Douglas Caddy Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 David Talbot writes on Facebook today: I want to initiate a campaign to strip the name "Dulles" off the airport of our nation's capital. The airport was named for John Foster Dulles, not Allen Dulles (the subject of my new book). But like Allen, Foster is also a symbol of U.S. imperial arrogance and covert violence against sovereign nations -- as well as a reign of nuclear bullying that brought the world to the brink of a terrible conflagration on several occasions. This airport is the gateway for many visitors from around the world to our country. In the interest of world peace and harmony, let's rename it the Martin Luther King, Jr. International Airport. (Below is the bust of Foster Dulles created when the airport was inaugurated by JFK and Eisenhower in 1962.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Here here - great idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I think David Talbot would have better spent his time investigating and writing about the U.S. military's role in covering up the assassination facts. Allen Dulles's performance was pro forma for a former CIA director. Job 1 was protecting the CIA from criticism and scrutiny. Any former director, then or now, would do the same thing. As for Dulles's having a hand in JFK's murder, show me what you've got in terms of facts. Not innuendo, not supposition, hard facts. Here are some hard facts about the military. JFK's remains were in control of the military from the time they were delivered to AF-1 to the time they left the military's control. David Lifton has done a brilliant, if disputed, job describing the military's role in altering JFK's body. Those who criticize DSL's argument fall into three camps: [1] the body wasn't altered, [2] the body could not have been altered, [3] the body was altered. I adhere to [3], but I admit I could be wrong. As I've written elsewhere here, my view is that either there was no conspiracy or there was unbridled conspiracy. Anything in-between is wishy-washy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I think David Talbot would have better spent his time investigating and writing about the U.S. military's role in covering up the assassination facts. Allen Dulles's performance was pro forma for a former CIA director. Job 1 was protecting the CIA from criticism and scrutiny. Any former director, then or now, would do the same thing. As for Dulles's having a hand in JFK's murder, show me what you've got in terms of facts. Not innuendo, not supposition, hard facts. Here are some hard facts about the military. JFK's remains were in control of the military from the time they were delivered to AF-1 to the time they left the military's control. David Lifton has done a brilliant, if disputed, job describing the military's role in altering JFK's body. Those who criticize DSL's argument fall into three camps: [1] the body wasn't altered, [2] the body could not have been altered, [3] the body was altered. I adhere to [3], but I admit I could be wrong. As I've written elsewhere here, my view is that either there was no conspiracy or there was unbridled conspiracy. Anything in-between is wishy-washy. i'll see talbot's dulleses and raise him a hoover building, which ought to be renamed the Robert Kennedy Justice Center Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) I agree. I mean Dulles Airport and Hoover FBI building? Give me a break. Nice country. BTW, I have to add, I am now done with the book. And I am starting over to read it again. The book is so rich in detail, so unique in its research, so unflinching in its portrait of Allen Dulles as a man who represented all that was wrong in America, that I cannot review it without reading it twice. And boy the case he makes about Dulles in the JFK case. Anyway, Talbot deserves kudos for this book. Edited October 29, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I agree. I mean Dulles Airport and Hoover FBI building? Give me a break. Nice country. BTW, I have to add, I am now done with the book. And I am starting over to read it again.The book is so rich in detail, so unique in its research, so unflinching in its portrait of Allen Dulles as a man who represented all that was wrong in America, that I cannot review it without reading it twice. Seems like we had a lot of post war leaders like that -- johnson, nixon, john foster dulles, hoover, allen dulles, , etc., -- all a little (or a lot) psychotic amoral individuals And boy the case he makes about Dulles in the JFK case. Anyway, Talbot deserves kudos for this book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Indeed Martin. I'm reading the book slowly with great interest. I can't help but think about Oliver Stone's Secret History of America. He makes the same general point that we sure had a lot of villains making crucial decisions. So I wonder if he is reading this book as we are. What strikes me as ironic on a personal level is that I grew up in a family that knew who the villains were and what they were doing. What Talbot does however is add the kind of detail that did not exist in contemporary media. It's pretty hard to ignore the depth of research, which is why Talbot has been and will continue to be blocked from prime time where he belongs. But at least we have a book with the potential to shake up the establishment, and I think the reverberations will be significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 "We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we". Ronald Reagan... Cyberspace is TOO small to list all the things they've named after him so can we start with Washington Nation airport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Cryptically, the Wiki page on Allen Dulles seems to cite the April 1961 Algerian crisis in France (contemporary with the Bay Of Pigs) as a cause of the dismissal of Dulles, Bissell, and Cabell:"In autumn 1961, following the Bay of Pigs incident and Algiers putsch, Dulles and his entourage, including Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell, Jr. and Deputy Director Charles Cabell, were forced to resign." It would be interesting to see supporting information showing whether this was part of Kennedy's thinking, as Talbot makes the point that CIA under Dulles backed the French army coup attempt.. Is there a firm date for JFK's request for the Dulles-Bissell-Cabell resignations? Edited November 1, 2015 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 "We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we". Ronald Reagan... Cyberspace is TOO small to list all the things they've named after him so can we start with Washington Nation airport? ask eugene hassenfus about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 ✈️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now