Jump to content
The Education Forum

James DiEugenio

Members
  • Content count

    4,028
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James DiEugenio

  1. James DiEugenio

    Max Boot gets Booted on Lansdale in Vietnam

    Before this thread disappears under the weight of MH telling us we are a bunch of cultists who have accomplished zilch, let me conclude with what happened to Kennedy's overall foreign policy. As outlined elsewhere, LBJ and RMN made significant alterations to it in places like Indochina and the Middle East. And they both combined to put an end to the Alliance for Progress in Latin America. But in 1972, Nixon visited both Moscow and Bejing in what many thought to be an election year ploy to distract from his failure to end the Vietnam War. Nixon won the election handily, but the Watergate scandal forced him to resign. When Warren Commissioner Jerry Ford took office, he brought with him two young, relatively unknown rightwing firebrands named Rumsfeld and Cheney. They decided to do an end run around Kissinger. Why? Because they thought that the attempt at detente was too moderate. At the behest of a private group led by Paul Nitze, called the Committee on the Present Danger, they enlisted both the White House and CIA Director Bush to let their analysts go head to head with the CIA in order to demonstrate that the Russians were ahead of the USA in both conventional and atomic weapons. This was called Team B. This was important for not just putting the stall to any kind of detente, but more significantly, it was the beginning of the creation of the Neoconservative movement and the rise to power of men like Richard Perle. They did much to undermine Carter, and then seized power under Reagan. So we can say that Jerry Ford first buried the facts about the JFK case. A decade later he fostered the movement that spelled the end to Kennedy's foreign policy forever. And that is what brought us well paid charlatans like Max Boot. As Stephen Dedalus says in Ulysses, "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awaken." For those who admired what Kennedy was trying to do, its probably even worse than that.
  2. I really did not want to read this book by Max Boot. After watching that completely forgettable Burns Novick pastiche, I had enough of this stuff. So thanks to Tom Bass at Mekong Review. It is really hard to comprehend, but there really are people who think that war could have and should have been "won". Even when a fruitcake like Nixon admitted it could not be won. https://mekongreview.com/lansdales-ghost/
  3. I would like to ask, what is Hagger referring to with the Kennedy Cult anyway? I consider myself a historian first and foremost. In my studies of Kennedy I have tried to find out the facts about his political career and then his presidency. These are not at all easy to discern. In fact they are difficult to locate. For two reasons: 1.) There is as much disinformation about those factors, if not more, than about his assassination. 2.) There are many, many historians on the subject who have deliberately concealed important facts in order to court praise and exposure from the MSM. The latest example was Dallek with the NY Times.. I have studied this area for the last five years. The shocking thing about the contours of JFK's policies is how concealed they were. And by that I do not just mean by the MSM. But also within the research community. About 95% of the Kennedy assassination books would lead one to think that Kennedy's foreign policy dealt primarily with Cuba and Vietnam. And in that he was in conflict with the CIA and the Pentagon and to a lesser extent the Mob. But in the research I have done in this field--and its been quite a lonely endeavor--I discovered this was far from the facts and the record. The other characteristic one finds attributed to Kennedy was that he was a mild Cold Warrior until the Missile Crisis. And then somehow he saw the light and was transformed. That is even the tag line on Jim Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable, a book I like and which i gave a good review to. But I think Jim was wrong about that issue also. In fact, to really begin to educate myself about this issue, I had to go outside the Kennedy assassination field. And that is where I discovered that there were some good books on this issue. But they were few and far between. And there had been some good essays written on the subject. So I based my speeches on the subject on those sources. And it surprised a lot of people. And they have really appreciated this new information. So what is MH talking about with his "cult".
  4. James DiEugenio

    Wesley Liebeler on Chapter IV of the W.R.

    I think this first surfaced in David Lifton's Document Addenum to the Warren Report. I recall when I first read it thinking, Man these guys knew a lot of the problems with their work and they still defended it without reservations.
  5. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    Getting back to my original point. The guy who I think summarized best Kennedy's foreign policy and his battle with the Power Elite was Prouty. He said the unusual thing about JFK was that he was willing to accept defeat without putting up a fight. And he did this twice. Once at the Bay of Pigs and the second time in Indochina. He was so determined not to use American might in the Third World that we would accept defeat instead. Again, if one compares this to Nixon for example, its quite different. He told Kennedy to go ahead and declare a beachhead and invade in 1961. About Vietnam, there is a remarkable entry in the Haldeman Diaries where the author writes that Nixon knew the war in Vietnam could not be won, but, of course, we must not let on that we know that. The USA had to keep up appearances because RMN would not be the first president to lose a war. This was reinforced in Ellsberg's book Secrets, where Nixon told Kissinger that the difference between him and Henry was that RMN did not give a damn about civilian casualties. In other words, even though Nixon knew the war could not be won in 1968, he was willing to go ahead and sacrifice tens of thousands of American troops, and hundred of thousands of Vietnamese in order to pursue his whole Peace with Honor chimera. Which, as Jeff Kimball has established beyond doubt, was really nothing more than getting a Decent Interval between when Americans left and before Saigon fell. Something that RMN and Kissinger both strenuously denied they were doing. But now, thanks to Kimball, we now have the proof in their own writings and words. These are simply established facts. Why someone would want to deny them is weird.
  6. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    Mervyn, you know your arrogance is really something to behold. Every once in awhile we get someone who jumps on here and is ready to say that the whole critical community is full of baloney, has accomplished absolutely nothing in fifty years. and has not impacted anything. The reality is the contrary. If one takes the best of the research community, the achievement is nothing short of estimable. In the face of the entire American media/political/institutional establishment, that small group of writers/researchers working with little money, little recognition, and facing walls of resistance, did the impossible. They tore down the Warren Report. And they did it on the Warren Report's own terms. That is, by using their own evidence, they showed the emperor had no clothes. Their critiques and utter destruction of the report was so compelling and so complete that the other side had to enlist the power of the national TV networks to stop the hemorrhaging. We know this today because we have it in documents. And if you go to Kennedy and King.com you will read annotated essays on what CBS and NBC did to genuflect before the altar of the Power Elite and the CIA. The reason Richard Sprague was jettisoned, was because he had taken the arguments of the critical community to heart and found them convincing. In fact, after an 8 hour photo demonstration by people like Groden and Sprague, 12 of the 13 HSCA lawyers now disbelieved the Warren Report. (See, The Assassinations, edited by Lisa Pease and James DIEugenio, p. 57) As we can now see, the ARRB was being played by the intelligence community. Because they had only a four year lifespan, and very little in the way of investigative resources, the CIA and FBI waited them out. They did not do nearly the comprehensive job that their report tries to say they did. And it appears Doug Horne was correct about them except he should have written more about it. In the face of all this, the critical community has achieved a lot. I mean a lot. Even though the ARRB was thwarted at many turns, the information we now have on things like New Orleans, on the CIA and Mexico City, on the autopsy, on the destruction of certain files, on the negligence of the Secret Service, on the cover up by the FBI, on the murder of Tippit etc etc etc, all of these things are quite significant. And they are real advances over the first generation of critics. All one has to do is compare the later work, with the earlier work and do an analysis. So personally, I don't appreciate it when some newby comes on and tries to insult that record and tell us all that we are somehow all a bunch of blind idiots. And meanwhile, he does not even know what city Oswald left for Europe from. Cannot wait to read your book about how Armstrong and Rader conspired to kill JFK.
  7. I thought the Tippit case merited a new look considering the appearance of the McBride book, which has not gotten enough attention I think. And also some work by other people like Armstrong and Simpich and Mike Griffith, who is also relatively ignored. In my view, the Tippit case has been taken to a new plateau. How anyone can read Croy's story and keep a straight face is beyond me. Due to the work of these writers, the Tippit case looks very suspicious today. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium
  8. James DiEugenio

    The Tippit Case in the New Millenium

    That fifteen minutes of floating time he points out is interesting for Hill. It means that Westbrook, Croy and Hill all have a kind of bermuda Triangle of about 15-20 minutes unaccounted for.
  9. James DiEugenio

    Mifgash

    Thanks Paz. Always welcome to new source material.
  10. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    BTW, let me add a point about the Bay of Pigs. At the end of the first day, after it was clear that Kennedy was not going to authorize any air attacks, the CIA went ahead and launched one on their own. The mission failed. (Peter Kornbluh, Bay of Pigs Declassified, p. 314)
  11. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    Mike: I do recall conducting interviews with people a few years after reading that book as a local journalist and finding that many people hated JFK. Where was this Mike?
  12. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    Paul: I was not talking about any of that. Those to me are simply unknowables. As is his T-3 ice bullet idea. I don't like dealing with those kinds of things. This is why I said, fine, construct your own web site and I am sure these ideas will go over really big. But please note that in all of those queries about the Saigon coup and the Bay of Pigs he made here, that is what I thought CV was doing. He was being provocative in order to throw in his pet ideas about Harriman in 1963 and Bundy in 1961. Which, as I predicted, is what he did. He does not give one iota about all the other stuff. Nada. And he is willing to be a provocateur with people on this forum in order to stir the pot about this. With that see through pretense, "Do you think it was alright for Kennedy to passively greenlight the Saigon Coup." When he knows that was not the case. We have been through it many times here and other places. Knowing this was a false pretense, he wants to do nothing but to say that somehow Harriman was behind it. Just like the Bay of Pigs, his is an eccentric view. If you read Douglass, if you had to say one person was behind the coup --which I do not think was the case-- it was most likely Lodge. (LBJ actually later came to this collusion.) And I will wager a lot of money that CV is not even aware of the new declassified information that has just come out about why the coup proceeded when it did. It was not because of Harriman. Same with the Bay of Pigs. If you read Douglass, you will see that he uses the work of the Princeton Archvies and Lucien VandenBroucke. That is the famous article in Diplomatic History in which Lucien wrote about how Dulles and Bissell had a secret agenda about Zapata which they later both confessed to. And many authors have used this information. If you can believe it, even Chris Matthews admits this in his new biography of RFK. (See p. 205) But somehow once inside CV's Matrix, we are supposed to think it was really Bundy, Rusk, and in later mutations he even includes Joe Kennedy and Lovett!! To me, when I study the issue of Kennedy's foreign policy, what I am looking for is new information. Info that goes ahead and furthers the geographical frontier. Or it deepens our understanding of an already important issue. That is why you will see the use of a wide array of sources when I lecture on this subject. Sources that virtually no one knew about before. And it opens up people's minds and it leads somewhere. I am not looking for axe grinding. Or at people who refuse to look at new information. That does not tell us anything about Kennedy. It tells us about them.
  13. James DiEugenio

    HELSINKI by train Oct 15 - 16, 1959

    This is so puzzling. Why did he to to the Torni then? Maybe he really was supposed to meet someone there? How could the booking for the Kurki be done through Stockholm? Did Oswald really go to Stockholm?
  14. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    CV has such a incredibly shallow view of history that its really a bit scary sometimes. Every president from 1945 through Reagan supported the Truman Doctrine. What this did was allow the USA to aid people abroad who resisted communism. That is we could give them supplies, weaponry, money and advisors. JFK did that in Vietnam also. That doctrine was never challenged. Zapata was just that. But there was a big difference in it. Kennedy was told that if the operation failed, the exiles could go guerrilla and meet up with other commandos. When it did fail, Kennedy, unlike what Nixon or Eisenhower would have done, did not use American might to salvage the operation. If you have been following my argument, that was the dividing line. Kennedy would not go beyond the Truman Doctrine. During the investigation that followed, RFK discovered that Dulles had lied about this aspect. There was no contingency to go guerrilla and there were no credible commandos to link up with on the island. During Bobby Kennedy's interrogation of Dulles, this was exposed and also exposed was that Rusk, Lemnitzer and JFK relied upon that to make their commitment to the the project. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pp 42-43) This is one of the reasons Dulles was terminated. I believe the other reasons were his support for the OAS revolt against DeGaulle and the murder of Lumumba. Which was withheld from Kennedy for almost a month and was done before Kennedy was inaugurated. And some commentators feel that was deliberate. If you don't want to follow new information. Fine. Just say so. But you don't have to because its evident.
  15. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    Now up until these new books and the new work on these areas, the JFK field focused on the reversals of Kennedy's foreign policy in Cuba and Vietnam after his death. Not knowing about these other areas, they ignored what happened there. Lisa Pease did a very good two part essay about Indonesia, and that was the first real exploration of another impact of Kennedy's death on his foreign policy. It was quite important I think since it resulted in a huge bloodbath, and also the great wealth of that country going to Suharto and American imperialists through the Whitney/Rockefeller controlled Freeport Sulphur. But the pattern also repeated itself in Congo, where LBJ and the CIA brought in air power, took over the embassy, and used some Operation Forty guys as pilots to wipe out the last of Lumumba's followers, and Mobutu took over and the Belgians and British now benefited from the wealth of the Congo. I don't think I have to detail what happened in Indochina, except to say that Nixon and Kissinger made it all a lot worse. And they both lied about the contemplated use of atomic weapons. As Jeff Kimball has detailed in his two books--which I am sure both Kirk and CV have read because of their references to them--they did contemplate bombing the dikes and also using nuclear weapons to stop the Easter Offensive. In the Dominican Republic, LBJ reversed Kennedy's embargo on the military takeover of Dominican Republic, and then sent in troops under false circumstances to prevent Juan Bosch from taking the presidency back. Contrary to popular belief, it is this use of the military which began to drive a wedge between Johnson and Fulbright. Since the senator concluded that LBJ had lied about this and this caused him to belatedly question the Gulf of Tonkin incident. And that caused him to open hearings on Vietnam. I could go into other areas, like what LBJ did with Nasser after Kennedy tried to befriend him, what LBJ did with Israel by allowing them to go ahead with their bomb project etc. And some of these trends were exacerbated by Nixon and Kissinger. But the point is, this is not Fan Boy stuff. This is scholarship based upon research. And its still going on. Therefore in my opinion to use those slurs tells me that one is either unaware of these facts or simply does not care about them. Or maybe one's personal agenda does not deem them important. I do think they are important. And clearly the people who followed JFK and consciously reversed them thought so too. One only has to ask the people in Africa and Indonesia how crucial they were. When Sukarno heard the news of Kennedy's death he weeped and said, "Why did they kill Kennedy?"
  16. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    To find out the answer to that question I personally had to stray a little bit out of the usual area of reference. And this happened by accident. I was on vacation in a little resort town called Julian near San Diego. I walked into a bookstore, as I usually do on such excursions, and I noticed the now famous picture of Kennedy getting the news of Lumumba's death on the cover of Mahoney's book JFK: Ordeal in Africa. I had never seen this book before. And I did not recall it being mentioned in any JFK assassination book at that time (the mid nineties). So I decided to buy the book. In reading it i was quite taken aback by the information in it. Because I had never read any of this stuff in any JFK assassination book or in any JFK biography. What Mahoney did was trace the evolution of Kennedy's ideas about American interventionism in the Third World from what is now that famous meeting with Edmund Gullion in Saigon in 1951 all the way to the great Algeria speech in 1957. But then he went beyond that. He showed how that speech made Kennedy the unofficial ambassador in Washington to African dignitaries, and he then showed how Kennedy and Gullion began to institute those ideas when he became president in the Congo. This indicated to me that there was something rotten in Denmark, in two ways. 1.) Why was this detailed information not in any previous biography I had read of Kennedy? After all, the book was published in 1983. Was there a reason for this? And if so, was it related to his murder? 2.) This information seemed to partly contravene the thesis that somehow JFK was transformed by the Missile Crisis. Because the first country he changed Eisenhower's policy in once inaugurated was Congo, not knowing that Lumumba had been killed. Realizing how important this was, Lisa Pease and I wrote a two part article for Probe. The first was about Kennedy's policies in Congo and his struggle to keep the country free of imperialism. The second part was about the murder of Hammarkskjold. And this was before Susan Williams' book on that case. (Which I am sure Kirk and CV have read because of all their citations to it.) I continued to study this issue off and on. And then about five years ago I decided to make it my prime area of concentration. Thankfully, other authors have done some good work on this issue, like Robert Rakove, Phil Muelhenbeck and Greg Poulgrain. (As you can see from references, Kirk and CV have read all of these authors.) And so I have come to the conclusion that it was these ideas formed way back in 1951 that dictated the three different decisions that JFK made in the instances I named above. That his basic foreign policy vision was formed before he entered the White House. And that is why he did not do those things. Now, I will offer that I do think the Missile Crisis did prompt the acceptance of the overture from Castro and the American University speech in 1963. There is one last question about this concept. Why did what Gullion said to Kennedy hit home with him as it did? I think the answer is in Mahoney's book. Mahoney describes a conversation Nehru had with Kennedy. He was trying to impress upon JFK the evils of British colonialism. Kennedy stopped him and replied that no one had to lecture him about that issue. He came from a nation that had endured it for 800 years. He was talking about his Irish background of course. Which he never forgot. And that is I think the answer to that question about Gullion. See, he never joined the CFR, or any secret societies in college, and he did not like working intel. He got out of that and volunteered for those suicide missions in the South Pacific. With this those Joe Sixpack guys, and like Gullion, he brought at least one of them back to the White House with him. In addition to Congo, this paradigm illustrates his policy in Indochina, Indonesia, Algeria, the rest of Africa, the Middle East and Dominican Republic to name some of them. And I have talked about these with examples in the lectures I have done on the subject.
  17. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    When I site a source or two, its because i have been through much of the literature on JFK. That is the basic biographies, and the longer biographies. Plus I have been through the books on Vietnam, and I have reviewed most of them. So I have a familiarity with the authors. Whenever you review a book like I do, which means at length and in depth, then you simply have to take notes and then you have to go back and have the book in front of you to check it again. Now, if you can show me anyone else who writes those kinds of frequent reviews, then please do. Now, having read and digested these books that means I know what is in them. But its not just a single analysis, but because I have read scores of others that means I can do what is called a comparative analysis. What did this author discover and write compared to what another did on the same subject or a related subject. This particular subject, of Kennedy's foreign policy in the Third World, has for me been kind of obfuscated because in the JFK assassination field it has been dominated by Cuba and Vietnam. About five years ago I decided well, if that was the end factor of study, then why does it not explain three key points: 1. Why did Kennedy not send in the Navy to save the Bay of Pigs? 2. Why did Kennedy not commit combat troops to Vietnam in November of 1961 when everyone in the room was urging him to do so during that two week debate? 3. Why did Kennedy not bomb the missile sites during the Missile Crisis as everyone, even McNamara was urging him to do by the second week? Its key to note that the first two occurred in 1961. This predates what many authors, including Jim Douglass, note as Kennedy's transformation during he Missile Crisis. Now, what is also important to note here is that we should understand that both Nixon and Eisenhower wanted JFK to send in the Navy at Bay of Pigs. Nixon told him to do so during the crisis and Eisenhower could not understand why he did not after. We should also understand that LBJ always wanted to commit combat troops to Indochina, as has been revealed by declassified tapes in the book Virtual JFK. (Which I am sure Kirk and CV have read numerous times. As you can tell from their citations) In Goldstein's book, Lessons in Disaster, you will learn that Eisenhower backed LBJ all the way on Vietnam escalation, including the use of tactical nukes in Vietnam. (I am sure Kirk and CV read that book also as one can tell by their citations.) Both LBJ and then Nixon violated Kennedy's strictures on going into Cambodia and Laos. Nixon of course obliterated them, leading to the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia and the death of about two million people. I don't think I need to even review what LBJ would have done had he been in charge during the Missile Crisis, as one just has to read his comments in The Kennedy Tapes. (And I am sure CV and Kirk have done that, as can be revealed by their citations.) So when these two talk about things like Fan Boys etc., I am somewhat befuddled. When one does a comparative analysis, one discerns key points and quotes and one can then cite differences in values and actions. Based upon this analysis, I can comfortably say that Cuba would have been a colony of America if Nixon had been president in 1961. I can also safely say that American combat troops would have been in Vietnam in 1961 if Ike, Nixon or LBJ would have been president in 1961.There would have been no missile crisis with those men since American troops would have occupied the island and Castro and Che Guevara would have been in prison or dead by 1962. Now, if you prefer those policies then just say so. Maybe there are more neocons here than I thought. I don't prefer American intervention in the Third World. Because that usually denotes American imperialism. Which gets to what was my next question. Having discerned this lacuna in the research I decided well, why? Why did JFK not do any of those things?
  18. James DiEugenio

    Max Boot gets Booted on Lansdale in Vietnam

    The Neocons will take anything they can get. I mean who would have thought twenty years ago that they would have been choosing the leaders of Ukraine out of the American consulate? https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/13/a-documentary-youll-likely-never-see/ IMO, they really wanted to overthrow Assad. Their ambitions have gotten so crazy that they have actually united Israel with Saudi Arabia. BTW, one of the recurrent ploys by these Neocon fruitcakes is the whole Munich scenario. Which, if you watch that clip with Carlson and Boot, at the beginning the Pentagon guy, Peters, tried to use it with Carlson. This is the way they disarm people who do not agree with them, by using comparisons to the Third Reich.
  19. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    I forgot more about the JFK administration than you will ever know. And your misrepresentations of events is done with an élan that is so utterly agenda driven, and in such disregard of the evidence, that it becomes solipsistic, or as I say, Varnellian. Which means its no good to anyone, except yourself. And you will do anything in order to express these solipsisms--including t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g-- for the simple reason that no one buys them. For good reason. Why not set your own web site up on the JFK case Cliff? It will have these tabs: ice bullet, flechette, Harriman, The Matrix, T-3. It will create a sensation. You might get five people there a week.
  20. James DiEugenio

    Max Boot gets Booted on Lansdale in Vietnam

    Good, glad someone knows about that. In fact, when Kennedy was killed, Nasser played the film of his state funeral four times on national TV and he went into a mild depression.
  21. James DiEugenio

    HELSINKI by train Oct 15 - 16, 1959

    Can you translate the article? Where is Kurd?
  22. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    There you go CV You disrupted a thread, and no one does that like you do, but you got to say what you live for 24/7. And which I knew what the whole provocation was about and you tried to deny. When are you making another film by the way?
  23. James DiEugenio

    Max Boot gets Booted on Lansdale in Vietnam

    When Kennedy was killed, as we know, several of his foreign policy endeavors were deliberately overturned. For example, in Congo, Indonesia and in Vietnam and also in the Middle East. In the latter, LBJ began to break away from Nasser who Kennedy had befriended and tilt strongly toward Israel. These ended up being very bad for the people in these areas. But when Nixon came in, he did something that may be worse.
  24. James DiEugenio

    What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

    Try not to play into Cliff's provocation. We have been through this a dozen times. The two best sources on this by far are John Newman's milestone book JFK and Vietnam, Chapter 18. That tells the story from the American side. In JFK and the Unspeakable pp 148-211, you will see it more from the Saigon side. The details are not fuzzy when you read those pages And CV knows it. He is deliberately misrepresenting it. Let us try this to see if he will stop it. How is this Cliff? Forrestal, HIlsman, and Harriman. Even better: Harriman, Forrestal, Hilsman. Happy now? Now go ahead and start talking about T3 and the ice bullet on a different thread..
  25. James DiEugenio

    Max Boot gets Booted on Lansdale in Vietnam

    Max Boot is of course a neo con. As is most of the Republican Party, and also a good part of the Democratic Party. For example, I have little doubt that Hillary Clinton can be termed that also. The Neocons today essentially rule Washington and they also are very strong in the MSM. The editorial page chief at the Washington Post is Fred Hiatt, clearly a neo con. What many people do not understand though is the Neocon movement which is so pervasive and pernicious today began with Jerry Ford. Yep, Mr Warren Commission cover up artist. How? Its kind of a startling tale and you have to do a lot of reading to understand it. Which I have been doing for the last five years.
×