Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

Recommended Posts

"Cult" is a loaded term.

"Fanboy group-think" is more like it.

Fanboys never admit error.

"I stand corrected" is never part of their vocabulary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFK was a reckless rogue with women -and his behavior risked compromising his responsibilities as President, especially sharing a mistress with a mobster.

He made a huge mistake with the BoP but that has got a bit more understandable with more context in recent years.

And his presidential fitness program is still the most difficult athletic endeavor I ever participated in, and I was a pretty good athlete. So I hold that against him as well. ;)

Am I still a cultist/fan man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of a "Kennedy Cult" I might propose a "Justice Cult" - a group of historians, researchers and interested parties who are driven to see justice done, the real planners, perpetrators and those who participated in the 50+ year long cover-up exposed and brought to justice.  

Most folks here seem to be teachable and readily admit a mistake on their part.  My perception is that those who slavishly adhere to the Lone Nut theory is that they are less ready to admit areas of error and learn from that than those who do not believe in LHO's sole guilt.  That's just my perception, no more.

Like all men, JFK was flawed; those intensely interested in justice are not "fanboys" who think he did no wrong.  We want to continue to uncover the provable and deeply flawed government/media conclusion of LHO's sole guilt. If you want to call us a "cult" for that, sign me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

RIck:

Let me add to that observation about those who adhere to the Oswald did it concept.  

There is also an example of that group that consisted of those who had been in the critical camp and then switched sides.    Like the late Gary Mack, Dale Myers and Gus Russo.

Talk about insufferable.  Good luck trying to show them anything.  Forget it.

The thing that always got me about that crew was this:  If you thought Oswald did not do it before, how, with the releases of the ARRB, could you possibly think he did it after all that info came out?

Those three were very helpful as aid to the continuing cover up. Why? Since having been in with the critics, they knew what their arguments were and were more than ready to counter them once they were in the pay of the other side.  The greatest example being Dale Myers and his Single Bullet Fact simulation.  I mean that was one of the most blatant deceptions in MSM broadcast history. And people like Dave Mantik, Mili Cranor, Bob Harris and Pat Speer have absolutely demolished it many times over.

But Peter Jennings and his crew accepted it.  Without submitting it to any kind of peer review by any knowledgeable person.  As the late Roger Feinman wrote many years ago, CBS violated many of its own Standards and Practices rules in its shameful production of its 1967 four night special on the JFK case.  He wrote letters to management about this, trying to discourage them from doing it again in 1975.  One foremost example was secretly employing Warren Commissioner John McCloy as a consultant to the 1967 program.  Think he had a conflict of interest?

Roger concluded that in the name of the JFK case, the dam broke on the ethics of TV journalism.  

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike Kilroy said:

JFK was a reckless rogue with women -and his behavior risked compromising his responsibilities as President, especially sharing a mistress with a mobster.

He made a huge mistake with the BoP but that has got a bit more understandable with more context in recent years.

And his presidential fitness program is still the most difficult athletic endeavor I ever participated in, and I was a pretty good athlete. So I hold that against him as well. ;)

Am I still a cultist/fan man?

Not at all, near as I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

Most folks here seem to be teachable and readily admit a mistake on their part.  My perception is that those who slavishly adhere to the Lone Nut theory is that they are less ready to admit areas of error and learn from that than those who do not believe in LHO's sole guilt.  That's just my perception, no more.

What kills me are the "CT"s who repeat Lone Nut talking points.

Lone Nutters claim JFK was shot in the back at T1, even though the clothing evidence, the contemporaneous notes of 3 Federal agents, the properly produced medical documents, and the consensus statements of another dozen witnesses put the back wound at T3.

James DiEugenio refuses to acknowledge the T3 back wound --- academic malpractice.

And he'll never admit that he's wrong.

 

3 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

Like all men, JFK was flawed; those intensely interested in justice are not "fanboys" who think he did no wrong. 

Ever see JDiE admit Kennedy ever screwed up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 8:47 AM, Mike Kilroy said:

He made a huge mistake with the BoP but that has got a bit more understandable with more context in recent years.

Mike, what's your take on Kennedy passively green-lighting the over-throw of Diem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Mike, what's your take on Kennedy passively green-lighting the over-throw of Diem?

I'm not Mike.  But "passive green-lighting" of an overthrow, if you believe in that, I don't think on JFK's part included assassination of Diem.  That part IMO was CIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Mike, what's your take on Kennedy passively green-lighting the over-throw of Diem?

To be honest, the details always seem a bit fuzzy every time I’ve tried to understand it. It seemed like he supported the coup - the Diem bros were terrible leaders - but not the violence. Hard to believe JFK would be that naive though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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..

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Mike, what's your take on Kennedy passively green-lighting the over-throw of Diem?

Sorry Jim.  My illiterate take is...  JFK appointed opponents to key positions in an attempt to moderate situations.  E. G., C Douglas Dillon Secretary of Treasury, ultimately head of the Secret Service on 11/22/63.  To get to the Senate JFK defeated Boston Brahmin incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge in the early 50's.  In 1960 Lodge was Nixon's Vice Presidential running mate.  In 63 JFK appointed Lodge ambassador to Vietnam.  He failed to answer important communique regarding Diem in the week or two before his murder.  The CIA proceeded with plans.

 http://www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html

The "Arrogant CIA Disobeys Orders" article by Richard Starnes about half way down the link is particularly relevant.   

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Try not to play into Cliff's provocation.

What provocation?

I asked the Mike his take on an historical event.

Not everyone loses their shi* whenever someone disagrees with them, Jim.

Quote

We have been through this a dozen times.  

No, we went over this once on the Deep Politics Forum and maybe once here, briefly, iirc, .

Quote

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.

I think the best sources are John and Robert Kennedy -- both of whom fingered Harriman as the leader of the anti-Diem faction in his government.

From Robert Kennedy's Oral History, 1964:

<quote on>

"The result [of the cable of August 24] is we started down a road from which we never really recovered...[uS Vietnam military commander General Paul] Harkins was against it and Lodge wasn't talking to Harkins. So Henry Cabot Lodge started down one direction, the State Department was rather in the middle, and they suddenly called off the coup. Then the next five or six weeks we were all concerned about whether they were going to have a coup, who was going to win the coup, and who was going to replace the government. Nobody ever really had any of the answers to any of these things...the President was trying to get rid of Henry Cabot Lodge...The policy he [Lodge] was following was based on that original policy that had been made and then rescinded...that Averell Harriman was responsible for..."

<quote off>

Quote

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.

Interesting rhetorical ploy, Jim. 

I asked Mike for his opinion, and you chime in claiming I'm misrepresenting something.

Pre-emptive sneering?

Quote

How is this Cliff?  Forrestal, HIlsman, and Harriman.  

Even better: Harriman, Forrestal, Hilsman.  Happy now? 

It just kills you to blame Harriman for anything, doesn't it?

Quote

Now go ahead and start talking about T3 and the ice bullet on a different thread..

May 8, 1963.

Hue, South Vietnam.

Buddhist protesters crowded around a radio station when two explosions killed eight people.

The Catholic Diem regime blamed the Viet Cong; the Buddhists.blamed Diem.

From JFK and the Unspeakable, pgs 130-1:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Dr. Le Khac Quyen, the hospital director at Hue, said after examining the victim's bodies that he had never seen such injuries. The bodies had been decapitated. He found no metal in the corpses, only holes. There were no wounds below the chest. In his official finding, Dr. Quyen ruled that "the death of the people was caused by an explosion which took place in mid-air," blowing off their heads and mutilating their bodies...

...In May 1963, Diem's younger brother, Ngo Dinh Can, who ruled Hue, thought from the very beginning that the Viet Cong had nothing to do with the explosions at the radio station.  According to an investigation carried out by the Catholicnewspaper, Hoa Binh, Ngo Dinh Can and his advisers were "convinced the explosions had to be the work of an American agent
who wanted to make trouble for Diem." In 1970 Hoa Binh located such a man, a Captain Scott, who in later years became a U.S. military adviser in the Mekong Delta. Scott had come to  Hue from Da Nang on May 7, 1963. He admitted he was the American agent responsible for the bombing at the radio station the next day. He said he used "an explosive that was stillsecret and known only to certain people at the Central Intelligence Agency, a charge no larger than a matchbox with a timing  device."


<quote off>

Holes in the body, no metal.

JFK had two entrance wounds with no exits and no metal found in the body at the autopsy.

The FBI guys at the autopsy took the notion of a high tech weapon strike seriously.

What is the logical basis for a self-described "historian" disregarding this evidence out of hand?

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mike Kilroy said:

To be honest, the details always seem a bit fuzzy every time I’ve tried to understand it. It seemed like he supported the coup - the Diem bros were terrible leaders - but not the violence. Hard to believe JFK would be that naive though.

He got played by the State Dept., looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

There you go CV

Citing facts, yes.

Pushing back on your many mis-representations of historical fact.

Quote

You disrupted a thread, and no one does that like you do,  but you got to say what you live for 24/7.

Factually incorrect.

You asked a question and I'm answering it.

What is the Kennedy Cult anyway?

Glad you asked!

Those who cannot objectively assess the failures of the Kennedy Administration in foreign policy.

Quote

And which I knew what the whole provocation was about and you tried to deny.  

Jim, all I ever do is argue points of historical fact.

That's all I do.

If you have a compelling counter-argument then make it, and we can all learn from the exchange.

Why lose your temper and accuse folks of having an agenda and being a provocateur?

Buck up, lad.  Show us what you got.  When we had a disagreement about Garrison sometime back, I gladly stood corrected and learned a lot from the exchange.

Where am I wrong?

Quote

When are you making another film by the way?

Only made one amateur short film.  No one who worked on it was paid.

Jim, you might say I am to professional actors what you are to professional historians.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×