Who was JFK?

[James DiEugenio]

Here is a quote from Betting on the Africans, another very good book about JFK's foreign policy:

Prior to the Democratic convention, he (JFK) told Harris Wofford that if Stuart Symington or Lyndon Johnson were the nominee "we might as well elect Dulles or Acheson; it would be the same cold-war foreign policy all over again." (p. 37) Kennedy's Undersecretary of State George Ball explained JFK's ideas from a slightly different angle:

Postwar diplomacy had rested largely on the assumption that the United States ... was a status quo power, while the Soviet Union was essentially a revolutionary power, and that the United States would benefit by encouraging stability, the Soviet Union by exploiting turbulence ... The Kennedy Doctrine challenged this approach ... If America failed to encourage the young revolutionaries in the new countries, they would inevitably turn toward the Soviet Union ... America should, therefore, stop trying to sustain traditional societies and ally itself with the side of revolution. (p. xiv)

Edited July 27, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Don Jeffries]

Jim D. has done great work on showing how JFK's record has been misrepresented by the media, establishment historians, and politicians of both major parties. As Jim has also noted, JFK's record even on Civil Rights has been distorted. His televised speech on this subject is still stirring to listen to, but the establishment continues to chant the mantra that he was too pragmatic, too timid to move on the issue.

As I revealed in my book, JFK has been attacked relentlessly not only by the Right, but by most of the Left as well. Few people misrepresent his Vietnam policy more passionately than Noam Chomsky. NSAM 263 appears irrelevant to Chomsky, and to most prominent historians. It's hard to find stronger evidence of his intentions than that directive, combined with all the anecdotal accounts of those who knew him best.

It's ironic that JFK's independence regarding Middle East affairs is now being recognized by most researchers. Michael Collins Piper, who recently passed away, was the first to focus attention on JFK's disagreements with Israel, which were going on behind the scenes in the time period leading up to the assassination. He was shunned by the research community.

I'm glad that Jim is keeping this subject alive. There has been a concerted effort to smear JFK's reputation, and to minimize the importance of his life. The clear inference is; if his life wasn't significant, then why should we even be investigating his death. This can also be seen in the books published by surviving Secret Service agents, attempting to essentially blame JFK for his own assassination, when they should be feeling immense guilt over their failure to protect him.

[James DiEugenio]

DJ: There has been a concerted effort to smear JFK's reputation, and to minimize the importance of his life. The clear inference is; if his life wasn't significant, then why should we even be investigating his death. This can also be seen in the books published by surviving Secret Service agents, attempting to essentially blame JFK for his own assassination, when they should be feeling immense guilt over their failure to protect him.

You got that right all the way. How about Gus Russo? On the Tom Brokaw special for the fiftieth, Russo got Richard Reeves to say that NSAM 263 only referred to people like cooks and custodians.

Which would be funny if it were not so obviously politically motivated BS.

[Brian Schmidt]

I just posted this in the Warning to Carter thread, but felt it was also relevant to this topic:

I was listening to Thom Hartmann's radio program today and Jimmy Carter was a guest on the show to discuss his latest book, A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety.

It's a short interview, but both the Kennedy assassination and October Surprise came up.

Thom reads a quote from the book about truth in politics and how Carter would often close his speeches by telling the audience that if he ever told a lie, don't vote for him. Thom then asks him a fairly open-ended question about the rise of non-traditional candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and if they represent the public's longing for a more truthful political climate. In part of his response, he brings up the Kennedy assassination. Here's his full quote:

"I came along at a pretty capricious time because of tragedies that had occurred, not only of the Watergate scandal, but also of the lies about the war in Vietnam and the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., so there was a revulsion then against violence and also against lies.”

Thom then brings up the Iran hostage situation and quotes from Carter's book, "although books have been written about the question, I have never known what caused the Ayatollah to delay granting the hostages their freedom until after I left office." Thom brings up the fact that Abolhassan Banisadr has written that he tried to free the hostages but was told by the Ayatollah that they cut a deal with the Reagan campaign to delay the hostages. Carter responds that "I'm familiar with that. There have been books written about it, but I've deliberatively avoided getting involved in that allegation which I don't have information to prove." He does go on to say that on the morning of his inauguration, the hostages were on an airplane ready to go, but were held until a few minutes after Reagan was sworn in and said "I've always had questions in my mind about why that happened."

[Kenneth Drew]

I just posted this in the Warning to Carter thread, but felt it was also relevant to this topic:

I was listening to Thom Hartmann's radio program today and Jimmy Carter was a guest on the show to discuss his latest book, A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety.

It's a short interview, but both the Kennedy assassination and October Surprise came up.

Thom reads a quote from the book about truth in politics and how Carter would often close his speeches by telling the audience that if he ever told a lie, don't vote for him. Thom then asks him a fairly open-ended question about the rise of non-traditional candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and if they represent the public's longing for a more truthful political climate. In part of his response, he brings up the Kennedy assassination. Here's his full quote:

"I came along at a pretty capricious time because of tragedies that had occurred, not only of the Watergate scandal, but also of the lies about the war in Vietnam and the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., so there was a revulsion then against violence and also against lies.”

Thom then brings up the Iran hostage situation and quotes from Carter's book, "although books have been written about the question, I have never known what caused the Ayatollah to delay granting the hostages their freedom until after I left office." Thom brings up the fact that Abolhassan Banisadr has written that he tried to free the hostages but was told by the Ayatollah that they cut a deal with the Reagan campaign to delay the hostages. Carter responds that "I'm familiar with that. There have been books written about it, but I've deliberatively avoided getting involved in that allegation which I don't have information to prove." He does go on to say that on the morning of his inauguration, the hostages were on an airplane ready to go, but were held until a few minutes after Reagan was sworn in and said "I've always had questions in my mind about why that happened."

The insinuation being that Reagan had a deal. My speculation is that the Ayatollah knew damn well that Reagan would not be as passive as Carter had been and didn't want to be a dedicated target of the new government.

[James DiEugenio]

Completely wrong Ken.

The evidence says it was the other way around.

And the whole Iran Contra affair is further proof of it.

Carter is at least being halfway honest.

BTW I should add, Gore brought up the assassinations in the debates with W in 2000. I found out through Dan Alcorn and Pat Orr that Gore fully believed Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.

Edited July 29, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

I found out through Dan Alcorn and Pat Orr that Gore fully believed Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.

Wouldn't you say that most politicians in DC believe that or know it? They simply don't have the freedom of speech to say it.

[Peter McGuire]

Good afternoon Jim:

If that is the case - that Gore believed in a conspiracy, then it is of no surprise that he lost the election under suspicious circumstances. Gary Hart, I believe, asked too many questions about the assassination or made his position clear on the subject and then had his extramarital affair exposed - by an anonymous phone call to the Miami Herald.

Not a good idea to make your position clear on this matter if you want your career to move forward!

Edited July 28, 2015 by Peter McGuire

[Brian Schmidt]

I found out through Dan Alcorn and Pat Orr that Gore fully believed Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.

Wouldn't you say that most politicians in DC believe that or know it? They simply don't have the freedom of speech to say it.

Yes, and this is why I found it odd that John Kerry, as sitting Secretary of State, would say publicly that he believed the assassination was a conspiracy. Not only that, but he would finger the Cubans as part of a Communist conspiracy as the likely culprit, a little over a year before the US would announce its intent open diplomatic ties with Cuba.

[Brian Schmidt]

And then we have McCain who accidentally called the JFK assassination an 'intervention' in the 2008 debates. His dad was pretty high up in the Navy at the time...maybe he told him what really happened and why.

[Ron Ecker]

I found out through Dan Alcorn and Pat Orr that Gore fully believed Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.

Wouldn't you say that most politicians in DC believe that or know it? They simply don't have the freedom of speech to say it.

Yes, and this is why I found it odd that John Kerry, as sitting Secretary of State, would say publicly that he believed the assassination was a conspiracy. Not only that, but he would finger the Cubans as part of a Communist conspiracy as the likely culprit, a little over a year before the US would announce its intent open diplomatic ties with Cuba.

I missed Kerry saying that. And it blames it on Castro? Ha ha ha ha. He's just as dumb as the Iranians think he is.

[Peter McGuire]

Great point Ron.

Kerry is either as dumb as you say, or feels that a limited hangout ( I think ) type of position will get the conspirators through this.

[Peter McGuire]

And then we have McCain who accidentally called the JFK assassination an 'intervention' in the 2008 debates. His dad was pretty high up in the Navy at the time...maybe he told him what really happened and why.

Brian;

Some say it was.

It has been said that " obviously it was in the best interests of the United States to have President Kennedy dead."

I have believed for a long time that this successful cover up is in the best interests of the United States. And while there is so much research that clearly shows why Kennedy was killed, the reason that he had to be killed has got to be something that would shock us all.

By this I mean there were multiple reasons; thus multiple participants in the crime.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Peter McGuire

[Brian Schmidt]

I don't believe in a grand conspiracies, but since we're on the subject of John Kerry and Iran, and strange coincidences:

According to researcher Rodney Stich in Defrauding America, two of the passengers on Bush’s BAC 111 flight to Paris, in which the October Surprise was negotiated, were Senators John Heinz and John Tower.

Tower, of course would later chair the Tower Commission, while Heinz chaired a three-man panel presidential review board on Iran-Contra. Tower and Heinz would later be killed in two separate plain wrecks on back-to-back days. Who would go on to marry John Heinz's widow? John Kerry, who chaired the 1988 Kerry Commission described in the Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy as “focusing on allegations of illegal gun-running and narcotics trafficking associated with the Contra war against Nicaragua”

[Kenneth Drew]

Completely wrong Ken.

The evidence says it was the other way around.

And the whole Iran Contra affair is further proof of it.

Carter si at least being halfway honest.

BTW I should add, Gore brought up the assassinations in the debates with W in 2000. I found out through Dan Alcorn and Pat Orr that Gore fully believed Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.

Well, I labeled my statement as 'speculation'. I've never studied that event. Just assumed that the Ayatollah was trying, and succeeded, in making a fool of Carter. and didn't think he could get away with that with Reagan. Wasn't the Iran Contra affair after Reagan got in office and after the hostages were freed? Anyhow, I've never studied that and don't know much about it.