James DiEugenio

I agree. And the thing is, he could have hired a team of researchers in order to get the details straight. And he still would have made a sack of cash anyway.

A guy named Randall Colburn got in contact with me about a month or so ago. He saw my review of the mini series 11/22/63 based on King's book. We did the interview and he placed it on Patreon where I guess it did pretty well. He finally gave me a copy today. Here it is, he was a very fair moderator. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-losers-club-a-stephen-king-podcast/id1194913358?i=1000639782587

I don't think I wrote that chapter VInce.

TP: Unfortunately, this was very predictable. Anytime anyone who supported aspects of the "Oswald-did-it" mindset passes on, we see this here at EF. Not true. Two examples being Jennings and Bradlee. Jennings produced and hosted a horrendous special in 2003 of which Hugh was a guest on. That show reached more people in one night than Hugh probably reached in in his career. I don't recall this happening here when Jennings died. Same with Bradlee. Ben supported the official story his entire career at the Post. I don't recall this kind of reaction to his death. I might be wrong, but please prove it to me. It was not his support of the Commission that made Hugh so objectionable. It was the things he did to support it that were reprehensible. Even people in the profession, as Bill Davy pointed out, had qualms about some of the thing he did in New Orleans. But this malignancy began way before Garrison. Hugh insisted that he review new books on the JFK case for the DMN critical of the Commission. And the editors allowed him to do it. What? Take a look at the caper he pulled with the Oswald diary. You have no objection of what he and Alexander did with that? He actually warned the Commission in public to come up with an Oswald did it verdict, portraying Oswald as a murderous psycho, or else. You have no objection to that? Did Hugh convince Marina to tell the Nixon story in order to further the murderer profile, a pile of baloney which not even the Commission believed? Looks that way. In his role as an FBI informant, Hugh began informing about the Life magazine inquiry into the case. He also told the FBI that Mark Lane was a homosexual and had to drop his political career over this issue. But, like the fink he was, he did not want the FBI to reveal he was the source for this information. I could go on and on, and I will in my obit, but anyone who can say that somehow Hugh should be out of bounds for criticism, that person does not know what this guy did, or he condones it. And I do not know what is worse.

BTW, Rick Sterling was just on Sabrina Salvati's video TV podcast, because the hostess wanted to talk about his JFK article. She then cut to a short segment with Oliver Stone. Maybe this is getting through?

To read that list posted by Joe, I mean Hugh was so full of it I mean: Hughes and the King case? In hi sown mind he should have won about six Pulitzers, right? In reality, Hugh was a hack journalist who worked with both the FBI and CIA on the JFK case. His biggest selling book was appropriately about serial killer Ted Bundy. He had the ethics of a Tammany Hall politician. Only in Dallas, could such a presstitute have an award named after him.

Aynesworth was expert at that. Injecting himself directly into the facts of the case and spinning them. Which is what a journalist should not do. He also tried to bribe one of the Clinton/Jackson witnesses.

Hugh Aynesworth was probably the worst journalist in America on the JFK case. Because he was so well connected he had a wide and long lasting influence on the case. By that I mean from the inception, that is in the aftermath of the assassination, all the way to when Oliver Stone's film was released, a span of three decades. From the start, and he admitted it, he took his function as upholding the lone assassin theory as advanced by the Dallas Police and Henry Wade. And it did not matter how he did it. I will be preparing a none too flattering obituary about this direct example of how a fruitcake was allowed to essentially run wild over the media about JFK for 30 years.

It means burn in Hades.

This is one of the things we tried to put forth in the long version of the film. I am very glad we did so, since I think its the first time anyone did that in a widely broadcast JFK documentary. As Roger Hilsman said, there were certain policies in place in 1963 that were really Kennedy's. Because, in fact, he was really his own Secretary of State. In his book To Move a Nation, he says that Sukarno and Indonesia was one of them. Once Kennedy was gone, Johnson made quick work of the USA support for Sukarno. Brad Simpson, who wrote a good book on this, Economists with Guns, told Oliver that if Kennedy had lived, Suharto would not have been able to do what he did in Indonesia. PS But Ben, I have never seen that figure so high on deaths in Indonesia. The highest I have seen is about 750 K- to one million. What is your source for that 3 M?

It has been noted by many respectable scholars that LBJ broke with Kennedy in many foreign policy areas. Donald Gibson wrote about the break in the Dominican Republic with Juan Bosch. Greg Poulgrain and Brad Simpson have written about how Johnson switched policies towards Sukarno and Indonesia. John Newman, Peter Scott, and Fletcher Prouty proved that Johnson altered JFK's policy in Vietnam. James Bill and Robert Rakove and others, have shown how Johnson changed policies in the Middle East. NIxon and Kissinger kept those policies in place. And this was the beginning of the erasure of the Kennedy/Roosevelt view of foreign policy from the record books. In my speech in Pittsburgh, I then noted that the official beginning of the onslaught of the Neocons was the Halloween Massacre, appropriately held under Warren Commission cover up artist, Gerald Ford, with Cheney and Rumsfeld doing the handiwork. That was the official burial of JFK's ideas.

What JFK did and was trying to in the Middle East was pretty much unprecedented. If anyone can show me where I am wrong, especially in regards to Nasser and Egypt, please do. And I agree with Dreyfuss, that was probably the last time you could have had an overall settlement. We expect a lot of stupid and irresponsible stuff from the GOP, especially since the Neocons took over their foreign policy. I don't think we should do the same for the Democrats. But like I said above, Kennedy's policy is down the memory hole. I will says this though, an article by RIck Sterling, who reads my stuff, is starting to circulate around, two people sent it to me. It started on Mintpress, and went to LA Progressive. He is saying pretty much what I have above. That JFK's policy was very different in the area and has been lost. So maybe I have not wasted the last ten years of my life on this subject.

Well, if you recall, it folded fast and Kristol did a disappearing act on it when the Iraq adventure turned into a debacle. Which turned into direct intervention for no real reason at all. Kennedy's approach was not anything like that.

William: I was not tracing the whole history of the Neocon movement. I did discuss the PNAC and Bill Kristol at the Wecht Conference. And I did mention in the article the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. At the Wecht Conference, I did describe things that those five fruitcakes did and I did mention Wolfowitz and Iraq. But this was not the point of this current piece. It always bothers me when people twist around and object to what is written because they want something in there that they want to write. My main point here was how JFK looked at the Middle East, Nasser, Palestine, and the Right of Return. Because this is all topical right now. But its been forgotten. And I mean to say its down the memory hole does not do justice what happened to JFK's policies in the Middle East.

Thanks Paul. My point about Nasser is that he idolized Kennedy so much and admired him for his right of return for the Palestinians, that I think in a second term, he could have been dealt with on the issue. And unlike with Sadat, I think Kennedy and Nasser would have insisted on an overall peace settlement including the Palestinian problem. There is so much propaganda out there about Nasser, and I mean from all sides. The Saudis hated him since he was a socialist, and the Israelis feared him so much they told Kennedy he could cause another Nazi Holocaust. I don't see him that way. I tend to see him as Kennedy saw him, a pan Arab socialist, secularist who could lead the Middle East out of the grip of Islamic Fundamentalism. The Saudis had a lost to lose if that happened.

I just posted this last night at my substack and its getting a nice response. I think its because, like most of Kennedy's policies, very few people know what his Middle East policy really was. The letters Monica Wiesak uncovered from when JFK was in Palestine are really something. They explain Kennedy's backing of the right of return for the Palestinians. One of the comments I got is that people do not understand how far to the right the Democratic Party has gone. I agree and that is one thing I am trying to show. The other thing is that the JFK case is not a subject for a museum. If you know what Kennedy was trying to do and how much he opposed Foster Dulles, it impacts today's headlines. In other words, it lives. https://jamesanthonydieugenio.substack.com/p/gaza-and-jfk

Thanks Ben for naming me in that roster of luminaries. Funny, neither of the Gallghers was invited to speak at the Wecht Conference. You and I did.

Uh oh, apparently Counterpunch did not like me smacking them. Read this rant and weep. Buzzanco never got over his debate with me. But I think really, he never got over nutty Noam. Am i hallucinating: are they actually blaming Kennedy for Gaza? The worst thing about a pile of junk like this is I have to reply to it. Sickening. https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/12/22/jfk-60-years-of-myths-lies-and-disinformation/

Kirk's rant is not accurate, (nothing new, remember Brazil?). But I have to look at his stuff when someone else posts it. It was the Gallagher brothers who first started attacking the thread on political grounds--MAGA, the insurrection. Which had nothing to do with why Cory--Cory, not Ben-- posted it in the first place. This forced Ben to defend himself on those political grounds. They have been after Ben on political grounds because of his defense of RFK Jr. And this is a continuation of that political attack. But recall, Ben was not even the guy who started the thread. Cory was and he and Ben were just trying to point out that someone in Washington in high office indicated he was in favor of a conspiracy verdict in the JFK case. So when Kirk says "Get off it!" I wish the Gallagher brothers would get off it. They see themselves as policemen as to what is politically correct on the JFK case. Here they jump out of their car and deliver a pummeling. It would be one thing if they knew the case exceedingly well and could exercise this presumed authority with some justification. They don't. So they resort to these kinds of tactics. I mean please.

Its really startling to me how no one either knows or mentions how JFK started affirmative action. Because the GOP spent 60 years in their campaign to neutralize it. With the help of three Trump Supreme Court justices, they did.

So I counterpunch them back. I mean these guys are like sitting ducks to anyone who knows anything. Silly stuff about civil rights, Vietnam and the economy. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/counterpunch-is-at-it-again

Why did you pick out those days?

William, That is pure speculation on your part. The guy quoted two good books as his reasons for thinking what he does. Carlson says he had a source within the CIA. Robert Kennedy Jr. came to his conclusions through the efforts of Paul Schrade. Al Gore cam to his conclusion thorough the aid of Bud Fensterwald. I don't know how Putin came to his. The more this message gets out there the better. And I think its partly due to the work of Landis, Rob Reiner, and Paramount Plus which is now carrying both What the Doctors Saw and JFK Revisited. Plus Libby Handros, who is on Black Op Radio tonight about her documentary Four Died Trying. Which has gotten surprisingly little notice on this forum.

Welcome, and I hope it sells out. Its the only thing out there of its kind.

William: Please, this site is not about the Insurrection. Its about the JFK case. Sandy restored the original thread because that is how Cory meant it to be taken before it was hijacked. You said Johnson was a clown and you illustrated it. Fine, anything further is simply another hijack. I should add, I think the Insurrection was an attempt to overthrow the electoral process also. I take a back seat to nobody on that. In fact, I am working on a long two parter on the. subject on my substack site. But I also value this JFK forum as the best of its type there is. When people are allowed to break rules or inject their own personal and political agendas, that devalues the forum. If you want to see what happens when you do that go over to Duncan McRae's forum. That is simply one big mud wrestling swamp, one that has little or no forensic value and is simply not worth navigating. This forum is and I would like to keep it that way..