you'll have from this book. One thing for sure is you'll find SOMETHING impressive, this I guarantee.

I, for one, am proud of this book being in my shelf from now on. Unfortunatelly the book seems to be out of stock for now, so just pick it up in market place, hard-cover version recommended, it endures.

Whether you love John F. Kennedy or hate him, "Let the Word Go Forth" is a rewarding read for anyone interested in the 35th President or the America from which we are not very far removed. This book consists of excerpts from over 100 speeches made by John F. Kennedy during his political life. These is not a collection of quotations but a public career as portrayed in largely and totally complete speeches and statements. In these pages we are reminded of the lofty ideals, the wit and, a bit of the parochial politician which was John F. Kennedy.

For me, much of the value in this book lies not in what it tells us of Kennedy, but what it tells us about the country in which he lived. The things which were said, and which did not need to be said, and the language used tell us of an America different from the one in which we live today. To illustrate this I will discuss four of the speeches.

We begin with the Inaugural Address, probably Kennedy's most famous statement. The speech, which gave us several remembered lines, the most famous of which is "Ask not what your country can do for you,-ask what you can do for your country" is most notable for what it does not say. Read this speech from start to finish and you will find no mention of social security, health care, education, poverty, civil rights, highways or any of the domestic concerns which have held such center stage in recent public debate. It deals exclusively of foreign policy. What President since Kennedy would start his administration which such a challenge?

The second speech to which I would direct the reader's attention is the address to the Houston Ministerial Alliance on September 12, 1960. The purpose of the speech was to refute allegations that a Catholic would have a divided loyalty or would be subject to orders from the church hierarchy. The way in which Kennedy responded to the problem is felt by many to have done a great disservice to Catholic politicians. It is believed that Kennedy established the standard that, in order to be considered for office, Catholic candidates must establish that their religious beliefs will not be a factor in their decision making process. At the end of the speech, Kennedy was specifically confronted with a request that he request approval from the Vatican for his statement supporting the separation of church and state. What politician since then has been confronted with such a question?

The third speech to be considered is entitled "The City Upon a Hill" and was given to the Massachusetts legislature on January 9, 1961. In this speech Kennedy draws on the history of Massachusetts in establishing the code of conduct for those serving the Commonwealth. He lists four questions by which public servants will be judged: "were we men of courage...were we men of judgement...were we truly men of integrity...were we men of dedication." As one reads these stirring question with their elaborations, a realization dawns on the reader: There were no women in the Massachusetts legislature in 1961. I am sure that the wording would be different today.

The last speech which I would suggest for consideration is the acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, entitled "The Opening of the New Frontier." I bring this speech up because of the oft stated lament that the public is losing its sense of history, its ability to relate current conditions to conditions of the past in order to help us separate the principle from the pragmatism and the important from the trivial. In that speech, the nominee tells his listeners: "just as historians tell us that Richard I was not fit to fill the shoes of bold Henry II-and that Richard Cromwell was not fit to wear the mantle of his uncle {sic}-they might add in future years that Richard Nixon did not measure to the footsteps of Dwight D. Eisenhower." Overlooking the fact that Richard Cromwell succeeded his father and not his uncle, what contemporary candidate would trust his listeners to understand the reference to long gone English leaders? Is it the draining of the general fund of knowledge of our citizens which has lowered the level of our public discourse from the deep, rich speech of the Kennedy era to the shallow sound bites of today?

At the conclusion of "Let the Word Go Forth" one has a greater respect for the communication skills of our 35th President and an appreciation for the things which we, as a society have gained, and a longing for the things which we have lost.

If you are serious about understanding the JFK assassination then you need to get all ten volumes of Bruce Adamson's works on the Dallas assassination. The deep and wide research in Mr. Adamson's volumes allows one to see the inportant people surrounding the mysterious Lee Harvey Oswald. You can learn about someone by knowing a persons friends . These volumes contain valuable info on George DeMohrenschildt== self proclaimed == best friend of Lee Harvey Oswald. Knowing who DeMohrenschildt was helps to understand the important question --Who was Lee Harvey Oswald ? Words to the wise ....get these volumes !

Are you bored when you are listening to the E-Span? If you read this book, you won't be able to listen to any speech from any current politician. The level of nobleness is totally different. If you are looking for great speeches of the century, I strongly recommend this book. This book will make your life more exite and active. It is also the great book for the teachers who really wants to motivate their children. This book is for everyone beyond the politics.

this book is a simple question and answer book.
it dosen't go into the assassination of JFK, but rather it answers the questions of who was this guy and what was his role.
you learn about when ex-President Jimmy Carter was giving a speech on the JFK assassination and then the tv sound just went mute. the book answers what Jackie was actually reaching over the car for and who people like Lee Bowers were and what Richard Nixon and J Edgar Hoover had to do with the JFK assassination.

this is a very simple book, but it's very informative and very well written.
has numerous photos of some of the people mentioned in the book.

great book.

This is a book I will have,I have been a J F K fan for a very long time, the chance to learn more of the private person should not be missed, this looks like it will provide an insight into the real J F K, the one I have been searching for.

This book was truly a page turner. I was facinated by the intimate details and facts revealed by the author. It allowed me to see Kennedy as a man and not only as a legend. I would recomend this book whole heartedly to anyone interested in JFK. It is a book that is worth being read.

President Kennedy once said that his favorite form of reading was biography, because it attempted to answer the question: what was he really like?

John F. Kennedy has been a hero of mine ever since I was a child, and this book, more than most, answers that question is a manner that is consistent with the historical record. Bradlee reveals a very human JFK in some of his more private moments, and helps us to better grasp what is, admittedly, beyond our grasp: the magic of the man.

Perfect he was certainly not; indeed, Kennedy probably had more foibles than most men. But he also had more gifts, and these he used to ultimately make the world a better place. While his actual accomplishments as president are rather meager, his most lasting legacy was a summons to excellence in the service of others, a conviction in the hearts of his countrymen that we can indeed do better, and the argument -- which has never been refuted -- that in reaching for the moon and the stars, and in setting sail on new seas, we find in the midst of a common human endeavor, the best of ourselves.

He was that kind of a president. This book makes it clear that he was a special, but flawed, kind of man.

In this work, Peter Kreeft portrays a meeting of C.S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley in the afterlife (all three died on November 22, l963). C.S. Lewis engages first Kennedy and then Huxley in a debate on the divinity of Christ. The conversation goes on for 114 pages with C.S. Lewis clearly making his points -- that Christ was either divine or a charlatan or insane. Lewis goes on to debunk any possibility of Christ being a charlatan or insane, ergo Christ is God. Kreeft has wonderful ideas and constructs nice logical proofs. However, I was expecting something deeper than an argument that could be summarized in two sentences.

My strongest criticism of this book is that it completely misses the point where the real-life Lewis's teachings overlap with those of the real-life Huxley: that the one true God is no respecter of persons and that God is equally accessible to all, regardless of culture, upbringing or background. Both men taught that all of mankind comes to God on equal footing; that no religion, culture or class of men has an advantage over the others. At one point in BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL, Kreeft's Lewis actually shoots down arguments that the real-life Lewis propounded.

I felt that Kreeft glossed over some of the greatest religious controversies faced by modern man. In doing so, Kreeft unwittingly undercut the points he was trying to make. I'm turning back to my studies of C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley. I strongly recommend Lewis's MERE CHRISTIANITY (upon which Kreeft based his Lewis arguments) and a collection of 28 essays by Huxley called HUXLEY AND GOD. By the way, Kreeft's Kennedy has very little to offer either intellectually or where matters of faith are concerned in this book.

One final note: the last page and a half of this book is stunning in its beauty and truth. Kreeft's epilogue is also worth reading.

John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, and Aldous Huxley all died on November 22, 1963. What if they all met after death, somewhere between heaven and hell? That's the premise of this engaging and intriguing book by philosophy professor Peter Kreeft.

Written in the form of a Socratic dialogue, Kreeft's book casts Lewis as a Christian theist, Kennedy as a modern humanist and Huxley as an Eastern pantheist. The three interact and challenge one another's worldviews, examining and testing each other's beliefs to see what is true about life after death and the meaning of life.

This book is ideal to read with a few other friends, be they believers, skeptics or seekers. It will provide lively discussion and ample food for thought.

Between Heaven & Hell has a subtitle which reads, "A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C.S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley". Yes, this is a fictional trialog in "limbo" of the most important question in human history - Who is Jesus Christ? Many people are unaware that JFK, Lewis and Huxley all died within hours of each other on November 22, 1963. It seems the assassination of President Kennedy from either the grassy knoll or from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository somehow managed to overshadow the deaths of the other two men. Go figure!

Much of the fictional discussion between these three characters revolves around their own writings although Kreeft employs a bit of literary license for the sake of argument. The fact that Kreeft is a Catholic doesn't affect the content of this book since the argument is essentially Lewis' straight, or "mere" Christianity. The position of JFK is that of a humanistic Christian in the sense of emphasizing "horizontal" social activity rather than "vertical" religious experience...religion without revelation. Kennedy portrays his view of Christ as that of a man become god. Huxley doesn't get the air time that Lewis and JFK get, but his contribution is significant. He represents the eastern pantheist position and reinterprets Christianity as a form of the universal philosophy of pantheism. In this view, Jesus was one of the great sages of history along with Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, Mohammed and the rest. Employing the Socratic method of question and answer, Kreeft slowly but surely uses Lewis' arguments to refute the views of Jesus being a lunatic, liar or just a great moral teacher. Once this is done, He argues that Jesus was God in the flesh, just as He claimed to be. Approximately the last third of the book focuses on the reliability of the gospel accounts which record the claims of Christ.

I found this book to be a very enjoyable read, especially the Socratic method that Kreeft employs. Although I don't criticize Kreeft for making the most out of the historical situation, I'll just say that the only theological disagreement I had with this book was the immediate destiny of the three men being "limbo" which I'm sure is only used by Kreeft as a setting for the discussion. The argument from Lewis was very thought-provoking and required honesty with the end result being much clearer thinking concerning the person of Christ, not to mention his inescapable conclusions which were drawn. I found it very interesting how he would ask of the opposition very pointed, yet fair questions. I was glad to find that the rabbit trails were quickly discounted so the reader can follow the arguments more easily. Throughout the discussion, Kreeft continually reminds the reader that as Christians, we don't try to win arguments for ourselves (I use "argument" in the technical sense of presenting evidence in favor of one's position). It doesn't matter who wins or loses. Truth is what we all must submit to, not someone's ability to debate.We present evidence in favor of the truth and truth must win the battle.

Libra is a fictional "biography" of Lee Harvey Oswald following his life and the plans that were underway during the seven months before the Kennedy assassination to make him the scapegoat. DeLillo, of course, takes liberties with the facts but he has produced a real page-turner and made Oswald into an entirely sympathetic character who may not have had the purest of motives but was not the one who fired the fatal shot.

Interestingly, DeLillo attributes an inordinate amount of luck to the fact that the motorcade appeared when and where it did. Several coincidences occurred to make the assassination possible, totally out of the control of those planning it. And yet it still worked.

The most fun part of reading it was noticing the ideas presented in the film JFK (filmed three years after Libra was published) appear in this book, making it a familiar territory. David Ferrie, in particular, is a major character and Guy Bannister appears often, also, as does Jack Ruby. De Lillo has obviously done his research.

Having just seen JFK again, I picked this up as sort of a "companion" novel and it worked well in that capacity. I felt that the movie did not really touch on so much of Oswald's life and that Libra filled in those gaps well.

DeLillo's sense of time and place are commendable and I think this was probably a good training ground for his epic Underworld, which has sat on my bookshelf, collecting dust for many years and which I will most likely now pick up and read.

DeLillo's Libra is a fascinating read, not only because its topic is one of America's most traumatizing events in recent history--not the assassination of president Kennedy is the point of interest in the book--but the question: What made this event so terrifying, why had it such an impact?

In answering this question DeLillo leaves out the obvious reasons: JFK's popularity and people's hopes connected with his politics. Instead, he puts the focus on a more profound problem: With the assassination of JFK the American people were woken up from their dream of security and regularity. A conclusive explanation of the how and why of the event could have put them back to sleep. Such an explanation is not available though. It is just not the way history works, and DeLillo skillfully shows exactly that in his book. He depicts a conspiracy that gets out of hand and Oswald as a manipulated and constructed individual.

Presenting his version of the events, DeLillo at the same time questions its validity. Reading his novel we become aware of the impossibility of drawing the right conclusions of the mass of hard facts and vague hints--the infinite possibilities of what can be held for the truth. Therefore, any historical account can only be a possible version of the real. In so far, DeLillo's Libra places itself somewhere between fiction and history.

Libra is a novel that deserves every attention.

Don Delillo is one of the best American writers out there. In Libra, his ninth novel, reflects on one of the most tragic and memorable events in US history: the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He turns his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, into the protagonist by reflecting upon his troubled life, and an antagonist for obvious reasons. Many conspiracies and coincidences are made evident by Delillo, like Oswald's life in the USSR and the FBI's involvement w/ Oswald, and JFK. It all leads to the focal point of the entire book, though it is predictable since we all know what happens. It leaves you in suspense throughout the entire book and it is very exciting and well-written.

I was very disappointed with this book. I found the writing style dry and the photographs/layout just not up to par. It almost seemed like somebody's thesis with som photos thrown in. Somebody needs to do a large format picture book on this subject with more about Jackie!

The writing is dry. The pictures are not the best and it fails to show whnat the White House looked like before the restoration. Everyone says that it looked horrible so why not give the reader a taste of what was so wrong with it? If you can find the White House guidebook that was produced to pay for the restoration read that instead. It has much betters photos.

A superb survey of the White House decor of President & Mrs. Kennedy. The book documents the ideas, process, decisions and choices behind the stunning interiors of the Kennedy White House-both the public and private rooms. What comes through the text is Mrs. Kennedy's leadership and vision - combining taste, history, beauty and great cunning - just to create and then manage this melange of egos, talent and intelligence was an accomplishment, and the results live on today (albeit not as beautifully or artistically). We all gained a greater knowledge and appreciation of our nation's historic and artistic past because of Mrs. Kennedy's work.

I've corresponded with Mr. Abbott and he's been most kind and interesting. He assisted in the current show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, "Jacqueline Kennedy: The White House Years," and there's a number of items on display relating to the White House decorations.

Read the book, catch the exhibit (it moves to the JFK Library in Boston in the fall).

The title of the book says it all, A Question of Character. This is one author's attempt at looking at the political life of President John F. Kennedy's, before and during his time in the White House. It details the differences in what the spin is and the private life that is described as being close to Hugh Hefner's. We also get a very detailed and for me, somewhat troubling, view of the constant controls his father, Joe Kennedy's had of JFK throughout his career. Not that comforting given the somewhat dubious reputation of Joe.

The author came close to a Kitty Kelly sex scandal tell all, but did not completely let himself drop that low. I thought the author was almost sad to be telling me, the reader, some of the less then faltering truths here. Almost if he was a firm believer in Camelot and this book and research pained him. Overall this is a well-written book that has some interesting conclusions. The author could have spent more time on the domestic policies and international issues that faced JFK to make the account better rounded. I do not think it is the one-volume definitive story of JFK, but it is a very good start.

As he cuts through the myths of Camelot, Thomas Reeves could have been content with dragging the name of JFK through the mud. That certainly would have been easy enough to do; all the affairs, the dubious origin of the family fortune, the murky ties with organized crime...it all has the makings of a wonderful chop-job, a character assassination.

However, Reeves rises above this. He acknowledges that good morals do not necessarily make for a good president, and that an effective president does not always have a scandal-free private life. This book was written before the Clinton presidency, which would have made for an interesting comparison.

Reeves is not content to throw one prurient revelation after another at the reader; that is Kitty Kelly's job. He is interested in good history. How did these moral defects apply to the man's ability to be an effective president, and how did the president's effectiveness have an impact on the course of our nation's history?

Reeves believes that important theme here isn't the questionable behavior in and of itself, but the fact that Kennedy's lack of any real commitment to anything but the acquisition and wielding of power ultimately made him an overall weak president. Despite Democratic control of Congress, Kennedy could get barely 25% of his legislation passed in Congress in 1962-63. Members of Congress had little regard for the man as a leader, and his luke-warm commitment on various issues did little to induce the Congress to act on his legislation. Compare that with LBJ, whose legislative success rate and mastery of Congress between 1963 and 1966 stands in stark contrast.

Reeves does observe that JFK was beginning to grow into the office by the time of his death, but stops short of predicting a glorious Kennedy legacy had the man lived. It was far from a given that JFK could have won re-election in 1964, and Reeves knows this.

Overall, this is an excellent example of a measured, critical biography that contributes to the scholarly dialogue, rather than simply being a "tell-all" book.

To those who want to get past the hype and drivel, Reeve's well written and researched book makes a convincing case that yes, character does matter. The argument that John Kennedy was a great, but flawed, leader is shown by Reeves to be erroneous. The seeds of the Bay of Pigs disaster was sown in Kennedy's youth. PT-109, interestingly, was the first and only PT boat ever rammed by an enemy destroyer. Not on a foggy night with the men topside, but in clear weather and daylight, with Kennedy and his men below decks sleeping and swapping war stories.

"My story about the collision is getting better all the time," Kennedy told a friend after launching his political career. "Now I've got a Jew and a Nigg-- in the story and with me being a Catholic, that's great."

Kennedy's bringing the U.S. to the brink of war was typical of the disasters he'd made in his personal and military life. The real reason the Soviets put missiles in Cuba was because of U.S. missiles in Turkey. School children are seldom taught that the U.S. had to withdraw its nukes from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets "backing down" in the Western Hemisphere.

From the Kennedys' dealings with the mob to the wiretaps of Martin Luther King, Jr., the fact that Kennedy could not remain faithful in a marital relationship is hardly a dichotomy in leadership.

So yes, Virginia, character does count. Now and in the latter part of the 1990s. Those who say it doesn't are probably also lacking in this area.

As a devoted fan of the "canon" of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works, I thought "Sherlock Holmes in Dallas" was terrible. It might well be sub-titled "Holmes and Watson Read The Warren Report To Each Other.". The most ridiculous parts are the slanderous chapters about Dallas. Dallas isn't a perfect place, but it's certainly not a place "whose very atmosphere seemed to breathe some menace." It is obvious Mr.Ions was not acquainted with the Oak Cliff section of Dallas where Oswald's rooming house was located, for he mentions the "liquor stores" on the
"drab, suburban streets"......Oak Cliff has been "dry" forever !
I think the book is best summed up with Holmes statement.....
"I said at the outset that I would not be able to solve this, my last case, and I confess a sense of failure." There are a few good chapters, but not really in the best of the Holmes pastiches. Finally, Holmes remarks, "I feel old, Watson...."
No wonder.....if still alive, he would have been 109 years old in 1963. The best that can be said about the book is that it makes for amusing reading if one does not take it too seriously.

This book presents a scholarly analysis of the events surrounding the JFK assassination, in a readable format--while faithfully capturing the essence of interplay between Holmes and Watson as they might bring their analytical prowess to bear on this historical puzzle. After seeing the movie JFK, I had the distinct impression that someone within the Oliver Stone company had been influenced by this book. This is an ideal book to take to the beach or cottage on a short vacation.