Jim DiEugenio reviews Jeff Morley's The Ghost

[Rob Couteau]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

the actual data we have on JFK and how different his outlook was from what came before and after is really strong

The work that has emerged in the last few years on JFK's foreign policy certainly proves that. I would like to see more discussion of this on the forum. I just finished Greg Poulgrain's "Incubus" book as well the Mahoney's "JFK: Ordeal in Africa" and one thing that struck me was the parallel patterns of CIA plotting in Indonesia and the Congo. The other thing that is striking is JFK's intelligence and far-ranging grasp of foreign policy - so far beyond that of the people around him. He certainly did not need to be schooled by Mary Meyer about anything other than art. If the general public could be made more aware of this they would view JFK in a different light.

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, Rob Couteau said:

The work that has emerged in the last few years on JFK's foreign policy certainly proves that. I would like to see more discussion of this on the forum. I just finished Greg Poulgrain's "Incubus" book as well the Mahoney's "JFK: Ordeal in Africa" and one thing that struck me was the parallel patterns of CIA plotting in Indonesia and the Congo. The other thing that is striking is JFK's intelligence and far-ranging grasp of foreign policy - so far beyond that of the people around him. He certainly did not need to be schooled by Mary Meyer about anything other than art. If the general public could be made more aware of this they would view JFK in a different light.

Rob, That is a very good point, and I agree with you. Reading your comment made me wonder, however, if JFK had a grasp of Realpolitiks. That is something I had not thought about and It is a nuance for which will keep myself on the lookout. What I have considered, and it seems to be relevant to my question, is this: For all his vision and capacity for imagination, could JFK could have considered, or imagined, for a moment, a blockade and sequestration of Cuba over the coming 6 decades? I don't think so. I don't think he could have imagined such a situation lasting through a speculative second term. I think that is what, in the end, got him killed. I think that what we have, regarding Cuba, is what the highest level of the chain of command within the conspiracy had in mind.

[Dan Doyle]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have not read that book, but maybe now I should do so.  But I have to say, I avoid even using the word Camelot.  Its too mythological.  

To me, the actual data we have on JFK and how different his outlook was from what came before and after is really strong.  And I am using it to go after these loony left types like Paul Street and Matt Stevenson.

I also have another broadside coming out against my favorite punching bag, Chomsky.  As long as these guys keep it up, and as long as my readers send them to me, I will return the fire.

 

 

 

Chomsky's a dirt bag.  I know from my anti-war work in the 1960's.  When the sh*t hit the fan, so to speak, he was conveniently MIA.

[Rob Couteau]

18 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

if JFK had a grasp of Realpolitiks

Hi Michael, Thanks for your response. I think that's a very good question. In my reading about JFK, what has always come through is that he was a realist. I think both Kennedy brothers were. For example, JFK usually considered the opposing views of a situation - however drastically they were opposed - and was careful to weigh it all carefully before making a decision. In the same sense I think he was aware that there were political forces in opposition to his own who would think nothing of brushing him aside. There is, for example, that famous quote from RFK to the Soviets during the missile crisis when he surreptitiously gets word to Khrushchev that he fears that unless things are resolved quickly he's not sure if they will be able to prevent the Joints Chiefs from overthrowing the president. He's basically talking about a coup d'etat; he couldn't have spelled it out any more plainly. Before his trip to Dallas, JFK openly discussed the possibility of an assassination in "nut country." After his death RFK wanted to know whether the CIA had killed his brother. So I don't think they were at all naive about such things. As far as Cuba goes, or what you are implying via this example, I think we have to keep in mind that the Sixties were a time when the possibility of change was real. And certain people such as the Kennedys were willing to gamble on that possibility. The extreme swing back to the right is something that a lot of us found unimaginable, but that is how things played out. I don't think it makes them less realistic. I do think however that one could also argue that a lot of folks on the realpolitik right at the time would never have imagined that, because of a JFK, Cuba would never be invaded and would instead maintain its autonomy - during the next six decades. So it depends how you look at it. There is also the realpolitik strategizing that the Kennedys pulled off that prevented a nuclear Armageddon. That was the result of both realism and vision. What I do wonder, and this goes along with your question, is how much the Kennedys were aware of the right-wing fascist cabals that were operating through fronts such as, say, Permindex, who may have had a direct hand in their demise. Or the role played by those multinational corporations that had so much to lose because of JFK's anticolonial approach in places like Indonesia. Or for that matter, Vietnam, with all the oil waiting to be exploited in the South China Sea.  That's hard to say. How aware were they of the Deep Political forces that wanted each of them gunned down? Of course this is probably impossible to answer. But one does naturally wonder, especially when you consider how legion their enemies were. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Rob Couteau

[James DiEugenio]

Dan:

What do you mean about Chomsky being a dirt bag on the anti war cause in the sixties.

That is interesting.  Because as you may know through Probe Magazine, he decided to turn his back on the JFK case even after Ray Marcus convinced him it was a conspiracy back then.

He decided to join the anti Vietnam War cause.

[Robert Harper]

Well, fwiw, I always appreciated Chomsky's work on the Middle East and on the main stream media. Before Norman Finklestein became prominent, he was the primary voice crying out in the desert.

[Robert Harper]

On 4/1/2018 at 3:30 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Well, that is in Morley's book.

I don't recall Morley mentioning the fact that the CIA knew about the Nixon taping; I had read something about Butterfield's (who installed the system) affiliation with CIA but don't recall coming across anything that suggested Angleton had possible access to all that was said on the tapes.

[Steve Thomas]

12 hours ago, Rob Couteau said:

 What I do wonder, and this goes along with your question, is how much the Kennedys were aware of the right-wing fascist cabals that were operating through fronts such as, say, Permindex, who may have had a direct hand in their demise. Or the role played by those multinational corporations that had so much to lose because of JFK's anticolonial approach in places like Indonesia. Or for that matter, Vietnam, with all the oil waiting to be exploited in the South China Sea. 

Rob,

 

I think you're getting to the heart of the matter here.

 

PS: Were certain elements of the CIA among those fronts the "right-wing fascist cabals" were operating through?

 

heh heh

 

Steve Thomas

[Thomas Graves]

On 3/31/2018 at 12:21 PM, Thomas Graves said:

 

Posted Saturday at 12:21 PM

  On 3/31/2018 at 8:42 AM, Paul Brancato said:

TG - Thanks for clarifying. Is it your opinion, and/or Bagley’s, that when Golitsyn got ‘carried away’ it was on his own and not KGB inspired? It looked to me like he first established his bonafides and once settled comfortably he proceeded to sow division. One could look at Angleton as a victim of paranoia created by Golitsyn. I’m not saying that’s true, just possible. 

 

Paul,

I believe that Golitsyn was a flawed true defector, and that Nosenko was a flawed false defector. A big problem for Angleton and eventually for the CIA as a whole was that when the CIA or the FBI or whomever decided not to prosecute long-term mole "SASHA" (Igor Orlov) because he was no longer active, Golitsyn went a little bonkers and decided to cast suspicion on Orlov's former handler, Paul Garbler, and things kind of snowballed out of control from there.  Or perhaps already had.

In my humble opinion it's rather foolish to insinuate that Golitsyn was the false defector of the two for the simple fact that Golitsyn helped to uncover several *important*, *still-active*, and *previously unsuspected* moles and Soviet spies in the U.S. and other NATO countries, whereas false defector Nosenko didn't do jack xxxx in that regard, and whose purpose in life seems to have been to contradict, divert attention away from, and/or minimize most of what Golitsyn (in his pre-mid-1964 "golden" period especially) was telling the U.S.

--  TG

Bumped for Paul Brancato.

--  TG

Edited April 2, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

I don't think Morley talks about if Angleton had any knowledge of the taping system in the White House.

 

But he does talk about his input into the Huston Plan and how he did not listen to the White House rescind order and continued Chaos.