JFK: A President Betrayed

[Roger DeLaria]

I just watched this yesterday and found it good. The CIA, Military, and JFK's own advisors don't come out looking good. The documentary shows how they repeatedly subverted Kennedy at every turn, and spent considerable time on JFK's relationship and dialogue with Khrushchev and Castro.

http://www.jfkapresidentbetrayed.org/

Edited April 29, 2016 by Roger DeLaria

[James DiEugenio]

Glad someone brought this up.

Its quite a good film. And I met the two men who produced it.

IMO, its the best film made about Kennedy's foreign policy.

The highlight of the film is the interview near the end with Norman Cousins' daughter.

[James DiEugenio]

Here is a link to my review of the film:

http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/A%20President%20Betrayed.html

[Sandy Larsen]

Wow, a major 1 1/2 hour documentary. Done for the 50th anniversary. I had no idea this had been made.

Looking forward to watching it.

Isn't there a way for this to get more coverage?? Problem is, there's no entertainment value as there was with Oliver Stone's JFK. And most people probably don't watch documentaries.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited May 2, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

The only problem with this film is that its not current today.

The newer research on Kennedy by people like Rakove, Muelhenbeck and Poulgrain, all this indicates that Kennedy was even more reformist than the Douglass book showed.

Because Douglass barely touched on areas like Africa and the Middle East.

[Cliff Varnell]

The only problem with this film is that its not current today.

The newer research on Kennedy by people like Rakove, Muelhenbeck and Poulgrain, all this indicates that Kennedy was even more reformist than the Douglass book showed.

Because Douglass barely touched on areas like Africa and the Middle East.

Probably because Kennedy's policies in Africa and the Middle East didn't get him killed.

Ave Harriman was on board with Kennedy's Africa policy -- not at all in Vietnam, where Harriman ran his own agenda.

In what part of the world did Nelson Rockefeller propose dropping The Bomb?

No, it wasn't Africa.

Nor the Middle East.

Nor Indonesia.

North Vietnam.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

As I was saying, this is a fine film.

It takes us up to about the scholarship level of the Douglass book, which was published several years ago. In fact almost a decade ago.

Since then, other scholars like Rakove, have taken the subject matter even further. When I met with Taylor at Oliver Stone's office, I told him about this new scholarship. I said words to the effect, Kennedy was even further out there than people like Douglass and myself thought he was. He was really pushing the envelope all over the place.

He didn't seem to be aware of these books at that time.

BTW, Taylor was interviewed by Len Osanic on BOR. A good listen.

[Michael Walton]

I enjoyed this film when I saw it and thought it helped me understand more about Kennedy. And by the way, it's also on Netflix if you want to watch it there as well.

[Sandy Larsen]

Wow, a major 1 1/2 hour documentary. Done for the 50th anniversary. I had no idea this had been made.

Looking forward to watching it.

Isn't there a way for this to get more coverage?? Problem is, there's no entertainment value as there was with Oliver Stone's JFK. And most people probably don't watch documentaries.

I'm a little disappointed now that I know it's not about the assassination. The truth about the assassination.

Oh well, at least it will more likely be watched. And will educate those who watch it... with the truth this time.

[Kirk Gallaway]

This has been one of my favorites. I don't think I would have minded being brought up in the Cousin's family at all. You could see why they ended the film with them.

It's not a Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy film. But It ends up driving the average viewer to a precipice.The confluence of events leading up to the assassination,Kennedy's enemies, the battle stakes of the Cold war. In my mind, it accomplished exactly what it set out to do. It's tone is not of the plaintive conspiracy theorist. It has to give any halfway open, thoughtful person pause.

[Sandy Larsen]

I agree, Kirk. I believe that this film will open the minds of many viewers to the possibility of a conspiracy. And the beauty part is that non-conspiracy types won't be averse to watching it.

[Trygve V. Jensen]

 

[Robert Harper]

Thanks. This is one of those things I mentioned in another thread - something I find out or learn about on the forum and then pursue.

[Robert Harper]

While this film rightfully acknowledges Norman Cousins' considerable role in the advancement of peace, it neglects to mention the other figure in this triangle of 1962--Pope John XXIII. Cousins writes about being the intermediary between JFK and Khrushchev in his elegant and humble book, The Improbable Triumvirate, subtitled: An asterisk to the History of a  Hopeful Year 1962-1963 (W.W. Norton,1972). Cousins visited with each of the improbables, and the Pope's encyclical, Pacem in Terris, was published a few weeks before JFK's American University Speech. Later in life, Cousins would have a huge impact writing about the help one can get from laughter during an illness, but this work with the two magic John's and Nikita will speak to generations to come with its laser like focus on peace and personal contact.