JFK's American University Speech

[Kevin Balch]

If JFK was assassinated by the Military Industrial Complex to prevent JFK from losing nuclear superiority to the Soviets, they went through a lot of trouble for nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race#/media/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

This is true for many of the supposed reasons for the JFK assassination. Hoffa still went to jail. They got their war in Vietnam only to have it mismanaged by the ones who pushed for it. The Test Ban Treaty was not rescinded nor was the Hot Line disconnected.

Castro outlived most of them. And Israel got its nukes. LBJ became president.

Edited Saturday at 01:51 PM by Kevin Balch

[Robert Morrow]

On 8/2/2024 at 9:49 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

JFK was an incredibly intelligent individual, and a remarkable speaker. 

But remember, he is also the man who wrote the book, "Why England Slept," and personally served in WWII in the Pacific against a monstrous illiberal imperialist power. 

JFK authorized the BoP op, and put 15,000 troops into South Vietnam. When there was a chance to take down bad guys at a low cost, JFK was for it. 

In this speech, given in late 1962 regarding Cuba, JFK essentially promises to overthrow Castro and establish democracy in Cuba: 

"I want to express my great appreciation to the brigade for making the United States the custodian of this flag. I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana."

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-miami-the-presentation-the-flag-the-cuban-invasion-brigade

The entire speech could be considered inflammatory.

(BTW, I sometimes wonder if the above promise played a role in the JFKA, heightening a sense of betrayal in the Cuban exile community.) 

JFK, and RFK, were both ardent supporters of Israel.

I agree that JFK would never have become mired down in Vietnam, and he sought exit ramps in Cuba, not nuclear war. Like any sensible statesman, he knew that discretion is the better part of valor. 

But that does not mean JFK would have appeased or pandered to Mideast despots, Russian thugs or Beijing bureaucrats.  

My take is JFK would have taken the best options in opposing such loathsome retrograde powers.

Best options does not mean nuclear war, or endless wars, but nor does it mean constant appeasement. 

 

 

 

 

JFK was not an "ardent supporter" of Israel. In fact, a major bone of contention was JFK's complete unacceptance of Israel having a nuclear weapons program. This was a major problem in USA-Israel relations in the early 1960s. In 1960 during his campaign powerful and wealthy Zionist Jews led by Abe Feinberg (the founder of AIPAC) and offered to pick up the entire cost of JFK's presidential campaign if only JFK would let these ultra Zionists have free reign over USA policy with Israel.

JFK turned these Jews down.

Lyndon Johnson, however, was a Superman Zionist and he had scores of very long lasting relationships with powerful, rich, smart or influential Zionist Jews. LBJ to the digust of Clark Clifford, had absolutely no problem with Israel having nuclear weapons.

Robert Kennedy sure was a supporter of Israel and famously came out for selling fighter jets to Israel, which in my *opinion*, directly led to his death by enraging a Palestinian Christian named Sirhan Sirhan who took out his rage and sense of betrayal and killed Sen. Robert Kennedy.

[Kevin Balch]

On 8/2/2024 at 7:49 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

JFK was an incredibly intelligent individual, and a remarkable speaker. 

But remember, he is also the man who wrote the book, "Why England Slept," and personally served in WWII in the Pacific against a monstrous illiberal imperialist power. 

JFK authorized the BoP op, and put 15,000 troops into South Vietnam. When there was a chance to take down bad guys at a low cost, JFK was for it. 

In this speech, given in late 1962 regarding Cuba, JFK essentially promises to overthrow Castro and establish democracy in Cuba: 

"I want to express my great appreciation to the brigade for making the United States the custodian of this flag. I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana."

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-miami-the-presentation-the-flag-the-cuban-invasion-brigade

The entire speech could be considered inflammatory.

(BTW, I sometimes wonder if the above promise played a role in the JFKA, heightening a sense of betrayal in the Cuban exile community.) 

JFK, and RFK, were both ardent supporters of Israel.

I agree that JFK would never have become mired down in Vietnam, and he sought exit ramps in Cuba, not nuclear war. Like any sensible statesman, he knew that discretion is the better part of valor. 

But that does not mean JFK would have appeased or pandered to Mideast despots, Russian thugs or Beijing bureaucrats.  

My take is JFK would have taken the best options in opposing such loathsome retrograde powers.

Best options does not mean nuclear war, or endless wars, but nor does it mean constant appeasement. 

 

 

 

 

JFK was more upset that the BoP failed than whether it was the right thing to do or with its wisdom. He was enamored of covert and special operations. He was more skeptical of CIA competence in covert operations than anything else.

I agree that the Miami speech could be considered inflammatory to Cuba, particularly after the Cuban Missile Crisis when Cuban leadership felt betrayed by the Soviets. But I don’t see how it could have led to the JFKA by anti-Castro Cubans.

I don’t agree that the Kennedys were ardent zionists. Their political viability hinged on distancing themselves from the reputed antisemitism of Joe Kennedy Sr. They courted influential Jews. JFK wrote A Nation of Immigrants for the ADL. In office, their record was mixed. They sought to limit the Israel Lobby by trying to enforce the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Any weapons provided Israel were intended to achieve some sort of balance to counter Soviet influence rather than a decisive edge.

But it’s beyond dispute that JFK sought to prevent a nuclear arms race in the middle east which would result from an Israeli nuclear weapon. This concern originated in the Eisenhower administration when the true purpose of Dimona was discovered.

It’s anyone’s guess how JFK would have responded to a Gulf of Tonkin or similar incident in the middle of the 1964 presidential campaign. He would not have been anywhere near as popular as was LBJ in 1964 for obvious reasons and may have faced a more formidable republican opponent. He would not have carried Texas if LBJ was dropped from the ticket. The Kennedys had to be worried about the secret deal with Khrushchev to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey being leaked in the middle of the campaign. Odds are, JFK would have won but not by a landslide and historical trends suggest that the numbers of democrats in the house and senate would have declined.

[Kevin Balch]

10 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

JFK was not an "ardent supporter" of Israel. In fact, a major bone of contention was JFK's complete unacceptance of Israel having a nuclear weapons program. This was a major problem in USA-Israel relations in the early 1960s. In 1960 during his campaign powerful and wealthy Zionist Jews led by Abe Feinberg (the founder of AIPAC) and offered to pick up the entire cost of JFK's presidential campaign if only JFK would let these ultra Zionists have free reign over USA policy with Israel.

JFK turned these Jews down.

Lyndon Johnson, however, was a Superman Zionist and he had scores of very long lasting relationships with powerful, rich, smart or influential Zionist Jews. LBJ to the digust of Clark Clifford, had absolutely no problem with Israel having nuclear weapons.

Robert Kennedy sure was a supporter of Israel and famously came out for selling fighter jets to Israel, which in my *opinion*, directly led to his death by enraging a Palestinian Christian named Sirhan Sirhan who took out his rage and sense of betrayal and killed Sen. Robert Kennedy.

I agree with your remarks regarding JFK.

It’s also clear that the Johnson administration was ambivalent about Israeli nuclear weapons, based on loss of enthusiasm for inspections of Dimona and the follow up to the uranium theft at NUMEC. Despite the high confidence by 1968 that Israel did indeed steal uranium from NUMEC, the Johnson administration proposed sales of Phantom jets to Israel in 1968, a deal consummated under the Nixon administration which considered the matter in light of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. They threaded the needle with the “nuclear ambiguity” policy.

What is your source regarding RFK’s support for selling fighter jets to Israel?

[Robert Morrow]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

I agree with your remarks regarding JFK.

It’s also clear that the Johnson administration was ambivalent about Israeli nuclear weapons, based on loss of enthusiasm for inspections of Dimona and the follow up to the uranium theft at NUMEC. Despite the high confidence by 1968 that Israel did indeed steal uranium from NUMEC, the Johnson administration proposed sales of Phantom jets to Israel in 1968, a deal consummated under the Nixon administration which considered the matter in light of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. They threaded the needle with the “nuclear ambiguity” policy.

What is your source regarding RFK’s support for selling fighter jets to Israel?

https://www.jpost.com/features/in-thespotlight/this-week-in-history-rfk-is-shot-a-year-after-six-day-war

QUOTE

Some weeks before the assassination, Kennedy had declared his support for supplying Israel with a large quantity of fighter jets in the aftermath of the Six Day War. The declaration was significant in several ways. Firstly, it represented the first time the United States was considering supplying Israel with higher quality weapons than other the Arab states in the region. The move represented the beginning of the US’s still-running commitment to establishing and maintaining Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge over its neighbors. But for Sirhan, there was yet another, personal significance to Kennedy’s declaration.

Robert Kennedy, the younger brother of assassinated US president John F. Kennedy, had been a hero to Sirhan Sirhan. “He was my champion, he was the defender of the downtrodden,” he later said in an interview, believing himself to be the downtrodden that RFK had pledged to defend. But when Sirhan heard that Kennedy was promising to supply military jets to Israel, he felt personally betrayed. He began filling pages of his personal journals with scribbles reading: “RFK must die.”

UNQUOTE

June 4, 1968: Kennedy, McCarthy Support U.S. Commitments to Israel, Favor Sending Phantom Jets

 

https://www.jta.org/archive/kennedy-mccarthy-support-u-s-commitments-to-israel-favor-sending-phantom-jets

 

Senators Robert F. Kennedy, of New York, and Eugene J. McCarthy, of Minnesota, both candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination, agreed in a nationwide telecast Saturday night that the United States must honor its commitments to Israel even though it should scale down many of its commitments elsewhere in the world. Kennedy reiterated his Portland. Ore. proposal of last week to send 50 Phantom jets to Israel. McCarthy said that if 50 jets were necessary to help Israel “rebuild the strength they lost in the most recent war…I am for 50 jets.” The two Presidential aspirants made their remarks in reply to questions on the “Issues and Answers” program which originated in San Francisco where they are campaigning for Tuesday’s California primary elections. It was their first face-to-face confrontation since they announced their intentions to seek their party’s nomination.

Kennedy was the first to refer to Israel. He said that the U.S. cannot continue to be a global policeman and intervene in internal disputes all over the world. But, he said, “I do think we have some commitments around the globe. I think we have a commitment to Israel for instance that has to be kept.”

McCarthy said that he thought America had “clear moral and legal responsibilities in the Middle East and Israel.” He acknowledged that he believed the U.S. should work toward a moratorium on arms shipments to the Middle East but he stressed that “we had to maintain the military strength of Israel against the Arab nations, and I’ve said that we had at least to help them rebuild the strength that they lost in the recent war. If that means 50 jets, well I’m for 50 jets.’ The Minnesota senator said the U.S. obligations to Israel stemmed from the fact that “we were one of the nations that wouldn’t open our doors to Jewish expellees and refugees after the war and suggested that the British take care of it in Palestine and then moved on from there to support in the UN the establishment of the State of Israel and we’ve underscored that commitment time and time again since ’45 or ’47.”

Edited Sunday at 07:37 PM by Robert Morrow

[Kevin Balch]

43 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

https://www.jpost.com/features/in-thespotlight/this-week-in-history-rfk-is-shot-a-year-after-six-day-war

QUOTE

Some weeks before the assassination, Kennedy had declared his support for supplying Israel with a large quantity of fighter jets in the aftermath of the Six Day War. The declaration was significant in several ways. Firstly, it represented the first time the United States was considering supplying Israel with higher quality weapons than other the Arab states in the region. The move represented the beginning of the US’s still-running commitment to establishing and maintaining Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge over its neighbors. But for Sirhan, there was yet another, personal significance to Kennedy’s declaration.

Robert Kennedy, the younger brother of assassinated US president John F. Kennedy, had been a hero to Sirhan Sirhan. “He was my champion, he was the defender of the downtrodden,” he later said in an interview, believing himself to be the downtrodden that RFK had pledged to defend. But when Sirhan heard that Kennedy was promising to supply military jets to Israel, he felt personally betrayed. He began filling pages of his personal journals with scribbles reading: “RFK must die.”

UNQUOTE

June 4, 1968: Kennedy, McCarthy Support U.S. Commitments to Israel, Favor Sending Phantom Jets

 

https://www.jta.org/archive/kennedy-mccarthy-support-u-s-commitments-to-israel-favor-sending-phantom-jets

 

Senators Robert F. Kennedy, of New York, and Eugene J. McCarthy, of Minnesota, both candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination, agreed in a nationwide telecast Saturday night that the United States must honor its commitments to Israel even though it should scale down many of its commitments elsewhere in the world. Kennedy reiterated his Portland. Ore. proposal of last week to send 50 Phantom jets to Israel. McCarthy said that if 50 jets were necessary to help Israel “rebuild the strength they lost in the most recent war…I am for 50 jets.” The two Presidential aspirants made their remarks in reply to questions on the “Issues and Answers” program which originated in San Francisco where they are campaigning for Tuesday’s California primary elections. It was their first face-to-face confrontation since they announced their intentions to seek their party’s nomination.

Kennedy was the first to refer to Israel. He said that the U.S. cannot continue to be a global policeman and intervene in internal disputes all over the world. But, he said, “I do think we have some commitments around the globe. I think we have a commitment to Israel for instance that has to be kept.”

McCarthy said that he thought America had “clear moral and legal responsibilities in the Middle East and Israel.” He acknowledged that he believed the U.S. should work toward a moratorium on arms shipments to the Middle East but he stressed that “we had to maintain the military strength of Israel against the Arab nations, and I’ve said that we had at least to help them rebuild the strength that they lost in the recent war. If that means 50 jets, well I’m for 50 jets.’ The Minnesota senator said the U.S. obligations to Israel stemmed from the fact that “we were one of the nations that wouldn’t open our doors to Jewish expellees and refugees after the war and suggested that the British take care of it in Palestine and then moved on from there to support in the UN the establishment of the State of Israel and we’ve underscored that commitment time and time again since ’45 or ’47.”

Thanks for the link.

[James DiEugenio]

The connection to Sirhan is wrong.

According to the late Phil Melanson, the diary entry was made before the speech was known in LA.

And the difference in policy between JFK and LBJ in the Middle East was dramatic.

This will be a primary focus of my JFK and the Neocons Part 4.

Edited Sunday at 09:08 PM by James DiEugenio

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

The connection to Sirhan is wrong.

According to the late Phil Melanson, the diary entry was made before the speech was known in LA.

And the difference in policy between JFK and LBJ in the Middle East was dramatic.

This will be a primary focus of my JFK and the Neocons Part 4.

Rise and Kill First claims the Israelis were able to psychologically program a captured Palestinian to kill a PLO leader. They released the Palestinian but he disappeared (according to the book). Any cooperation provided to the author was obviously selected information to promote Israeli intelligence capabilities and take shots at rivals in the Israeli government. Was the story designed to reveal formidable capabilities while escaping blame or further inquiry into a specific assassination?

The book also details a long range dual-sniper attack on a stationary target on a hotel balcony in Lebanon.

The description of the of the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in 2010 shows the meticulous planning involved in a professional assassination including communications, logistics, lookouts, disguises, legitimate passports provided by Sayanim residing in other nations, lethal drugs, lock-picking and safe exfiltration of all the participants who remain at large. Only two people did the actual killing but they had a support team of at least 20 others. Reads like Mission: Impossible. Security camera footage allowed the local police to piece together what happened but the Israelis were long gone. The book says that the capture footage caused an uproar in the Israeli government but I don’t think that was an oversight but a calling card.

Most of the killings were either remotely detonated bombs (like the one recently in Iran), letter bombs or one on one handgun shootings.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Sayanim

Jolly West didn’t happen to visit Sirhan in prison, did he? Just kidding!

 

Edited Sunday at 10:14 PM by Kevin Balch

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

JFK was more upset that the BoP failed than whether it was the right thing to do or with its wisdom. He was enamored of covert and special operations. He was more skeptical of CIA competence in covert operations than anything else.

I agree that the Miami speech could be considered inflammatory to Cuba, particularly after the Cuban Missile Crisis when Cuban leadership felt betrayed by the Soviets. But I don’t see how it could have led to the JFKA by anti-Castro Cubans.

I don’t agree that the Kennedys were ardent zionists. Their political viability hinged on distancing themselves from the reputed antisemitism of Joe Kennedy Sr. They courted influential Jews. JFK wrote A Nation of Immigrants for the ADL. In office, their record was mixed. They sought to limit the Israel Lobby by trying to enforce the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Any weapons provided Israel were intended to achieve some sort of balance to counter Soviet influence rather than a decisive edge.

But it’s beyond dispute that JFK sought to prevent a nuclear arms race in the middle east which would result from an Israeli nuclear weapon. This concern originated in the Eisenhower administration when the true purpose of Dimona was discovered.

It’s anyone’s guess how JFK would have responded to a Gulf of Tonkin or similar incident in the middle of the 1964 presidential campaign. He would not have been anywhere near as popular as was LBJ in 1964 for obvious reasons and may have faced a more formidable republican opponent. He would not have carried Texas if LBJ was dropped from the ticket. The Kennedys had to be worried about the secret deal with Khrushchev to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey being leaked in the middle of the campaign. Odds are, JFK would have won but not by a landslide and historical trends suggest that the numbers of democrats in the house and senate would have declined.

KB--

Thanks for your collegial comments. 

Yes, playing the "counterfactuals" game can be be beguiling, and...well, we let our biases lead us to our conclusions. 

My take is JFK (and RFK1) would have avoided the large military blunders of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, which together is no small thing. We are talking hundreds of thousands of lives (millions, depending on how you want to count) and trillions in outlays. 

On Israel, hard to say. Where the Israel of the 1960s faced somewhat non-theocratic enemies, who might be reasoned with (and were, after they lost two wars they started in 1967 and 1972) present-day Middle East nations and terrorist proxies have become increasing illiberal and theocratic, meaning they believe they are serving God, and are implacable and unreasoning. It is a wise policy to separate church and state, as our founding fathers knew. 

And Russia has changed too, from a communist nation to a capitalist kleptocracy and thug state.  

Unchanged is China, still a communist dictatorship, becoming more brutal with each passing year, conveniently underplayed by US media and apologists as globalists have so much of their manufacturing base and other interests linked to the CCP. 

Hard to say what JFK would do in the modern world. 

 

 

 

[Kevin Balch]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

KB--

Thanks for your collegial comments. 

Yes, playing the "counterfactuals" game can be be beguiling, and...well, we let our biases lead us to our conclusions. 

My take is JFK (and RFK1) would have avoided the large military blunders of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, which together is no small thing. We are talking hundreds of thousands of lives (millions, depending on how you want to count) and trillions in outlays. 

On Israel, hard to say. Where the Israel of the 1960s faced somewhat non-theocratic enemies, who might be reasoned with (and were, after they lost two wars they started in 1967 and 1972) present-day Middle East nations and terrorist proxies have become increasing illiberal and theocratic, meaning they believe they are serving God, and are implacable and unreasoning. It is a wise policy to separate church and state, as our founding fathers knew. 

And Russia has changed too, from a communist nation to a capitalist kleptocracy and thug state.  

Unchanged is China, still a communist dictatorship, becoming more brutal with each passing year, conveniently underplayed by US media and apologists as globalists have so much of their manufacturing base and other interests linked to the CCP. 

Hard to say what JFK would do in the modern world. 

 

 

 

How did the Arabs start the war in 1967? It was Israel that struck first. As they did in 1956.

In 1973 they were trying to reclaim land lost in 1967.

[Ron Bulman]

9 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

But when Sirhan heard that Kennedy was promising to supply military jets to Israel, he felt personally betrayed. He began filling pages of his personal journals with scribbles reading: “RFK must die.”

Spotlight gets this wrong being incomplete and misleading.  His journals also repeated Die Salvo, Die Salvo, Di Salvo.  Albert Di Salvo, the Boston strangler.  Hypnotized by L A psychiatrist William J Bryan, self-proclaimed greatest hypnotist in the world, president of the American or World Hypnotist's Association or something like it which I think he created, a CIA asset.  He reportedly liked to brag on this and also about hypnotizing Sirhan.  Who he was never involved with after the assassination.  Despite his local expertise they flew in a guy from San Francisco.  There is a lot more to this, see the Dr. Daniel Brown video and read A Lie Too Big to Fail by Lisa Pease.

Edited Monday at 05:21 AM by Ron Bulman

[James DiEugenio]

Its not true about JFK being more disappointed in the BOP failing than in the fact he had approved it.

One of his most famous quotes after was : How could I have been so stupid as to let them go.

In other words, the approval was wrong.

And it was the restrictions he put on it that guaranteed it would not succeed.

 

Edited Monday at 05:07 AM by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

How did the Arabs start the war in 1967? It was Israel that struck first. As they did in 1956.

In 1973 they were trying to reclaim land lost in 1967.

The lead up to the 1967 included Nasser militarizing the Sinai and blocking the Gulf of Aqaba, considered an act of war (blockading a a an important civilian harbor is an act of war). So who started he war? Depends who you ask. Tel Aviv says they warned Cairo that blocking Eilat was an act of war. 

"on May 14, 1967, Nasser mobilized Egyptian forces in the Sinai; on May 18 he formally requested the removal of the UNEF stationed there; and on May 22 he closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, thus instituting an effective blockade of the port city of Elat in southern Israel. On May 30, King Hussein of Jordan arrived in Cairo to sign a mutual defense pact with Egypt, placing Jordanian forces under Egyptian command; shortly thereafter, Iraq too joined the alliance.

Main events of the war

In response to the apparent mobilization of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac. A similar air assault incapacitated the Syrian air force. Without cover from the air, the Egyptian army was left vulnerable to attack. Within three days the Israelis had achieved an overwhelming victory on the ground, capturing the Gaza Strip and all of the Sinai Peninsula up to the east bank of the Suez Canal."

https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

---30---

As you point out, the Arabs attacked Israel in 1973.  

But back to my point; JFK was known as a strong supporter of Israel through his brief presidency, and loved in Tel Aviv as he was through much of the world. 

I believe JFK would be today too.

JFK did not want Israel to have nukes. That is a reasonable concern, and non-proliferation is a good idea. 

This is a link to a 1960 JFK speech. Granted it is a speech, and all pols say things in speeches. But JFK sure sounds like an Israel supporter. https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/new-york-ny-19600826

 

[James DiEugenio]

None of the above would have happened if Kennedy had lived.

Nasser realized that LBJ had changed policy in the area to favor Israel.

In fact, the night Kennedy died, Nasser could not sleep.

 

[Kevin Balch]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Its not true about JFK being more disappointed in the BOP failing than in the fact he had approved it.

One of his most famous quotes after was : How could I have been so stupid as to let them go.

In other words, the approval was wrong.

And it was the restrictions he put on it that guaranteed it would not succeed.

 

So if it had succeeded, he would still be disappointed? He knowingly changed the plan to guarantee it would not succeed?

Can you walk me through the logic here?