Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Guardian of Lies: The fake “progressive” case for continuity of foreign policy from Kennedy to Bush II

Recommended Posts

Beyond military intervention: a 'wacko birds' manifesto for US foreign policy

Never mind John McCain's jibe at those who challenge the consensus on American 'might is right', the US needs this debate

Stephen Kinzer

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 March 2013 11.30 GMT

Every American president since the second world war has embraced the muscular, interventionist security paradigm that holds Washington in its grip. Its results can be seen in the wreckage of wars and covert operations from Central America to Central Asia, from Indochina to the Middle East.

Americans who reject this paradigm are rebelling against the "liberal internationalism" promoted by John F Kennedy and George HW Bush, and also against the "neo-conservatism" of Dick Cheney and George W Bush.

The Guardian: the finest British liberal daily CIA could (and did) buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.co...rts and letters



Very good, indeed, Nate; and the element of DiEugenio's work for which I have the most respect.

Let me for once reverse roles - why not sign on at the Grauniad and post (most of) the above?

You'll find at least one supporter there, a mysterious character by the name of Anotherevertonian.

A sound chap, it would appear, arguing along much the same lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rare thing to see the truth about Kennedy's presidency on the Guardian's website. Take a bow, you patriot, you.

Americans have their own Guardian (Express).

Coincidentally to Paul's observation and right on cue (from today's issue):

Perhaps you’re even skeptical of our own government. And who could blame you, especially after the American government insults its citizen’s intelligence by asking them to believe that cockamamie magic bullet theory. A theory that should have been dead on arrival, but in order to pin President John F. Kennedy’s assassination on Lee Harvey Oswald is (sic) was devised. Lone gunman my a**. OK, let me settle down and get to my point.


From The Guardian Express website:

This website was first conceived as a print newspaper to be distributed in and around the Las Vegas, Nevada area. While originally founded by DiMarkco Chandler, the company began to emerge as a real media player when Bonito Sahagun decided to provide his professional expertise to complete the partnership now known as Frackle Media Group.

The Guardian Express newspaper, led by Frackle Media moved away from printing newspapers after 22 consecutive publication weeks and began to focus their efforts online.

Since its February 2012 launch, The Guardian Express has turned the corner from start-up to a legitimate online newspaper.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Rusbridger – Handmaiden to Power

by Craig Murray on August 11, 2014 12:27 pm in Uncategorized

Rusbridger’s Guardian has become an unrepentant unionist, zionist, and neo-con New Labour propaganda vehicle. Particularly deceitful is their attitude to the security services and the “war on terror”, where Rusbridger stands revealed as a handmaiden to power. He was, a very senior Guardian source told me, particularly upset when I described him as “Tony Blair’s catamite”. Let me say it again.

Let me give you a specific case to illustrate my point.

On 2 August the Guardian published a piece by Jamie Doward and Ian Cobain which, on the face of it, exposed the British Foreign Office for lobbying against the publication of the US Senate report on extraordinary rendition, lest details of British complicity become public.

On the face of it, a worthy piece of journalism exposing deeply shady government behaviour.

Except that I had published precisely the same story a full 15 weeks earlier, on April 14 2014, having been urgently contacted by a whistleblower.

What is more, immediately I heard from the whistleblower I made several urgent phone calls to Ian Cobain. He neither took nor returned my calls. I therefore left detailed messages, referring to the story which I had now published on my website.

In fact, the Guardian only published this story after William Hague had written to Reprieve to confirm that this lobbying had happened. In other words the Guardian published only after disclosure had been authorised by Government.

Furthermore, in publishing the government authorised story, the Guardian omitted the absolutely key point – that the purpose of the UK lobbying was to affect court cases under way and in prospect in the UK. Both in civil cases of compensation for victims, and in potential criminal cases for complicity in torture against Blair, Straw et al, British judges have (disgracefully) accepted the argument that evidence of the torture cannot be used because the American do not want it revealed, and may curtail future intelligence sharing. Obviously, if the Americans publish the material themselves, this defence falls.

As this defence is the major factor keeping Blair, Straw and numerous still senior civil servants out of the dock, this sparked the crucial British lobbying to suppress the Feinstein report – which has indeed succeeded in causing a huge amount of redaction by the White House.

My mole was absolutely adamant this was what was happening, and it is what I published. Yet Cobain in publishing the government authorised version does not refer to the impact on trials at all – despite the fact that this was 100% the subject of the letter from Reprieve to which Hague was replying, and that the letter from Reprieve mentioned me and my blog by name.

Instead of giving the true story, the government authorised version published by Cobain misdirects the entire subject towards Diego Garcia. The truth is that Diego Garcia is pretty incidental in the whole rendition story. On UK soil there was actually a great deal more done at Wick airport (yes, I do mean Wick, not Prestwick). That is something the government is still keeping tight closed, so don’t expect a mention from Cobain.

I was fooled by Cobain for a long time. What I now realise is that his role is to codify and render safe information which had already leaked. He packages it and sends it off in a useless direction – away from Blair and Straw in this instance. He rigorously excludes material which is too hot for the establishment to handle. The great trick is, that the Guardian persuades its loyal readers that it is keeping tabs on the security services when in fact it is sweeping up after them.

Which is a precise description of why the Guardian fell out with Assange and WikiLeaks.

I suppose I should expect no better of the newspaper which happily sent the extremely noble Sara Tisdall to prison, but we should have learnt a lot from Rusbridger’s agreement with the security services to smash the Snowden hard drives. The Guardian argues that other copies of the drives existed. That is scarcely the point. Would you participate in a book-burning because other copies of books exist? The Guardian never stands up to the security services or the establishment. It just wants you to believe that it does.

Source: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/rusbridger-handmaiden-to-power/#comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...