Post Script Final Installment: Episode 9

[James DiEugenio]

This is the last part of Len Osanic and Jeff Carter's nine part post script series, the follow up to their fine 50 Reasons for 50 years on the JFK case.

This deals with the political impact of the murders of MLK and RFK, and also the cumulative impact of the four major assassinations of the sixties, adding in JFK and Malcolm.

It was a giant tsunami from which the USA never recovered.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Please use this link.  The older one is inactive.

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

In that Oval Office photo of Ford, who are the two others in the room besides Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Nelson Rockefeller?  

That's almost the whole "New World Order" group right there in one sitting ... minus George Bush and David Rockefeller.

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

I don't know off hand, but one might be Phil Buchen.

 

I made an error in that narration.  Nixon was not actually impeached.  Impeachment proceedings were initiated in the House, and three articles of impeachment were approved.  But the entire House had not voted on them yet.

What happened was that Goldwater and Hugh Scott went up to visit him at the WH and told him that he had no chance of surviving a trial in the senate.  That he should resign and that way he would preserve some of his dignity and probably some of his personal benefits as an ex president.  So he did.

BTW Joe, what Ford did, and very few people acknowledge this--although I tried to hint at it--is he brought Paul Nitze's group into the White House called the Committee on the Present Danger.  This group of rightwing crazies thought that Kissinger and Nixon WERE TOO LIBERAL!  And they outflanked Kissinger and were allowed to go head to head with the CIA on the Soviet threat.  And its through all this that fruitcakes like Richard Perle and Democrat turned Republican Jeanne Kirkpatrick started the Neoconservative movement which would really flourish under Reagan.  If you recall, Cheney did the same thing under W in order to manufacture the Mushroom cloud myth about Hussein and Iraq.

With what Ford did, Kennedy's foreign policy--which had been altered and then reversed by LBJ and RMN--was now extinct.  It became something that people like us talk about on sites like this.  It became a relic in a museum.

[Joe Bauer]

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't know off hand, but one might be Phil Buchen.

 

I made an error in that narration.  Nixon was not actually impeached.  Impeachment proceedings were initiated in the House, and three articles of impeachment were approved.  But the entire House had not voted on them yet.

What happened was that Goldwater and Hugh Scott went up to visit him at the WH and told him that he had no chance of surviving a trial in the senate.  That he should resign and that way he would preserve some of his dignity and probably some of his personal benefits as an ex president.  So he did.

BTW Joe, what Ford did, and very few people acknowledge this--although I tried to hint at it--is he brought Paul Nitze's group into the White House called the Committee on the Present Danger.  This group of rightwing crazies thought that Kissinger and Nixon WERE TOO LIBERAL!  And they outflanked Kissinger and were allowed to go head to head with the CIA on the Soviet threat.  And its through all this that fruitcakes like Richard Perle and Democrat turned Republican Jeanne Kirkpatrick started the Neoconservative movement which would really flourish under Reagan.  If you recall, Cheney did the same thing under W in order to manufacture the Mushroom cloud myth about Hussein and Iraq.

With what Ford did, Kennedy's foreign policy--which had been altered and then reversed by LBJ and RMN--was now extinct.  It became something that people like us talk about on sites like this.  It became a relic in a museum.

What a sad reality since the loss of JFK.

Any thoughts as to how the Trump equation fits into this evolution?

[James DiEugenio]

I don't know what Trump is about, what he thinks, what he really believes.

The guy switches advisers likes most people switch overcoats.  He makes so many contrary statements that its hard to figure out what he is driving at.

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Richard Price]

I have always told myself that I would not divert a topic or go beyond just studying the facts presented here, but I will make one statement here and then try to go back to my self imposed rule.  I think DJT is a fairly simple man, ...follow the money.  No morals, no scruples, no bounds.

[Joe Bauer]

Understood and agreed Richard Price.

To go back to the original thread then;

any thoughts on the 50 Reasons For 50 Years series and the facts presented in this?

[Richard Price]

Thanks, Joe.  Like I said in the previous post, I tend to study and not comment other than occasional questions, but I will in this case.  I think the presentation is well thought out and offers great insight.  As somewhat of a history buff for most of my life, I find it almost unbelievable that so few people in this age of "knowledge" take the time to gain historical perspective or even care about the underpinnings of events happening around them.  Most people I have interaction with are completely immersed in their jobs/careers and either don't want to or won't take the time to do more than read/listen/watch the headlines and let others tell them what it means.  I was eight years old when JFK was killed and twelve when RFK was murdered.  I had already begun to study histories and was very interested in government by the time RFK died.  I lived, and still do, in what used to be called the "deep south".  Due to my reading/studying of history, politics and government, I found myself virtually a pariah in my family and neighborhood.  I had become an ardent RFK democrat and advocate of the insanely "liberal" civil rights views (at least in my neighborhood) of MLK.  I recall staying up late and seeing the news that RFK was murdered and immediately thinking that all hope was lost for the way of life I was anticipating on growing into.  Then of course, more and more of the Warren Commission critics investigation became available and I became addicted to accessing as much as I could get my hands on.  I have only watched the link at the top of this topic, but I think it makes a compelling case.  With the benefit of hindsight and much study, I think this five year period is the link to much of the digression in our society.  I do think it started much earlier, right after WWII when the "cold warriors" began remaking the world in their image.  I think it's possible some, if not most of them had good motives at the start, but it was usurped by those who had a wholly different world view.  The old "one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch" idiom as well as "birds of a feather flock together".  Once as few as one person gains power and has the ability to maintain it for an extended period of time he can surround himself with like minded people.  This unfortunately can repeat until a tipping point is reached.  I think this is what happened in the early to mid 60's.  Thanks again for the comment Joe.  Now you see why I don't comment a lot.  I can't seem to be concise.  I should just post a picture, huh.

[Michael Clark]

Thanks for sharing that Jim. It was a very succinct evaluation of the subject of the history of the USA since 1963.

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't know what Trump is about, what he thinks, what he really believes.

The guy switches advisers likes most people switch overcoats.  He makes so many contrary statements that its hard to figure out what he is driving at.

 

Michael Wolff said, in Fire and Fury, that Trump has a tendency to agree with the last person he has spoken with.  That is, no doubt, an exaggeration-- but he has, certainly, flipped 180 degrees in an apparent bait-and-switch on any number of his 2016 campaign positions--  promising a "terrific" healthcare plan for all, pledging that, "the forgotten Americans will be forgotten no more," criticizing Obama's military ops in the Middle East, etc.

My take on Trump (in violation of my profession's "Goldwater Rule) is that he is a lifelong sociopath and bully, and, obviously, an extreme narcissistic personality. He is grandiose and self-aggrandizing, exploitative, manipulative, lacking in empathy, and, evidently, sadistic.  He began his presidential campaign by consulting with the likes of Roger Stone and Sam Nunberg-- and searching for a sales pitch on the basis of "marketing" research by Nunberg and others.  This seems to be how he initially latched onto the "white nationalist" strategy of bashing immigrants and minority groups (which was eerily in sync with the Russian-funded Facebook ads in 2016.)

  Anyway, I don't want to high-jack the thread.

  It was interesting to hear Mr. Caddy's comments here about Roger Stone's sociopathic personality the other day.