Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chuck Schwartz

Members
  • Posts

    360
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chuck Schwartz

  1. LHO said he was a patsy. He was right. And, he knew who set him up (DAP). He could point his finger at his handler(s). That is why he was killed before he could see an attorney.
  2. I listened to Coast to Coast last night (the first hour) and it went very well. I found it very informative. I especially appreciated the comments on John Newman's work on LHO's 201 file. If LHO was a lone nut, why is the CIA holding these documents hostage? Because LHO worked for intelligence agencies (CIA, ONI, etc.) And what documents have already been destroyed- probably all of the conclusive ones. But, I do believe your work, Jim, (and David L's work and B. Kelly's work and John Newman's work and Greg Parker's work, etc.) is very important and should proceed. Speaking of destroying evidence, it reminds me of the Godfather 2 movie- the scene where the young Corleone assassinates the Mafia (Black Hand as it was called back then) head (Fanninni) of Little Italy. What is the first thing the young assassin does- he destroys the gun he used to kill Fanninni. And that is probably what the real assassin(s) did after they killed JFK- they destroyed their rifle(s). The fake assassin (patsy) left his gun in the " assassin's nest" - so the police could come and get it- like they were told to do by the Mayor (Earle Cabell) who was told by his brother (Charles Cabell) where the "assassin's nest" was.
  3. Why did LHO, after , supposedly, killing the President of the United States and a Dallas Police Officer decide to take in a movie (and not pay for the movie ticket)? I think his CIA handler told him to go the Texas Theater and then the handler (probably DAP) told Dulles where the killer / patsy was located and to have the police arrest him. Working with Dulles was Charles Cabell (both Dulles and Cabell were both fired by JFK for the Bay of Pigs fiasco), whose brother, Earle Cabell , the then Mayor of Dallas. It was Earle who told the Dallas Chief of Police to go get the killer - he is in the theatre.
  4. I agree with you , Sandy. This (the Warren Commission) was Dulles' full time job as Dulles was fired by JFK and was officially unemployed at the time. Ford had a day job- he was an elected official from Michigan who was probably manipulated by Dulles. Dulles ran the Warren Commission- that was his full time job.
  5. I agree with you, Bill. And, I think what John Newman writes on the last page of his recent book, "Where Angels Tread Lightly" is relevant. He says " Phillips tells us what appears to be so is not so. Like the cat that swallowed the canary, Phillips then states flatly, "I know of no evidence that Fidel Castro, or the Soviets encouraged Oswald." And why would Phillips be in a position to make such a statement? "I should add," he says "that I was an observer of Cuban and Soviet reaction in Mexico City when Lee Harvey Oswald contacted the embassies." Newman goes to finish his book by saying " In other words, in the course of telling us about a big secret--that Dulles' operation appeared to give Castro a motive to kill JFK--Philips lets us in on a bigger "unpopular" secret: the big secret was false." Finally, Newman finishes his book by saying, " Getting Chief Justice Earl Warren to believe that it was true was one of the most successful deception operations in history." And, I might add, getting Gerald Ford to believe was a piece of cake.
  6. Here is an essay on JFK and Israel written by Jerome Chanes in 2013 when he was a fellow at the Graduate Center in City University of New York ... Fifty years after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Jews in America have little memory of JFK’s Jewish relationships. “JFK and the Jews” had little to do with the Jews, and everything to do with Israel. Looking back at his legacy, as the Nov. 22 anniversary nears, American Jews have good reasons, therefore, to mourn. The story of JFK and Israel begins with Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower: during the Eisenhower years there was no Israel-U.S. relationship. It was the coldest period in the history of the countries’ ties — and that includes the Carter presidency. Under Eisenhower, nothing of the full-blown alliance that Israel and the United States have enjoyed for decades — massive foreign aid, arms subsidies, security guarantees, coordination on regional strategy, political support, protective vetoes in the Security Council, positive rhetoric, congressional ardor, respect for the pro-Israel lobby — would develop. The exception, in terms of support for Israel, was congressional support — and Ike didn’t need Congress. The Eisenhower foreign policy (in fact crafted by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles) — “The New Look,” as it was called — was based on maximum deterrence of Communism. The idea of bolstering friendly conservative Arab states, part of the “Eisenhower Doctrine” of regional pacts to combat Communism, a Dulles favorite, did not include Israel. Further, Israel’s government was socialist, and it was not clear to anyone that Israel would not tilt in the Soviet direction. (Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in fact bucked his own socialist majority in the Knesset (63 seats out of 120) to align Israel with the West rather than remain “unaligned.”) And there was wariness about Israeli regional motives: Expansionism? Revanchism? Drive the Arabs out? Eisenhower’s problem was Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser more than it was Israel. Nasser recognized Mao’s China and accepted Soviet arms, a major “no-no” for a Republican administration that had to protect its right political flank. But Ike protected Nasser, not because he loved him, but because he wanted to advance “containment” of the Soviet Union. Said Middle East affairs analyst Steven Spiegel: “To Eisenhower, the Arabs offered assets — the Arab states were useful for ‘containment’ — while Israel constituted a liability to American interests.” Further, Ike was a Republican, and Jews had been very visible in the New Deal, and in any case voted Democrat. (Eisenhower’s famous memo to Dulles: “We conduct our policy as if there were not one Jew in the country. They don’t vote for us anyway.” Ike wasn’t wrong.) JFK in 1960 inherited a mess. He took over from the least sympathetic presidency in American history. The Middle East was a shambles: Britain was useless, Iraq was lost to the West, Egypt and Syria were in the Soviet orbit, conservative monarchs felt exposed and were nervous, Israel was jittery, there were threats of nuclear war — and Egypt and Israel were both in Washington’s bad graces. With respect to Israel, Kennedy turned it around. First, at bottom, he was not his father, Joseph Kennedy, around whom always wafted the odor of anti-Semitism. (My mom used to say about Joe Kennedy: “Anybody who was disliked by both the Zionists and the NAACP must have been doing something!”) Second, there was JFK’s brother, Bobby, one of Kennedy’s closest advisers, who had a true affinity for Israel, and who exercised a profound influence on JFK in Middle East affairs. The Kennedy brothers forged more than a relationship with Israel — they forged an alliance. Once again, it was the State Department, this time under Dean Rusk, which was the problem, a most formidable bureaucratic opponent of rapprochement with Israel, and the most enthusiastic bureaucratic advocate of Egypt. The Middle East issues during Kennedy’s brief administration, 1961-1963, were Nasser, Nasser and Nasser, whom Kennedy detested. Nasser did everyone a favor by getting involved in an absurd war in Yemen — Nasser’s “Vietnam” — which led to a regional war involving the Saudis, and which enabled the U.S. to move closer to an all-out alliance with Israel, an alliance that was marked (to take but one example) by the first major arms sale to Israel. Finally, and most important in shaping an administration stance on Israel, was a virtuosic analysis of Israeli policy done by the very able Walworth Barbour, Kennedy’s ambassador to Israel. Barbour concluded that Israel was not pursuing a revanchist policy with respect to the West Bank, whatever dreams they might harbor; that the only way there would be a West Bank problem that might trigger Israeli intervention — the West Bank was still part of Jordan in 1963 — would be the arrival of a Nasserite government in Jordan (there was no PLO in 1963); finally, there would be little the United States could do to prevent an Israeli strike if Israel felt that its existence was at stake. (This was in 1963, four years before the Six-Day War.) The Barbour analysis became the backbone of U.S. policy. While it is true that there were limits to JFK’s friendliness toward Israel — indeed, no U.S. weapons went to Israel in substantial numbers until the Johnson presidency; it was France that was the major supplier to Israel weapons before LBJ — the Kennedy/Barbour construct became the paradigm for U.S. policy. In sum, four features marked the stance of the Kennedy administration toward Israel: ♦ First, there was a completely new policy with respect to Israel, one that was poles apart from that of Eisenhower/Dulles. The policy had less to do with international geopolitical realities than with personal likes and dislikes, preferences and prejudices. ♦ Second, there were new, informal, decision-making structures in place, with protocols that did not rely on a hostile, “Arabist”-populated State Department. ♦ Third, no new Arab policy was put in place by JFK — other than the abomination of Nasser and the embrace of conservative Arab regimes. ♦ Finally, there was the continued inability to craft an approach toward settling the Arab-Israeli conflict. But John Kennedy did more than just reach out to Israel; he crafted the first Arab-Israel policy, which entailed a balancing of regional rivalries and American ambitions. It was in this that JFK created the foundations of a U.S.-Israel relationship, which we remember 50 years after his passing. Jerome A. Chanes is a fellow at the Center for Jewish Studies of the CUNY Graduate Center
  7. Did the Mayor of Dallas have to approve the route that JFK would take in Dallas?
  8. I don't think the JFK Assassination was about the Kennedy's vs. the Rockefeller's- I think it was about the CIA (Dulles/Cabell) and certain generals in the US Military vs. JFK.
  9. Jim, Cliff, the firing of A. Dulles and C. Cabell actually gave them the time and space to plan the assassination of JFK in minute detail. So, maybe it was a mistake to fire them- JFK perhaps should have kept them closer to him to keep tabs on them. What is that line in the "Godfather" -- keep your enemies close to you?
  10. When JFK fired A. Dulles for the Bay of Pigs, he also fired C. Cabell ( a General) for the Bay of Pigs. C. Cabell's brother, Earle Cabell was the Mayor of Dallas in 11/63. C. Cabell worked for A. Dulles for 9 yrs. in the CIA and they were tied at the hip on many topics. So, when JFK announced he was going to Dallas, C. Cabell had direct linkage to the Dallas Police (the chief of police reported to the Mayor). The fix was in. But, there was obvious reasons for keeping the plot within as close a loop as possible. I am not sure that McCloy was in that loop.
  11. I agree with David Josephs that the CIA(Intelligence) and the Military killed JFK. I think they did that because they believed in the Domino Theory - Communism had to be stopped in Vietnam. Here, I believe John Newman and his book " JFK and Vietnam" is quite convincing (at least it is to me). JFK would not allow the Military to escalate their war in Vietnam and that is why they killed him. Oswald was killed by Ruby because Oswald could point his finger at the CIA (DAP) during a trial. That is why LBJ said LHO could not go to trial and he was allowed to be murdered in a Dallas jail. Peter Dale Scott in his various essays has detailed how Ruby ran guns in Cuba with the Mafia (Trafficante) and the CIA (Frank Sturgis/ Fiorini and E. Howard Hunt). This was done in the '59-'60 timeframe. Ruby once corrected the Dallas Police during a Press conference after LHO was captured by the Dallas Police. There was reference to LHO's time with the Fair Play for Cuba and the reference was not exactly correct- Ruby made the correction right then and there. He was in on the conspiracy from the get-go.
  12. In the United States, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. LHO was never proven guilty in the court of law. Hence, LHO is presumed to be innocent, in the eyes of the law. The WC was run by Allen Dulles, who probably destroyed all the "Proof " that he (CIA)coordinated the assassination. Nobody will ever be convicted in the court of law for the murder of JFK.
  13. I don't think the question is whether the Manlicher Carcano could kill JFK and wound Connolly- I think it is whether LHO or any other shooter could have killed JFK and wound Connolly with this rifle from the 6th floor of the Texas book depositry bldg. This excerpt from a book by Michael T. Griffith appears to cast serious doubt that the Manlicher Carcano was the murder weapon: The WC's own rifle tests were very revealing: The commission hired three Master-rated riflemen to attempt to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. The three Master-rated shooters who participated in that test fired 18 rounds while using the scope and three rounds while using the iron sights. They used the alleged murder weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano that was traced to Lee Harvey Oswald. Tellingly, they missed the head and neck area of the target board silhouettes 18 out of 18 times when they used the scope, and 2 out of 3 times when they used the iron sights. In other words, they missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times. Several of their misses were far apart on the boards. Some of their shots missed the silhouettes entirely. It's revealing that they shot so poorly even though they were allowed to take as long as they wanted for the first shot, even though two of them took longer than 6 seconds to fire, even though they were only firing from 30 feet up, and even though they were shooting at stationary--yes, stationary--target boards. The three riflemen in the test were named Miller, Hendrix, and Staley. (Their first names were never given.) In the first series, Miller took 4.6 seconds to fire three shots, Staley took 6.75 seconds, and Hendrix took 8.25 seconds. In the next series, Miller took 5.15 seconds, Staley took 6.45 seconds, and Hendrix took 7 seconds. It bears repeating that Oswald would have had only one attempt, only one series. Oswald supposedly scored two hits out of three shots, yet Miller, Hendrix, and Staley—all Master-rated riflemen—missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times. The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository: I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: Impossible! I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that I could not have done it. (Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza, p. 5) Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock, Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. (Kill Zone, pp. 89-90) A Valid “Oswald” Rifle Test As mentioned, no rifle test has ever included all of the factors under which Oswald would have fired. What would, therefore, constitute a valid "Oswald" rifle test? What would a test need to include in order to qualify as a genuine simulation of Oswald's alleged shooting feat? Such a test would include the following conditions: * The riflemen cannot have scored above the level of "Sharpshooter" in the Marines (or in the Army). * The riflemen must have little target practice during the forty days prior to the test. * The riflemen must have been known to be somewhat uncoordinated while in the Marines (or in the Army). * The riflemen cannot have any "practice shots" on the day of the test. * The riflemen must use the alleged murder weapon itself, or another Carcano with a difficult bolt and an odd trigger pull. * If a different Carcano is used, it must be established, by expert shooters who fire the rifle just to see how fast it can be operated (with or without minimal accuracy), that the weapon cannot be fired faster than 2.3 seconds per shot. * The target silhouette must be mounted on a car. * The car carrying the target must be the same size and shape as Kennedy's limousine. * There must be a tree that is the same size as the oak tree in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and that is in the same position in relation to the window and the road on which the target car is moving. * The riflemen must fire from a window that is open by no more than 15 inches. * The window from which the riflemen shoot must have two pipes to its left on the inside. These pipes must be positioned so that they inhibit the riflemen from firing markedly to their right. To get an idea of the degree to which the pipes would have inhibited a sharply rightward shot, see Jim Marrs, Crossfire, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1989, seventh photo page, and Robert Groden, The Killing of a President, New York: Viking Studio Books, 1993, p. 125; cf. Harrison Livingstone, Killing the Truth, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1993, second page of second photo set.) * The riflemen must fire from an elevation of 60 feet. * The riflemen must score at least two hits out of three shots in less than 6 seconds on their first attempt. * If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, then they must so misaim their first shot that they completely miss the target car. * If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, not only must they completely miss the target car with their initial shot, but they must also score at least two hits out of their next two shots on their first attempt. * If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, they cannot deliberately miss the entire target car with their first shot (or with any shot, for that matter), but must miss the whole car without trying to do so. * The target car must travel the same speeds that the limousine was traveling, and at the appropriate points, from frames 140-313 of the Zapruder film. No "Oswald" rifle test has ever included all of these conditions. On this basis alone it can be said that no rifleman, no matter how skilled, has ever duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat. The conditions listed above are entirely factual and will not be disputed by anyone familiar with the assassination. Personally, I would add the following two factors, which, though supported by good evidence, are disputed by lone-gunman theorists: * The riflemen must have a shield of boxes behind them that allows them no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel and fire. (Photos of the supposed sniper's nest show that a gunman would have had no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel.) * The riflemen must fire two of their shots in no more than 1.5 seconds. (Numerous witnesses, from all over the plaza, said that two of the shots came so closely together that they were almost simultaneous. Some witnesses even said they sounded like a single burst from an automatic rifle.) In closing, I quote from an internal Warren Commission memo that was written by Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler. Liebeler was commenting on the various rifle tests that were done for the Commission, on the marksmen who took part in them, and on the way in which those tests were being cited as "evidence" that Oswald could have done the shooting: The fact is that most of the experts were much more proficient with a rifle than Oswald could ever be expected to be, and the record indicates that fact. . . . To put it bluntly, that sort of selection from the record could seriously affect the integrity and credibility of the entire report. . . . [These] conclusions will never be accepted by critical persons anyway. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Sheridan Square Press, 1992, p. 106; 11 HSCA 231-232) ***************************************************** ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Graduate Certificate in Ancient and Classical History from American Military University, a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force. He also holds an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a graduate in Arabic and Hebrew of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. In addition, he has completed Advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts, including How Firm A Foundation, A Ready Reply, and One Lord, One Faith. He is also the author of a book on the JFK assassination titled Compelling Evidence (JFK Lancer, 1996).
  14. David Von Pein, if , by the "C2766 rifle", you mean the Italian Manlicher-Carcano rifle, most of what I have read says that the Manlicher - Carcano rifle would not allow even some of the best snipers/marksman to kill JFK and wound Connolly.
  15. JFK was a friend of Israel, per this speech: Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, NY August 26, 1960 1960 Presidential Election Campaign 1960 Campaign:<br>Senator Kennedy<br>Aug. 1 - Nov. 7 1960 Campaign: Senator Kennedy Aug. 1 - Nov. 7 Font Size: smallmediumlargemaximum Print More Sharing Services Share Share on facebook Share on myspace Share on google Share on twitter Share on favorites The American Presidency Project Promote Your Page Too Prophecy is a Jewish tradition, and the World Zionist movement, in which all of you have played so important a role, has continued this tradition. It has turned the dreams of its leaders into acts of statesmanship. It has converted the hopes of the Jewish people into concrete facts of life. When the first Zionist conference met in 1897, Palestine was a neglected wasteland. A few scattered Jewish colonies had resettled there, but they had come to die in the Holy Land, rather than to make it live again in greatness. Most of the governments of the world were indifferent. But now all is changed. Israel became a triumphant and enduring reality exactly 50 years after Theodore Herzl, the prophet of Zionism, had proclaimed the ideal of nationhood. It was the classic case of an ancient dream finding a young leader, for Herzl was then only 37 years of age. Perhaps I may be allowed the observation that the Jewish people - ever since David slew Goliath - have never considered youth as a barrier to leadership, or measured experience and maturity by mere length of days. I first saw Palestine in 1939. There the neglect and ruin left by centuries of Ottoman misrule were slowly being transformed by miracles of labor and sacrifice. But Palestine was still a land of promise in 1939, rather than a land of fulfillment. I returned in 1951 to see the grandeur of Israel. In 3 years this new state had opened its doors to 600,000 immigrants and refugees. Even while fighting for its own survival, Israel had given new hope to the persecuted and new dignity to the pattern of Jewish life. I left with the conviction that the United Nations may have conferred on Israel the credentials of nationhood; but its own idealism and courage, its own sacrifice and generosity, had earned the credentials of immortality. Some do not agree. Three weeks ago I said in a public statement: "Israel is here to stay." The next day I was attacked by Cairo radio, rebuking me for my faith in Israel, and quoting this criticism from the Arabic newspaper Al-Gomhouria: As for the question of the existence and the nonexistence of Israel, Mr. Kennedy says that Israel has been created in order to exist. Time will judge between us, Mr. Kennedy. I agree. Time will judge whether Israel will continue to exist. But I wish I could be as sure of all my prophecies as I am of my flat prediction that Israel is here to stay. For Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom; and no area of the world has ever had an overabundance of democracy and freedom. It is worth remembering, too, that Israel is a cause that stands beyond the ordinary changes and chances of American public life. In our pluralistic society, it has not been a Jewish cause - any more than Irish independence was solely the concern of Americans of Irish descent. The ideals of Zionism have, in the last half century, been repeatedly endorsed by Presidents and Members of Congress from both parties. Friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment. Yet within this tradition of friendship there is a special obligation on the Democratic Party. It was President Woodrow Wilson who forecast with prophetic wisdom the creation of a Jewish homeland. It was President Franklin Roosevelt who kept alive the hopes of Jewish redemption during the Nazi terror. It was President Harry Truman who first recognized the new State of Israel and gave it status in world affairs. And may I add that it would be my hope and my pledge to continue this Democratic tradition - and to be worthy of it. What is needed now is leadership - impartial but firm, deliberate but bold - leadership instead of rhetoric. There has been enough rhetoric in recent years about free transit through the Suez Canal - but there has been no leadership. Our policy in Washington and in the United Nations has permitted defiance of our pledge with impunity - indeed, with economic reward. If America's word in the world community is to have meaning - if the mutual security amendment which I cosponsored with Senator Douglas is to have meaning - and if the clear, thoughtful language of the Democratic platform is to have meaning - the influence of this Nation and other maritime powers must be brought to bear on a just solution that removes all discrimination at the Suez Canal for all times. And the White House must take the lead. We have also had much rhetoric in recent years about opposing an arms race and a solution by force in the Middle East. The rhetoric has not only been empty and negative. Even more fundamental is the premise that if the United States and the United Nations are to reject a solution based on force, then they must accept the task of finding a solution based on reason and justice. We can no longer shun this task by pleading that the problem is too difficult. The danger is already acute from delay. Russia's position is more entrenched. The Arab States are more divided and restless. The influence of the Western nations has steadily diminished. When I talked with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion on his most recent visit to this country, he told me of dangerous signs of unrest beneath the deceptive quiet that has fallen over the Middle East. For there is no peace in that region today - only an embittered truce between renewed alarms. American intervention, on the other hand, will not now be easy for the record is not one to which we can point with pride: The humble plea by the George Allen mission to Cairo, to urge Egyptian reconsideration of their acceptance of Soviet arms; The series of incredible American blunders which led to the Suez crisis of 1956, events in which the role of our Government has never been fully explained; The so-called Eisenhower doctrine, now repudiated by some of the very nations which accepted our aid, and the cause even at that time of widespread antagonism from Middle Eastern leaders who felt we were cynically trying to use them for our own cold war ends; And, in general, a deterioration in our relations with all Middle Eastern nations, primarily because neither Israel nor the Arabs knew exactly what to expect from us. At times it must have appeared to many in the area that the shortest route to Washington was through Moscow. At times it must have appeared that champions of democracy and freedom were being punished for their virtues, by being taken for granted by a neglectful administration that suddenly showed concern only when it was displeased by their conduct. Peace in the Middle East is not one step nearer reality today than it was 8 years ago - but Russian influence is immeasurably greater. What can a new President do? More weakness and timidity will not do. More stubborn errors redeemed at the last moment by impulsive action - will not do. Now we must take the risk of leadership, and use our influence to compose this ugly situation before it breaks out in a new threat to peace. And I know we will not be alone in searching for a peaceful settlement - if our aims are high, and if they are centered solely on the genuine needs of the Middle East, and on an honorable end to these ancient quarrels. First: I propose that the new President reaffirm our sincere friendship for all the peoples of the Middle East, whatever their religion or race or politics. Second: I propose that we make it crystal clear that the United States means what it said in the tripartite declaration of 1950 - that we will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab States our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation. And to complete the effectiveness of this guarantee, I propose that we invite all like-minded nations to join with us in signing, registering, and depositing this declaration with the United Nations. At present the tripartite declaration is too uncertain of execution and effect to be a useful shield for peace. With countries so close to one another in a sensitive tension-ridden area, a delay of only a few days in international reaction to aggression might well be fatal to a nation's freedom and indeed the peace of the entire world. Once the nations of the Middle East have a firm and precise guarantee, the need for continuing the arms race will disappear, the easing of tensions inevitably will follow, and both sides will be able to devote their energies and talents to peaceful pursuits. Third: I propose that all the authority and prestige of the White House be used to call into conference the leaders of Israel and the Arab States to consider privately their common problems, assuring them that we support in full their aspirations for peace, unity, independence, and a better life - and that we are prepared to back up this moral support with economic and technical assistance. The offer would be made with equal frankness to both sides; and all the world would be watching the response of each side. I sincerely believe that an American presidential initiative for peace, honestly intended and resolutely pursued, would not be lightly rejected by either side. And I promise to waste no time in taking this initiative. For I have always believed that there is no real conflict or contradiction between the genuine aspirations of the Arab nations and the genuine aspirations of Israel. The Arab peoples rose to freedom and independence in the very years which saw the rise of Israel. From the cooperation of these two awakened nationalisms could come a new golden age for the Middle East. But from their destructive vendetta can come nothing but misery and poverty and the risk of war. The Middle East needs water, not war; tractors, not tanks; bread, not bombs. There is already little enough available in the way of financial and physical resources for either side to be devoting its energies to huge defense budgets. The present state of tensions serves only the worst interests of Arab and Israeli alike. But a new spirit of comity could well serve the highest ideals of both. For the original Zionist philosophy has always maintained that the people of Israel would use their national genius not for selfish purposes but for the enrichment and glory of the entire Middle East. The earliest leaders of the Zionist movement spoke of a Jewish state which would have no military power and which would be content with victories of the spirit. The compulsions of a harsh and inescapable necessity have compelled Israel to abandon this hope. But I cannot believe that Israel has any real desire to remain indefinitely a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate. And I cannot believe that the Arab world would not find a better basis for unity in a united attack on all their accumulated social problems - an attack in which they could benefit immensely from a closer cooperation with the people of Israel. The technical skills and genius of Israel have already brought their blessings to Burma and to Ethiopia. Still other nations in Asia and in Africa are eager to benefit from the special skills available in that bustling land. Why should the Middle East alone be cut off from this partnership? And why should not the people of Israel receive the blessings available to them from association with the Arab world? When we think of the possibilities of this association, an emotion of soaring hope replaces our somber anxieties about the Middle East. Ancient rivers would give their power to new industries. The desert would yield to civilization. Disease would be eradicated, especially the disease that strikes down helpless children. The blight of poverty would be replaced by the blessings of abundance. But it is a long and painful step from the era of the boycott to the era of partnership - and that step needs the direct encouragement and help of the White House. The next President of the United States should always be personally available to stimulate every experiment in cooperation, from the joint development of a river, to a reconsideration of the Arab refugee problem, to the crowning mercy of the final reconciliation that can be brought only by a true peace settlement. Peace is our primary objective in the Middle East - and peace is partly our responsibility. "Seek peace, and pursue it" commands the psalmist. And that we must do. With open minds, open hearts, and the priceless asset of our American heritage, we shall seek peace in the Middle East, as elsewhere. And when history writes its verdict, let it be said that we pursued the peace with all the courage, all the strength, and all the resourcefulness at our command. In this task, I ask for your assistance, your patience, your wisdom, and your support - until we can say to Jew and Arab alike "Peace be within thy walls and plenteousness within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions' sake, I will wish thee prosperity." Citation: John F. Kennedy: "Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, NY," August 26, 1960. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=74217. Home Contact © 1999-2015 - Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley - The American Presidency Project Locations of visitors to this page
  16. Steve, very good post. Very informative. Very minor footnote - Charles and Earle Cabell's grandfather, William Cabell, was a General in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. Anyway, with Earle C. (who was the mayor of Dallas in '63 /'64) managing the Dallas Police and DAP handling LHO, Dulles 's cover up action plan was very streamlined. On a personal note, my Dad was in the Pacific theatre during WW2 (fought in Iwo Jimo, Guadacanal, Solomon Islands and occupied Japan in '46)- I found your comment on MacArthur not letting the OSS in the Pacific theatre interesting.
  17. #'2 and # 5 in your list are wrong and reveal more about you than anything else.
  18. To me, the book, " JFK and Vietnam" by J. Newman goes a long way in connecting the murder of President Kennedy and the escalation of the Vietnam war. I find his book very compelling.
  19. Under Johnson, the Vietnam war was escalated, while Kennedy had said he would de-escalate the war. And, many important people in the military believed Kennedy . Hence, the death of JFK occurred before action could be taken to de-escalate the war in Vietnam. There were many people who felt we had to stop communism in Vietnam or the rest of Asia would go Communist (the domino theory). That is what caused the urgency in the believers in the domino theory.
  20. Atta took part (and coordinated) in the murder of over 2000 Americans. LHO did not murder anyone- he was set to take the fall for the real murderers.
  21. If you can see the memo below, (I found it on www.rense.com- I found the search button and typed in cia oni Oswald and found this memo), it will shed some light on the Oswald /CIA / ONI issue. It is from McCone dtd. 3/3/64 saying Oswald was trained by the CIA under the cover of the ONI (see paragraph 4)
  22. Perhaps LHO was in Russia to spread misinformation.....He did not know enough to hurt the USA, but enough to lead Russia down a false path or 2. LHO did spend time on a US base in Japan that some link to the U2 program...
×
×
  • Create New...