Adam Walinsky says Democrats abandoned Kennedy Legacy

[James DiEugenio]

And he is right.

I am beginning to think the Douglass book made some headway in the Kennedy circles.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/rfk-trump-2016-democratic-party-speechwriter-214270

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, to my knowledge, this is a first.

I do not recall any other Kennedy associate or family member coming out and being explicit as Walinsky is here about how the Democratic Party of today has completely abandoned what the Kennedy bothers stood for in the sixties.

Now, did he have to go all the way over the shark and say he is voting for Trump, no.

But you take what you can get, a half loaf is better than none.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Putting out the fire with gasoline IMO...

[Paul Brancato]

Agree Brian. I can't vote for Trump. But the fire exists. Sanders puts up a good fight, yet people, my friends, find reasons not to support him that go beyond whether he can win or not. And Clinton's political machine played dirty in my opinion, playing on fears that Sanders would lose to Trump.

I keep my fingers crossed that Clinton will turn out to be more progressive than she has appeared so far.

I worry about the 2017 document release. Of course neither candidate will ever be asked the question.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim, this is really such tripe.

IMO, The only thing to be gained in this article is to shed light on the regretful reality that the neocons have somehow co-opted Kennedy as their own and actually evoke memories of the Kennedy's or their assassinations as a powerful recruiting tool. You can see this in a number of "underground" radio stations and tv channels such as newsmax.

I'm sure Adam won't see himself as a neocon. But to challenge his thesis, you need only to to look at the last 30 years. Since Bush senior what party has really been more guilty of regime change and interventionist wars,(and one doozy at that) and aggressive troop deployment. And then his wishful naivete about Trump run counter to any of a number of statements he himself has made. It's not hard to supply specifics.

[James DiEugenio]

Frankly Kirk I don't know what you are talking about.

Did you read the Walinsky article?

He is not doing that you are saying he is doing. I am familiar with those attempts by GOP types to hijack JFK.

What Adam is doing is very specifically saying that the modern Democratic party has abandoned attempts to achieve detente with Putin. And they have also expanded the war on terror and the penchant to go to war for any pretext.

IMO, he is right about those points. I mean just examine what Hillary Clinton did in Libya and Honduras, especially the former. That is what someone like Kissinger would have done. And it ended up making the situation worse, both for the Libyans and the geostrategic situation. Those are facts, not tripe.

[Kirk Gallaway]

I do not recall any other Kennedy associate or family member coming out and being explicit as Walinsky is here about how the Democratic Party of today has completely abandoned what the Kennedy brothers stood for in the sixties.

Jim, You understand my confusion. You didn't state that Detente with Putin was your focus. Your focus was that the Democratic Party has abandoned the Kennedy legacy though you weren't clear about what Kennedy legacy the Democratic party has abandoned. I would probably disagree with both of you that the Democratic Party was ever a non interventionist Peace party while JFK was President and the closest they came near it, was later, due to a grass roots movement that owed almost none of it's genesis to the Kennedys, their assassinations or martyrdom, and was in full force before RFK ever threw his hat in the ring. But putting that aside.

What Adam is doing is very specifically saying that the modern Democratic party has abandoned attempts to achieve detente with Putin. And they have also expanded the war on terror and the penchant to go to war for any pretext.

Jim, just to be clear, since you've read the article, despite spending so much of the article professing his Kennedy legacy of peace,Walinsky is advocating expanding the war on terror. He's aligned himself with Trump's most definitive hawkish statement that there will be "no quarter" for Isis, (oooo, tough talk, I feel better!) and enlisting Putin to help us. Right?

Penchant, to go to war for any pretext? At the beginning of the Obama presidency we had 185,000 troops in Afghanistan, now we have what 10,000? We can talk about the expanded use of drones and continued military presence overseas. But would you like to explain that "penchant" for me? Maybe contrast it to the previous administration?

Frankly, I think Walinsky might some day run for office, as most of this sounds like a foreign policy platform, where's he's blathering on about his connections to the Kennedy's and their legacy of peace, to offset his stump for Trump as the "Peace" candidate.

But to deal with your point, and since the press has focused on Trumps alleged love affair with Putin, which of course he inflamed with statements encouraging Russians to hack Hillary's e-mails, (which we know now positively they're doing.) I would agree with you, that we could have friendlier relations with Putin and should make more of an effort, but I don't see that as the panacea that Walinsky does. And it's insane in any way to compare the present U.S- Russia relations as anything resembling the Cold War.

Jim, I remember earlier this year, you said you were voting for Hillary. Honestly, I thought that a bit odd as the theme you keep hammering home about JFK in this forum is that Kennedy had a non interventionist foreign policy, a view I share with you. I wondered if you had followed the campaign of Bernie Sanders at all. He seemed much more in tune with your espoused beliefs than Hillary. Since you've already offered who you were voting for, are you still voting for Hillary?

[James DiEugenio]

An example of going to war at any pretext is what happened in Libya.

It looks like I will be in Caifornia for the election.

I will be voting for Jill Stein. Because California is a safe state.

Edited October 2, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

When you talk of a "penchant" for war , I think of multiple incidents, perhaps the size of Libya. Lets contrast: Papa Bush instigated the First Persian Gulf War: Massive mobilization halfway around the world, 700,000 US troops on the ground, massive aerial bombing over a couple of countries, then the Panama invasion, 30,000 boots on the ground, aerial bombing. Then Somalia, though protecting a relief effort, 25,000 troops, aerial bombing. That's an exponential difference in magnitude, to put it mildly. Now that's a penchant!

Bush Jr? ...........well, ............

Edited October 3, 2016 by Kirk Gallaway

[Ramon F. Herrera]

An example of going to war at any pretext is what happened in Libya.

Jim: Being from a country where there have been tyrants (*) I abhor dictatorships. When I read about the Arab Spring I was ecstatic. The situation seemed perfect: Since the US had given most of the blood in the Iraq/Iran war AND the oil we get from Libya is very little, plus several Europeans countries had chickened out, the solution was clear: Let Europe (big consumer of that oil, specially Italy) provide the troops and we could provide the much safer air support. The caravan carrying that bastard was spotted by our drones (or airplane?), we notified the Libyan resistance and they found the rat in a sewer.

Hillary was being pulled in opposite sides by the right hawks and the left doves, and she took the middle ground that has become the trademark of the Democrats these years. No American lives were lost in Libya, no boots on the ground. Back then, it seemed like a perfect strategy.

-Ramon

(*) My oldest recollection is of our father being jailed in the 1960s and my mother taking us toddlers to the church, to pray for his life. She (a beautiful woman in her 20s) was warned not to visit him, because she could be abused, insulted or raped, and yet she defeated the fear.

ps: This is what the place looks like today. The jail was around the corner:

https://goo.gl/lzwWV6

Edited October 3, 2016 by Ramon F. Herrera

[James DiEugenio]

Let me explain:

When Bush 1 invaded Iraq, there was at least the excuse that Hussein had invaded a sovereign nation and was committing atrocities--which were mostly later exposed as exaggerated, to say the least.

When Bush 2 invaded Iraq, the phony excuse was that Hussein had WMD.

There was no external threat at all in the case of Libya. None. Zilch. That was a completely internal matter which the USA chose to get involved in. The three witches from MacBeth,--Rice, Clinton and Power--convinced Obama to approve it, and he stupidly did.

They then exaggerated whatever atrocities Gaddafi committed, and they tried to picture this as a democratic rebellion.

LOL, ROTF LMAO HA HA

Gaddafi called Tony Blair twice during the conflict, because he had almost put down the rebellion. He said words to the effect: This is not what you think it is. These guys are part of Al Qaeda. If they win, they will have a base in North Africa from which to attack Europe from across the sea.

Well, thanks to the witchy trio, they won and they then did what Gaddafi said they would.

What makes it even worse is that there was deal in place to offer Gaddafi safe harbor out of the country, and let his son take over to preserve some kind of functioning government. Africa Command wanted to accept the deal, the White House turned it down.

I do not see how any objective person can say that what is in Libya now is better than what was there before, or what could have been if the agreement had been approved.

IMO, what has happened with the so called Arab Spring, is, in many ways, the fulfillment of the PNAC design. That is, the complete polarization and militarization of the Middle East that would allow American influence to assert itself there. God knows what will happen if Syria falls.

This is exactly what John Kennedy warned about way back in 1957 on the floor of the senate: if the USA does not come up with a sensible policy that favors the progressive, forward looking Moslem leaders in the Middle East, the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism will take hold there.

Which is why Kennedy favored Nasser over the monarchy in Saudi Arabia. And an even handed approach to Israel and Palestine. This was back in 1957. And he then asserted it in 1961.

That policy was upended by both LBJ and then Nixon and Kissinger. Today that policy is unrecognizable. As Adam Walinsky notes above.

PS: By far and away the best analysis of the Libya disaster is this one:

http://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/social_science/clarkd/upload/Obama%27s%20Libya%20Debacle.pdf

Edited October 4, 2016 by James DiEugenio