James DiEugenio

WN: IMO, I do not think that it is proper today to say that NSAM 273 reversed NSAM 263. I think that is an overstatement. It significantly altered it, but did not reverse it. I think its more proper to say that NSAM 288 reversed NSAM 263. That was in March of 1964. That was the one that really previewed full scale American involvement. The alteration of the draft, and John Newman's examples of it, were LBJ's changes to what Bundy had put together in Hawaii. John actually has those in his files. The most significant one is the change LBJ made in the patrol missions being able to use direct American involvement, since Saigon had no navy. That is what made the OPLAN 34/DeSoto missions possible. And that led to the Tonkin Gulf Incident. Tonkin essentially activated NSAM 288. In the first interview, HIlsman talks about the big difference between Kennedy and LBJ on the war. How Kennedy did not see any point in direct American involvement especailly the bombing of the north. But I think people see here that Hilsman seems to think that the USA could win a guerrilla war. The evidence says that JFK did not think that. He wanted to pull everything out.

Paul Rigby added this interview with Hilsman done for the LBJ Library over at DPF. https://www.adst.org/OH TOCs/Hilsman, Roger.toc.pdf There are two bombshells in this one that I have never seen, and I have spent the last five years studying JFK's foreign policy. 1. On page 7, he says Bobby Kennedy wanted to negotiate out of Vietnam in 1963. 2. JFK was thinking of recognizing Red China in 1961. And he sent Hilsman to do a speech on this subject in 1963, keying the speech around one of the many stupid things Foster Dulles had said, that communism was only a passing fancy in China. Remember all that crapola by Nixon about China? Only he could go there because of his rightwing credentials? The more you compare JFK with Nixon, the more of the primitive and stupid Cold Warrior RMN looks. Thanks to Paul Rigby for these gems.

Hallin based his book on coverage of the Vietnam War from about 1965-70. Back then the media concentration was not nearly that bad. It was under Reagan and then Clinton that the monopolization really accelerated like a freight train. Bundy, McNamara, and Taylor eventually came out of the closet on this issue of LBJ vs JFK on Vietnam. McNamara in his book, Taylor later on in an interview said the same. Bundy was cooperating with Gordon Goldstein on a book that was published posthumously. In that book, Lessons in Disaster, he said the same, that JFK was not going into Vietnam. But I must add, in an unrelated book, I found evidence that McGeorge Bundy and his brother Bill were secretly supplying info to HHH during the 1968 election to get him to come out against the war.

David Giglio found this interview. This was in 1983, ten years before John Newman's milestone book JFK and Vietnam was published. https://kennedysandking.com/videos-and-interviews/clete-roberts-interviews-roger-hilsman-on-vietnam-1983 Its kind of odd that this thesis created the uproar that it did. Today I chalk it up to the laziness and sloth of both the media and academia. Also to Hallin's spheres. If you do not know what that is, you should: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin's_spheres. Part of that is because its clear now that LBJ tried to cover up the fact that he was breaking with Kennedy's withdrawal policy. In all honesty, I have to admit though i was unaware of this until about 1990-91, when I started my first book. Even though, as with many things, it was Jim Garrison who first put this thesis forth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin's_spheres

Howard says he gave this to the FBI-- and it disappeared? To the point that no one ever mentioned it? Oswald drew a dagger through Connally's name and then added little blood drops? I do not even think Connally was Secretary of the Navy when Oswald's discharge was lowered to undesirable, was he?

I never heard of this until today? Sounds really off the wall to me. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-assassination-target-20161122-story.html

I agree. As a recent book by Lance DeHaven Smith pointed out, the term began to proliferate in 1967 when criticism of the Warren Report was approaching fever pitch. It was clearly a way to denigrate the critics at that time. https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/dehaven-smith-lance-conspiracy-theory-in-america When, in fact, there was nothing more of a theory than the WR.

I would like to ask, since I started this thread: What does an early back wound on something called the AMIPA film have to do with Oswald switching the ring from one had to the other between poses for the BYP?

I will ask again, since, like with my "Where's the exit?" question, no one has answered this query. Why would Oswald switch the ring from one hand to the other between poses?

The thing is, like I wrote, Cockburn once did a pretty decent article on the RFK case with Betsy Langman who worked with Bill Turner on that case. To my knowledge, he never reversed field on that until the film JFK came out. Then, suddenly he says RFK turned his head! I mean please! But this is where the sanctimonious left meets the rightwing oriented MSM. And for what end?

As people know, I am not a fan of Waldron and Hartmann, but in their book they say it was Specter who did the dirty work with O'Donnell.

I did not say that. John said it to me. He was originally going to reply at K and K. But he ended up thinking so little of it, he did not. Too busy working of his five volume set.

He thinks its bunk. Muckrock is a very weird site that spends an inordinate amount of time going after people like us. And then asking for money for declassification process.

More insight into Counter punch and Cockburn in this Doug Valentine article we just attached as an addendum. Cockburn's motto was, "Never apologize, never explain." Especially when you can't explain. http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/6803

So it is true. Why on earth would he switch the ring between poses?

BTW, Jackie was at King's funeral also. There is a memorable profile photo of both of the widows in black. I talk about it in my review of King in the Wilderness.

This is two people who have brought this up, one recently and Pat Speer a long time ago. http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1827-the-backyard-photos-ring-transposition?_branch_match_id=558976582268293812 First, is it true? Second, why would LHO switch fingers for his ring while posing?

Power hungry? I am sure we all know that Jackie Kennedy did not want RFK to run in 1968. Like Cassandra, she had a premonition of what would happen.

The part where he describes the train ride from NYC to Arlington is touching. People from Resurrection City came over to pay their respects. BTW, when RFK was killed, both Jackie Kennedy and Coretta King flew to LA from back east. (Jackie might have been in London) They wanted to be on the plane that brought his body back. Coretta had to be there. Because RFK paid for the plane that took King's body from Memphis to Atlanta. He then paid for the hotel rooms for the dignitaries who flew in for the funeral. But to me that is not even the real test of how great he was. The real indication is this. We all know the great speech he made the night King died. How that speech stopped Indianapolis from going up in smoke like a hundred cities did that night. That was in the inner city and the police did not want him to go, but he did without protection. Well after he made the arrangements for the King funeral, he remembered that he had told the organizers of the rally that he would talk to them after. This was set before the news about King's murder. Even after the tumult surrounding King's murder, at two in the morning, RFK kept his word and went back to the site and met with those kids!!

What I was a trying to say was pretty simple, but with Kirk it gets lost. The goal of the radical right, which I consider the Kochs to be a part of, has always been to bankrupt the government so that there can be no funds to do some of the good things that the government is capable of doing. For example, the national highway system, which was actually finished under Eisenhower. Another example would be federal aid to higher education and also secondary education. As I have said, when I went to college, I never saw a tuition bill. Today, its a disgrace what happens to a college graduate, I mean he is usually a hundred K in debt once he gets out. This has extended downward through the proliferation of what the GOP calls "unfunded entitlements". This was another way of the radical right to bankrupt all forms of government by passing on formerly federal government programs to the states, but not including the funding basis for them. What that did was bankrupt the states also. Grover Norquist has a weekly meeting in Washington of all segments of the power structure of the GOP, including the Koch apparatus and the media. This stuff does not happen by accident. Its all done as a product of networking. And they have achieved many of their goals. Kirk, It does not matter who makes you say ouch the loudest. Its the fact that you are saying ouch. What the Bush presidency did was it achieved one of the Koch aims--it bankrupted the government. To the point that nothing positive of consequence can come of it. But a lot of negative can, like further privatization. W. N. understood that point. He is a bright guy. BTW, I got Democracy in Chains today.

Its really something how these columns I do on people like Cockburn and Chomsky do not apparently interest a lot of people here, but they get passed around on Facebook a lot. I mean 476 times in one day. But alas, here we have Monroe, Hoffa, and the box from 1963.

I am not so sure about that. I think a big problem is the media. If the media was not so far right, I think the Dems would not be so hawkish on perpetual war. But what I was speaking about here, was the uses of history. The MSM tries to say, as they did in that horrendous mins dries by CNN, well nothing to see there, and in this instance, same thing with Cockburn and his acolytes, Silverstein and St Clair.

Counterpunch is usually a decent magazine, but on the subject of the JFK and RFK cases and careers, they are as worthless as the MSM. This is the third piece I have had to pen in about 8 months to correct the malarkey they have printed. I think this is the residue left over from the Alex Cockburn influence there. Its amazing how left meets right on this issue. That is how dangerous the Kennedys were to the system. As long as they keep shoveling the crap, I have to keep on disinfecting it. So here we go again: https://kennedysandking.com/articles/ken-silverstein-and-jeffrey-st-clair-get-counterpunched

Well, you are up to 45 reviews and all are five star. I tried to post one but it has not gone through yet. How do you know Larry Fitzgerald? Do you live in Phoenix?

Paul: Where are your priorities? We have people posting stuff about Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Hoffa, plus--drum build up please-- someone just got "the box from 1963", whatever the heck that means. And you want to talk about the only member of the Kennedy family to ever write a book concerning the murders of his father and his uncle? And the guy happens to be an accomplished attorney, who just helped defeat Monsanto for 290 million? That's the real world.