Jump to content
The Education Forum

Nathaniel Heidenheimer

Members
  • Posts

    1,216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

  1. "


    SAC was targeting Soviet nuclear missiles for destruction. In the Fall of 1962 after the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy made a pass at changing this and cutting missile production. I think Douglas has some details on this. The next year McNamara changed targeting to cities and ended any possibility of carrying out what was termed a "coercive" nuclear strike.

    When I say JCS in this reply I mean as a body - I have the impression that not all individual members of the JCS held extreme views during the entire JFK presidency, but I think it was dominated by those that did"

    Here you mention SAC and then JCS and the likely possibility that there were some differences within the JCS. You have probably encountered, as I have, some descriptions of SAC autonomy as far as first strike capability, even independently of JCS. Have you and have tried to find out what the real relationship (as opposed to paper relationship ) between JCS and SAC was. One source on SAC autonomy was, if I recall Richard Rhodes book Dark Sun. Also James Carrolls book House of War. Others too I will try to track them down. Of course this is not an easy question, because neither of these organizations sends out e-mails to middle aged social studies teachers.

  2. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/06/04-7

    Guru Noam at it again.

    Look at the stunning synopsis of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Tactical nuke aimed at the "left?" With a left like this no wonder we are so far right.

    This lying about JFK TO THE FAKE US LEFT will only get worse as we get closer to Mack Does Potempkin Village Day. It must be adressed head on and in a way that shows how much it helps the right.

    As I have tried badly to explain, what the so called "left" believes about JFK matters to the entire spectrum, even if they dont matter on anything else, which they dont because they have been marginalized with special niche-marketed lies about the National Security State.

  3. Everyone MUST read Turner and Christians book on the Assassination of RFK. And check out the publication history of this book....

    When a friend of the authors called Epstein about the book's fate, he replied he did not want to speak about it. But what appears to have occurred is that when Random House was sold to Si Newhouse-Roy Cohn's family friend-Bob Loomis's star ascended, and Epstein's began to fade. As readers of Probe know, Loomis was once married to the secretary for James Angleton. He has been a mentor and shepherd for the likes of Sy Hersh, James Phelan, and Gerald Posner. In other words, he is dedicated to upholding the official story no matter how porous it may be. When asked why the Turner/Christian book was burned, Loomis replied, as Daryl Gates did about the disposal of crime scene evidence, "To make space for others. They do that with books." Not to apologize for Loomis, but if I was him, I would want to make this book disappear too. It is devastating to the official story. Because of an attorney named George Davis, Turner and Christian were on the case almost from the beginning. Davis was the San Francisco based lawyer for a man named Rev. Jerry Owen aka The Walking Bible. In 1968, Owen was like a low-rent Jerry Falwell, a traveling evangelist preacher. Owen had voluntarily gone to the Los Angeles Police Department with information about his meeting with Sirhan Sirhan just prior to the RFK assassination. That internal inquiry within the LAPD was called Special Unit Senator (SUS). The two men running it, Manny Pena, and Hank Hernandez, had no use for Owen even though his story seemed quite interesting and relevant. He said that he had encountered Sirhan the day before the California primary of June 4, 1968. Sirhan had been hitchhiking with a friend when Owen picked him up. The conversation turned to horses, and Owen told Sirhan he actually owned some. Since he was a former jockey, Sirhan told him he would be interested in buying one. A pair of Sirhan's companions--a male and female--arranged with Owen to return the following evening to the back of the Ambassador Hotel. They gave him a hundred dollars down, and promised two hundred more upon delivery. Owen said he could not fulfill the offer since he had a preaching appointment in Oxnard on the night of June 4th. On June 5th, traveling back from Oxnard, Owen stopped at a dinette in a hotel. He looked up at the TV and saw a photo of Sirhan-who he had known as "Joe". He then reported this information to the police. Some of the story seemed to make sense, e.g. Sirhan had four hundred dollar bills on him when apprehended, witness Sandra Serrano later reported that Sirhan had entered the Ambassador that night with a male and female companion. Owen said that after making his police report he began to get threatening calls. Deciding he better get out of LA, he stayed at a friend's house in Napa Valley. That friend knew Davis. Davis heard the story, got it into the local papers, and called a news conference. Turner and Christian, both reporters at the time, arrived at his office to hear it. It never came off. SUS got wind of it and immediately flew up Pena and Hernandez to stop it. Davis complied, but he got Turner a private one-hour interview with Owen. Owen told him what happened, and Turner taped it. And like an old-fashioned adventure story, this is what sets the two protagonists out on "a tale full of sound and fury". But unlike Shakespeare, it signifies a lot. The paradox with the Bobby Kennedy case is this: although on the surface itappears to be a simple open and shut case, once you peel away that surface, it is more clearly a conspiracy than the JFK case. And once you realize that not only did Sirhan not kill RFK, but he could not kill him, then you enter a world of threats, intimidation, shootings, and falsified evidence. One could say that it resembles the JFK case. But there are elements of it that are not like anything in the JFK case. And no matter how cheapjack writers like Dan Moldea and David Heymann try to cover them up, they will not go away. In the JFK case you have what is perhaps one of the worst autopsies ever performed in a high profile case. In the RFK case, Thomas Noguchi's painstaking, thorough work is crucial to unraveling elements of the conspiracy. In the JFK case, the actual assassins were mostly out of sight, hundreds of feet away, and never identified. In the RFK case, they were in direct proximity to Kennedy, in plain sight of witnesses. Further, they were questioned and even apprehended. With Oswald, you have basically a simple frame-up, sometimes called a "throw down"; with Sirhan, the framing circumstances are much more complex and intriguing. This is where one gets into the utterly and endlessly fascinating aspects peculiar to this case: namely the Manchurian Candidate, and the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress. The great achievement of this book is not that it makes all of the above credible. But it makes it convincing. One of the reasons for this is that Turner is a skillful writer. In an inherently dramatic but true story, he takes time to fashion, not just a narrative, but to draw "scenes", which makes the strange tale both realistic and easier to visualize. (A form of art that is sorely lacking in the field. See the recent work of Lamar Waldron and Joan Mellen.) This approach is especially useful in understanding the difficult concept of hypnoprogramming. Which Turner did a lot of homework on. He interviewed two of the eminent experts in the field: Herbert Spiegel and Edward Simson-Kallas. He also read one of the most important texts in the discipline: the chronicle by Paul Rieter of the famous Nielsen/Hardrup case which took place in Denmark in the early fifties. That study shows, beyond any doubt, that you can hypnotize someone into doing something they would never do in a waking state. That you can install post-hypnotic suggestion. And that it is possible to then deprogram the hypnotized victim who has commited the crime-not of his own free will--but for his controller. It was all done in the Danish precedent. And in that case, the court decided that Hardrup was innocent of the crime and convicted his programmer Nielsen. One of the great ironies of the RFK case, is that the Danish case was first mentioned in what--up until that time--was the standard book on the Bobby Kennedy case: Robert Blair Kaiser's RFK Must Die (1970). In his last chapter, Kaiser mentions the hypnosis sessions that Sirhan had with his court appointed psychiatrist Dr. Diamond. Diamond was struck by how quickly and deeply he could induce Sirhan into a trance. He became convinced that Sirhan was in a trance that night in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel. But since Sirhan's incompetent, and probably compromised, legal team had agreed to the prosecutor's evidence, their defense had to be tapered in this aspect. They argued that Sirhan did it, but in a trance that was self-induced. In that famous last chapter, Kaiser mentions things like previous sightings of Sirhan with the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress, of murder suspect and Sirhan look-alike Michael Wayne, and a man named Van Antwerp who disappeared the day RFK was shot, not to reappear until two weeks later. At that time he told the FBI he never knew Sirhan, even though he had roomed with him for five months. Though he mentions these tantalizing leads and angles, Kaiser's book ends up being a Sirhan-did-it tract. He asks, "Who would have wanted to use Sirhan? I didn't know." (p. 537) A page later he writes that it would have taken him another year to explore all these fascinating trails. That would have been another book and he had to get this one published. What the Turner/Christian book does is go down some of those trails. For instance, it fits into a rough mosaic the role of the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress with the man who probably "used Sirhan" by hypnoprogramming him. That man's name is Dr. William J. Bryan. His name was first mentioned in book form here. And the way it tumbles forward, out of -- of all things -- the Boston Strangler case, is almost worth the price of the book. The book does this repeatedly. The roles and backgrounds of Pena and Hernandez are delineated. And the latter's task of beating down witnesses, especially Sandra Serrano-who first exposed the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress-is clearly defined. The book outlines in character and performance the two ballistics experts who would face off in this case: DeWayne Wolfer and William Harper. (If there is a hero in the RFK case, it is Harper. The authors dedicated the book to him.) Some of the chapter titles describe what are today, hallmarks of the RFK case: "Tinting Sirhan Red", "The Quiet Trial of Sirhan Sirhan", and "Too Many Guns-Too Many Bullets". I should also note that because it describes the last of the four great political assassinations of the decade, the book is elegiac. To slightly alter Clausewitz: assassination is an extension of politics by other means. The assassination of Robert Kennedy, for all intents and purposes, lowered the curtain on one era and raised it on another. By the summer of '68, RFK was the last great hope of the sixties. His assassination brought to power the era's anti-Christ: Richard M. Nixon. In the actual histiography on that case, the Turner/Christian book is a milestone for what came afterwards. For the first time in book form, both the conspiracy and cover up in the Bobby Kennedy case were now out in the open: lying there naked in the glaring sunlight. That exposure inspired the subsequent fine work of people like Phil Melanson, Greg Stone, and Lisa Pease. With that kind of impact and influence, one can see why Loomis panicked. But it was too late. That was bad for him. It was good for us. Buy this book. It's that good. * * * Return to Main Page

  4. I was very alarmed last year when Thompson was celebrated for his Umbrella Man bit.

    To me what stood out was that Thompson did not manage to sneak in one iota of pro-conspiracy argument into the clip. He knew that this piece would get way, way more coverage, given those involved. And then the NYT picked it up and used it to, without stating it, scoff at all pro-conspiracy viewpoints.

    Thompson is not a dummy. He knows that his work on this movie would get Huge Corporate Media coverage. He can ride into Education Forum with his posse all he wants and proclaim that he still believes in Conspiracy. THAT DOES NOT MATTER SO LONG AS THE ONLY THING THAT REACHES MILLIONS--RATHER THAN A FEW HUNDRED HERE-- IS HIS STATURE AS A BAD BOY NOW GONE GOOD, I.E. posing for a film or article which he knows damn well will only reach a wide audience if it plays to the ear of our Court Media.

    Unless Thompson gets some pro-conspiracy points before the same wide audience fast.... I am growing kind of suspicious here. I'm sure, given his reputation, he does not care what I think. But ultimately what this case is about is neither a former Yale professor or some middle ages social studies teacher. It is the legitimation (or just delegitimation ) of an outdated political model and political language that is forced on 310 million citizens a year-- and at a media and schoolin cost of tens of billions of dollars-- which only serves to obscure the realities of power for ourselves and any future generations that can survive this bad faith blather about elections and checks and balances.

    That is what's at stake. That is the high cost of Thompson's de facto mea culpa limelight dancing.

  5. Jim there are ,without question, some outstanding and unique (in the sense that they are published by an academic press who normally will not go into some of the dangerous waters [for academics] that this book features.) I would be praising it to the hilt all over FB. However there is some serious Trojan Horse in there that is like WTF, if you pardon the expression of a middle aged organism who has been in a room with adolescents and in an America with worse for far too long.

    Keep reading, I think you will see what I mean.

    I might change my mind, I am still mulling this one over. The question that keeps coming up is "How is is possible for a person who knows so much about variables a,b,c to be THAT wrong about e,f,g. Don't get me wrong, I would be suspicious of books that reinforced all of my footnoted prejudice. But the stunningly machiavellian nature of JUST HOW WRONG variables e and f are just have me in a neoliberal daze I guess. Wait, I have to go and write Michael Albert at Z magazine to find out what neoliberal means this week. (amazing how the masses are still not at the barricades, what with Noam, Amy and Uncle Albert after all these years!)

  6. It was the best of books, it was the worst of books.

    That is my review so far. Jim DiEugenio mentioned this book on last nights Black Op Radio. It is, in some ways, a major breakthrough by an academic writer. But there are huge costs involved.

    For now let me just say that the books major weakness is its failure to include the thorough, grounded historical account of the CIA manipulation of journalists-- a history which is now abundant and available, though perhaps not employable, for today's may- as- well-be-government journalists--as part of the book's broad,sociological investigation of how the term Conspiracy Theory took hold as a catchall term, with broad coattails and negative connotations. Other institutions, such as Academia do, to some extent get called on the mat or as much mat as Florida State, a great school in many ways, can afford.

    There are also many excellent aspects of the book. This book deserves long discussion because it bares directly on our challenges in explicating the significance of the Coup of 1963.

    The editor of this book, is Mark Crispin Miller, a writer of many good books , but also one who promotes the Waldron Hartmann books. http://www.amazon.co...g/dp/0292743793

  7. Richard, Hedges is 1) published 2) on the left. THEREFORE he will not write anything revealing about JFK. Today's hothouse, foundation funded, left is simply not allowed to write about the National Security State acting independently of elected officials. Off limits. Much great about Hedges but the line has been dug too deeply, and everyone toes it. Dug so deep nobody even needs to mention it. You can tell by the condescending scoff.

    They are allowed to write about social history. They are not allowed to write about the INTERACTION between broadcast words and social movements. That's not too difficult because the Democrats have not said anything that could interact with social movements since early June, 1968.

  8. Yes this peppering strategy is necessary. I plan on repeatedly posting on her FB threads as I have already been doing with the JFKfacts article, as imperfect as that is.

    The reason the public peppering is so much more important than the letter writing to big-wigs strategy, is that without the sunshine exposing the problem to more people, there is no LEVERAGE on teh big wigs, because we have not imposed a political cost.

    Both are fine, but IMO there has been too much petitioning and letter writing without enough of the leverage of wide-angle posting.

  9. World War II required an overarching system of opinion management. This is described in the book Nervous LIberals by Brett Gary.

    That system involved a controlled left, that could be used to scramble issues that would otherwise align in logic dangerous to the state. It also involved getting some instruments in the spectrum-symphony to go sotto voce when they should have blaired.

    This total systems approach to media management-- in which a managed "left" could end up pulling in the same direction as the right-- was perfected during WWII, and preserved by the Cold War. The partiel liberalization of US culture and media beginning with the 1957 movie The Sweet Smell of Success provided an ambiguity whereby a kind of Prague Spring could blossom between 1959-63. But that totalizing media control had already been perfected. In short Walter Lippmann's critique of the crude nature of WWI propaganda had been taken to heart. The mighty Wurlitzer could now feign left notes but they were played through a colander that found a wealth in division.

    The perfection of this propaganda system that took place during WWII explains the main difference between Sacco and Vanzetti v. JFK coverage.

  10. Hmmmm. This is very apples and oranges. But that is just what needs comparing at this overripe stage of human progress. The fact is that racism, nativism, and class conflict have always been segmented in analysis, but mixed up in US historical reality, to a degree unlike any other country.

    When JFK began writing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was clear that this obfuscation was threatened. Now one wing of the Democrats-- with still protean and ambiguous backing-- was going to attempt, for the first time since Bacon's Rebellion in 1676, to fight racism where it was most practical for the ruling class: in the payroll. LBJ would eliminate the potential for white and black working class solidarity by beginning Wall Street's desired transition from industrial to finance capitalism. JFK was against that.

  11. do these examples remind people of George Bush... or any other Senator during the 1950s?

    Some people on the left have asked why I post so much about the JFK assassination. Aren't there more pressing issues now? etc. Well I have been watching US politics for a good while. Also watching changes on the so called left. (I say so-called left because there are only a few publications and they can have a vastly disproportionate effect, as Frances Saunders pointed out on her key book on CIA left-gatekeeping, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and World Of Arts and Letters* ) What really stands out is that, over time, the left has become completely detatched from electoral politics. Hold on, I am not blaming the left for that. It makes sense, given that the Democrats have become More Bush than Bush Could Get Away with.

    But why has the left not done more to call the bluff of the Democrats? Why have there been no protests on the doorsteps of the Democratic Senators of high finance?

    Why instead are all efforts channeled into endless tributaries of social movements which make no claim whatsoever upon the broader body politic? Why, in a nutshell, did Occupy Wall Street not point the finger at the Enabling Democrats? Why does The Nation or Common Dreams never ever publish protests at the doors of the party that has become, in effect , the cowcatcher of the Republican locomotive? What Now Dead Sen. Wellstone once called The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party has been completely exterminated. But the history of HOW THE DEMOCRATS GOT THIS FAR RIGHT is almost non-existant on the Foundation Funded Left. The word Liberal is used on both Obama and RFK, JFK and FDR. This is ahistorical and more profoundly misleading than most people realize.

    Why, in short must so much of the Foundation Funded Left offer diversion rather than challenge to our competely corrupt public institutions and Democrats. It sure is a great way of taking pressure off our new Robber Barons. These Rober Barrons are now not even inconvenienced by real muckrakers, because the internet cannot provide critical mass large enough to matter in terms of real reform that can become law. Thus, so much of our Foundation Funded Left only leads the country, and because of the US' role as leading imperialist, the world, further right.

    In this context might it make sense to look at the last time politicians DID actually try swimming upstream, against the corporate money, and against the will of the dominant corporate institutions. Now we must be careful here. Because if these examples exist, we have to have the correct searching image. It is unlikely that we are going to find a socialist Senator or president in Cold War America. In fact a snowball has more chance in 2016. In other words the pol would not even be in the river to swim at all were he not essentially a capitalist and in agreement on with the consenses on many issues. But if we seek to determine how the US now has the greatest economic inequality than in any year since 1917, and if we seek to determine why and how the Democratic Party has become , in effect the cowcatcher on the Republican locomotive, a party that prevents opposition to right wing policies rather than defuses the opposition to those policies, we do have some explaining to do in terms of the party that once had a consistent record of lowering inequality rather than aiding and abetting it.

    In this context-- of the last President who tried swimming upstream, against the direction that major US capital was trending-- it is worth noting that there is no president in US history that receives more hostile coverage than JFK. The kitchen sink is regularly hurled. And what really stands out is that, on the real stuff, actual policies, the worst distortions over the last 20 years have been published by alleged left writers such as Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Seymour Hersh, and these writers have all been syndicated and given lots of airtime on the so called "left" airwaves of Pacifica.

    The central claim of these writers is that JFK was "just another Cold Warrior", and that no major policy changes resulted from his assassination, so why bother even looking into his assassination. Given than 80% of academic historians writing since 2000 have concluded that the JFK Assassination was, indeed, a conspiracy, this allegation about JFK's policies is important in preventing the left from "going there."

    Anyone who reads any real history on the topic of the Cold War, however, soon reaches the conclusion that this is exactly where the left should be. For the assassination is not about the death of any one liberal. It actually shows what happened the last time a president tried swimming upsream. And nothing shows illuminates the institutional nature of power-- as opposed to the the view that decisions are based on human reason in a world with a free press--more than the JFK assassination and the strikingly abrupt policy changes that immediately ensued

    Bellow are 7 key examples of JFK's challenging the Foreign Policy consensus on 3rd World Nationalism. Why are readers of Foundation Funded Left publications so unfamiliar with them? For those familiar with US politics in the 1950's these statements stand out as truly unique. These examples are taken from the excellent new book by James DiEugenio called Destiny Betrayed: JFK Cuba, and The Garrison Case (2nd Edition)** I cannot recommend this book highly enough. However all of these observations can be cross-referecned with numberous other academic studeis.

    1. "This is an area of human conflict between civilizations striving to be born and those desperately trying to retain what they have held for so long... the fires of nationalism so long dormant have been kindled and are now ablaze.... Here colonialism is not a topic fo tea-talk discussions; it is the daily fare for millions of men" -- Representative JFK upon returning from a fact finding trip to French Indochina, 1951

    2. "It is worth noting here that Kennedy also took time to criticize his own State Department for what he thought was its lackidasical approach to the true issues in the area. He pointed out that too many of our diplomats spent too much time socializing with and then serving the short-term goals of our Ruropean allies instead of "trying to undersand the real hopes and desires of the people to which they are accredited." What makes that last remark ususual is that young Kennedy was criticizing both a Secratary of State and a sitting president from his own party -- Dean Acheson and Harry Truman. He then went even further and questioned the widom of the USA in allying itself with "the desperate effort of a French regime to hang on to the remnants of empire"-- Destiny Betrayed 2nd edition page 22.

    3. "On July 1, 1953-- A year before the fall of the French empire in Vietnam-- Kennedy spoke on the floor of hte senate about why France would not win the war: "the war can never be won, unless the people are won from sullen neutrality and open hostility to support it. And they never can be, unless they are assured beyond a doubt that complete independence will be theirs... at the war's end" (29) The following year, Kennedy tried to explain that Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh were popular because they were seen as conducting an epic battle against French colonialism. Whether they were communists or not was not the point. For, in Vietnam, they were first seen as liberators." -- Desitny Betrayed 2nd edition, page 23.

    4. Upon learning of the Dulles' proposal to use tactical nukes at Dien Bien Phu, "Senator Kennedy got wind of this... (and) he again took to the floor of the senate and had what was perhaps his first defining national moment. He wanted to know how 'the new Dulles policy and its dependence upon the threat of atomic realiation will fare in these areas of guerrilla warfare." Then, during the actual siege, he again took the floor and said, "To pour money , materieal, and men into the jungles of Indochina without at least a remote prosepect of victory would be dangerously futile.... No amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy of the people which has the sympathy and covert support of the people."(33)-- Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Edition, p. 23.

    5. In 1956, Senator Kennedy attempted to make some speeches for hte campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson. By this time he hadseen that both parties were missing the opint about independence for the Third World. Kennedy was now even more convinced that the nationalistic yearning for independence was not to be so quickly linked to the 'international communist conspiracy.'(38) When Kennedy made some speeches for Stevenson, he used the opportunity to attack the Manichean world view of the Eisenhower-Dulles administration. But he also alluded to the fact that the Democrats were not that much better on the issue:

    The Afro-Asian revolution in nationalism, the revolt against colonialism, the deter-mination

    of people to control their national destinies... in my opinion the tragic failure of both Republican

    Democratic administrations since World War II to comprehend the nature of this revolution, and

    its potentialities for good and evil, has reaped a bitter harvest today-- and it is by rights and by

    necessity a major foreign policy campaign issue that has nothing to do with anti-Communism (39)

    Again, Kennedy was not playing political favorites. But the content of thei message was too much for even that liberal paragon Sevenson. His office now requested that Senator Kennedymake no further foreign policy comments associated with the candidate's campaign. (40)."-- (emphasis N. H.) Destiny Betrayed 2nd Edition.

    6. Kennedy Attacks Eisenhower on Algeria

    "On July 2, 1957, Senator Kennedy rose to speak in the Senate chamger and delivered what the New York Times was to call the next day, "the most comprehensive and outspoken arraignment of Western policy toward Algeria yet presented by an American in public office" (42).. Kennedy assailed the administration, especially John Foster Dulles and Nixon, for not urging France into negotiations, and therefore not being its true friend. He began the speech by saying that the most powerful force in international affairs at the time was not the H-bomb, but the desire fo independence from imperialism. If not, America would lose the trust of millions in Asia and Africa. He then pointed out specific instances where the USA had aided the French effort there both militarily (through the use of weapons sales) and diplomatically (by voting to table the issue at the United Nations). He attacked both the administration and France for not seeing in Algeria a reprise of the 1954 Indochina crisis:

    Yet did we not learn in Indochina... that we might have served both the French and our own

    causes infinitely better had we taken a more firm stand much earlier than we did? Did that tragic

    episode not teach us that whether France like sit or not admits it or not, their overseas territories

    are sooner or later, one by one, inevitably going to break free and look with suspicion on the

    Western nations who impeded their steps to independence. (44)

    ... Eisenhower complained about "young men getting up and shouting about things." (48) John Foster Dulles pointed out that if the senator wanted to tilt against colonialism, perhaps he might concentrate on the communist variety(49) Jackie Kennedy was so angry with Acheson's disparaging remarks abou the speech that she berated him in public while they were waiting for a train at New York's Penn Central. (50) Kennedy's staff clipped newspaper and magazine responses ot the speech. OF 138 editorials, 90 were negative. Again Stevenson was one of Kennedy's critics. -- Destiny Betrayed 2nd edition, page 26

    7. Kennedy now became the man to see for visiting African diplomats, especially those seeking from nations breaking free from the bonds of European colonialism. ... Rebuffed by Eisenhower (Patrice Lamumba, leader of Congo) now turned to the Russians for help in expelling the Belgians from Katanga. This sealed his fate inn the eyes of Eisnehower and Allen Dulles. The president now authorized a series of assassination plots by the CIA to kill Lumumba(57) These plots finally succeeded on January 17, 196a, three days before Kennedy was inaugurated.

    His first week in office, Kennedy requested a full review of the Eisenhower/Dulles policy in Congo. The American ambassador to that important African nation heard of this review and phoned Allen Dulles to alert him that President Kennedy was about to overturn previous policy there. (58) Kennedy did overturn this policy on February 2, 1961. Unlike Eisenhower and Allen Dulles, Kennedy announced he would begin full cooperation with Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold at the united Nations on this thorny issue in order to bring all the armies in that war-torn nation under control. He would also attempt to neutralize the country so there would be no East/West Cold War competition. Third, all political prisoners being held should be freed. Not knowing he was dead, this part was aimed at former prime minister Lubumba, who had been captured by his enemies. (There is evidence that, knowing Kennedy would favor Lumumba, Dulles had him klled before JFK was inaugurated. (59) Finally. Kennedy opposed the secession for the mineral-rich Katanga province. The secession fo Katanga was a move very much favored by the former colonizers, Belgium, and their British allies. Thus began Kennedy's nearly three year long struggle to see Congo not fall back under the claw of European Imperialism. This story is well captured by Richard Mahoney in his milestone book JFK: Ordeal in Africa. As we shall see, whatever Kennedy achieved there, and it was estimable, was lost when Lyndon Johsnon became president.

    Consider these pre-presidency track record on the question of JFK and decolonization. Is there any other Senator who made such strong statements against the dominant foreign policy consensus in the McCarthy Era? If you can find even one statement like these from another Senator, please let me know.

    Now consider that every single academic historian writing on Vietnam in the JFK-LBJ transition years since 1992 has concluded that there is no question that JFK would not have escalated to a major US land war. This was also the view of contemporary journalists. It was a myth largely developed after the publication of the key disinformation book The Best and The Brightest*** Moreover, the newer academic publications, with the benefit of the newly released declassified documents since Congress was pressured into passing the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) have shown that JFK was, in fact, getting out of Vietnam at the time of his assassination. This is an idea that was roundly ridiculed by Time, Newsweek and the New York Times at the time of the JFK movie in the early 90s. How funny that our so-called left has never taken note that all of the recent academic works have born out the pioneering work of University of Maryland History Professor John Newman. But then, when it comes to JFK, our Official "Leftists" (not really left IMO) have a predictable way of suddenly lining up with footnoteless Bill O'Reilly and the Paper of Record they love to hate on all the small, crunchy issues, that only a tiny percentage of the population could related to. Just so the hot house Foundation Funded Left serves to detatch social history from political history, convincing the young that it has always been the case.

    After Vietnam, look at JFK's policies v those of the CIA on Laos, Indonesia, the USSR, Brazil, and Cuba in 1963. Don't forget JFK v. CIA on Israel's attempt to bring nuclear weapons into the Middle East!

    By studying the last president who tried to swim upsteam and what subsequently happened to his head one can learn a lot about the river, and its big media minders. One can also learn a lot about how a Fake Foundation Funded "left" (not really left) played a key role in making the today's left politically irrelevant. This knowledge offers lots of clues about how to fix this situation.

    one can learn a lot about the river, and its big media minders.

    *http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Cold-War-World-Letters/dp/1565846648/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362267671&sr=1-1&keywords=the+cultural+cold+war+the+cia+and+the+world+of+arts+and+letters

    **http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Betrayed-Garrison-Second-Edition/dp/1620870568

    ***http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Ordeal-Richard-D-Mahoney/dp/0195033418/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

  12. I think that Rachel Maddow is best seen as one more Role Player of Today's Completely Corporate democrats.

    The job of MSNBC is to keep the flame of belief alive-- belief that the Democrats, 49 years after an unacknowledged coup d'etat-- are even trying to prevent right wing policies.

    They are not. They are their chief enabler, playing the role of the cowcatcher on the Republican locomotive. Their job is to prevent a REAL opposition to the Republicans, like that which existed to some extent with the New Deal Coalition, from ever reaching enough eardrums to matter.

    Do the MSNBC crew SEEM to the left of most Democratic mummies like Reid, Pelosi, Gillibrandt, and the war criminal Hillary Clinton? Yes, often it is their ROLE to do so. However they know that most of the party is mute, and only a tiny sliver of mostly upper income and upper middle class voters have the time to hear their pathetic pretense that the Democrats are fighting back.

    They KNOW the right wing message is broadcast while the MSNBC is narrowcast. Their job is to keep the Democrats who might otherwise point out that the emperor has no clothes from doing so.

    Seen in this light, is is absolutely no surprise at all that the MSNBC crowd is just as bad as the Chomsky the fake leftists, and Bill O'Reilly who sites Noam in his brief note on "sources" which Mr. FOX uses in lieu of a single footnote... and then is reviewed by The New York Times.

    Many will think this interpretation too "top down, Machiavellian etc" I would suggest that they go back and read more on WWI, WWII and Cold War Communications Research. There is a good reason why Communications Research is not mediated into wider audiences with "middle brow" books. That middle brow would be the end of the game, and MSNBC's work to keep us moving ever further right would soon be over.

    By "RIGHT" I here mean on economic and so called "National Security" i.e. eternal war issues.

  13. http://www.amazon.com/JFKs-Last-Hundred-Days-Transformation/dp/159420425X/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_14 This one seems to be taking the same strategy as the authors RFK book: an APPARENTLY POSITIVE portrayal that actually is used to sell a lot of untruths and hence cause one more division.

    Do I think that it is possible for authors to disagree?

    Sure. Just not this late, when so much new material is out there. To pretend that JFK's "change" in 1963 was sudden and without hints is pure bull xxxx, but because it SEEMS to portray JFK in a positive light, it wil be swallowed and the real issue of President v. national security state will be completely ignored, because it is the most important issue of the most important moment of the century. This book will get a LOT of looks. And readers of this forum will do almost nothing to counterbalance this by spreading news about books that are much better.

  14. What about the University of Virginia professors book. I heard rumors that it is pro-conspiracy, but if it is I can't imagine it being even remotely accurate without the secession of North Virginia.

    if this secession succeeds--and I wish it got'speed-- may I suggest The Iranian Helmsmen as the name of their athletic teams?

  15. It definitely IS the place for this.

    The habeus corpse haircut of removing policy from assassination discussion is the corporate-sponsored legalism that has only served the cover up.

    The tax cut needs to be adressed directly to show how different it is from Reagan and the Rethuglicans' tax cuts and how different it is from Today's Other Republicans, sometimes called the post-1968 Bendovercrats. The industrial policy outlined in Battling Wall Street is what is so necessary here. Also I'll take a small fries and a pepsi please.

  16. We ALLOW this brain-sewage by making the mistake that the "alternative media" and the internet are, in fact, an alternative.

    They are not.

    They only segregate those in the know leaving the sheeple completely unguarded by the flyover msm brain-sewage.

    The only successful strategy for the 50th is to USE THESE EXAMPLES, which will be repeated endlessly until November, as bones of contention in the public sphere [because they can serve as switchbacks in the path of public discourse because, unlike our musings, they ARE seen by large numbers, which can be used as bones of contention that CHALLENGE the LEGITIMACY of the corporate sewage spewers themselves, thus generating wider visibility because of the wider audiences that these MSM talking heads get period probably.

    We thus IMPOSE A COST on their wide spread lies.

    We are not making them PAY for their lying.

    We are not making them pay for their censorship of the RFK Jr. Comment. We are pouring buckets of water on our best powder. We are remaining internet prisoners and the truth is dying.

×
×
  • Create New...