Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere


Recommended Posts

It never fails to amaze me how parts of the so called liberal blogosphere feels they can only establish their credibility by going after President Kennedy.

Its like you aren't leftist enough if you don't.

I fell out with them many years ago over Jane Hamsher doing this with Caroline Kennedy.  But here we go again at Truthdig with Mr. Street. It would be nice if these so called intellectuals did some current research before they misinformed the public.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/paul-street-meets-jane-hamsher-at-arlington

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow.  I've been to the Grand Canyon once.  It's deep and wide.  This is what students of Political Science, History And Journalism should have as required reading.  I feel almost unqualified to comment.  I'm stumped for the right words at the moment.  Where to start...?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who beyond a few readers of this forum and K&K begin (like me) to understand the importance and implications of Hammarskjold's murder.  Like who did it and why.  Worthy of another thread, not to distract from this one.  JFK - Rockefeller, CFR, and their lawyer's Dulles.  The main stream media swoons over the young Kennedy's chap stick, only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hammarskjold and Kennedy vs Dulles and Rockefeller is one of the great untold stories of the JFK case.

Kennedy called Hammarskjold the greatest statesman of the 20th century.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/648

 After Dag was blown up in a bomb plot, Truman told the New York Times that Hammarskjold was about to do some good things before they killed him.  Which echoes what Truman wrote in his famous December 22nd Washington Post editorial about him being disturbed about how the CIA had now become a policy making arm of the government used for "peacetime cloak and dagger operations." He concluded that "There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it." Dulles really did not like that column and he paid Harry a personal visit to try and get him to retract it. Recall, he was on the Warren Commission at the time.  (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pp. 378-81)

Dulles was right to be worried. It turns out that Truman started to write that column within 8 days of Kennedy's assassination.  I never fully understood his comments about Hammarskjold's death.  But as you can see from that link, Kennedy told him about the secret alliance he and Hammarskjold had made over Congo and Indonesia.  Which JFK continued in even after his partner was murdered. And there is evidence that Dulles was either part of, or knew about, the plot to do away with Hammarskjold. (After Susan Williams' book "Who Killed Hammarskjold?" there is little doubt he was murdered.)

This is why I say that the critical community sometimes is too focused on Vietnam and Cuba. Kennedy's revolutionary foreign policy--which was really a return to Roosevelt's--challenged the Power Elite in many more places than that. Thus, there were tens of billions on the table. These guys kill for much less.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New Republic? Rachel Maddow?  And OMG, that crazy neocon Fred Hiatt?  

Its an old list, but still.

BTW, if you have studied Propornot, the group that the Washington Post said was monitoring the "traitorous" sites on the web--which somehow included Bob Parry--about four people from Daily Beast were on the board. I cannot help but wonder if that is a left over from the Tina Brown days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I fell out with them many years ago over Jane Hamsher doing this with Caroline Kennedy. 

Hamsher was right about Caroline Kennedy not deserving a Senate seat because of who her parents were.

Kristen Gillibrand is an excellent Senator, as it's turned out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Hamsher was right about Caroline Kennedy not deserving a Senate seat because of who her parents were.

Kristen Gillibrand is an excellent Senator, as it's turned out.

 

What's excellent about her? I always suspected her of being a spineless Bluedog, and her hounding Al Franken out of the Senate on the basis of possibly Roger Stone-manipulated evidence was pretty low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA: Jane Hamsher doesn't deserve a journalism gig.  Then again, so few do..

 

That is what my source inside the "liberal blogosphere" told me and that is why I used him.  He said to me, "Jim, some of these people were in the fast food business before this internet stuff happened.  They have very little background in history, and even less in journalism.  And whatever you do, you cannot suggest doing longer investigative pieces."

The thing he was saying was that when this all exploded was due to the confluence of the stealing of the 2000 election, the ineptitude of W, the disaster of the Iraq War, and 9-11.  That is what he meant when he said they fell into this, they did not make it happen.  Which is different than what happened with Warren HInckle at Ramparts for example. He created that magazine out of pretty much nothing.  And he was not afraid to do long investigative pieces like what Lifton and Welsh did on the JFK case, or what Bill Turner did on Garrison.

Which is another point of reference: these people will not touch points of controversy like that.  I know this from more than one source and complaint.  To me, that is what makes the mass of the liberal blogopsphere pretty much useless today, except for news. (I did not consider Bob parry a part of this since he started back in 1995, and he was not afraid to address the Kennedy case..)

Then they came out with this stupid anti JFK stuff, and  that was it for me.  Because it was so obvious that they knew nothing about Kennedy, or why he got his head blown off in public.  Or why RFK was shot from the back from the front.  And then what happened as a result of those two conspiracies: the rise of Nixon and the end of an era.

If you don't even understand that much about recent history, or if you are that compromised, then what do you have to say to the public? And the answer to me is: very little if anything.  So we get  two know nothings, first Hamsher back then,  and then this  Paul Street guy who thinks he is making hay with the looney left.  And neither thinks they will get called out.  Sorry, but you will.

If you cannot face these kinds of matters honestly, then how much better are you than the MSM?  To me its negligible. And that is what made Ramparts what it was, and the LA Free Press what it was.  And that is why I don't go there anymore.  The reason I even got this piece of Street's vomit was that a reader sent it to me.  And I should add, he later told me that Street was getting some  push back in the comments section from those who raed the Jim Douglass book. 

Well, now he will get some more.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

What's excellent about her? I always suspected her of being a spineless Bluedog, and her hounding Al Franken out of the Senate on the basis of possibly Roger Stone-manipulated evidence was pretty low.

From a fivethirtyeight article:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-kirsten-gillibrand-up-to/

Emphasais added...

<quote on>

Gillibrand said Bill Clinton, husband of the woman whose Senate seat she inherited, should have resigned from office. That led Clintonworld capo Philippe Reines to tweet, among other things, “Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite. Interesting strategy for 2020 primaries. Best of luck.”

But Gillibrand’s appetite for biting the hands that feed her might actually be just what brings her success in the Democrats’ all-but-free-for-all scramble for leadership. She sniffed out the direction of the party months, even years ago, and has been tacking hard to the left ever since. She is attuned to the base, fluent in the new mediums of activism and, perhaps most importantly, knows how to spin. Who is Kirsten Gillibrand and what does she want? The latter is easy to answer: She likely wants to be president.1 But the former — who exactly is this woman whose moment it is we’re all living through — takes a bit more to parse.

<quote off>

Roger Stone didn't force Franken to pose for a picture simulating sexual harassment.

Do you think that being the daughter of John F Kennedy qualified Caroline for a Senate seat?

We have royalty in this country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

DA: Jane Hamsher doesn't deserve a journalism gig.  Then again, so few do..

That is what my source inside the "liberal blogosphere" told me and that is why I used him.  He said to me, "Jim, some of these people were in the fast food business before this internet stuff happened.  They have very little background in history, and even less in journalism.  And whatever you do, you cannot suggest doing longer investigative pieces."

Jane Hamsher was a movie producer prior to founding Firedoglake.

FDL did a great job on the Valerie Plame Affair, the perfidy of Joe Lieberman, cannabis prohobition among other issues, and featured excellent journalism by Marcy Wheeler, Spencer Ackerman, Cliff Schecter, and many others.

And she was correct to point out Caroline Kennedy's lack of an activist record.

And unlike DailyKos, one could comment on the assassination of JFK and the inside job of 9-11 without getting kicked out.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Jane Hamsher doesn't deserve a journalism gig.  Then again, so few do...

Are you swallowing Jim's characterization of Hamsher's argument against Caroline Kennedy getting the NY Senate gig?

I was a regular commenter on FDL in those days and I recall the debate well.

Hamsher never attacked JFK or RFK, and yet DiEugenio conflates her with others who do.

No way Caroline was ready for that seat.

This is the "celebrity culture" which gave us Arnold Schwarzenegger and Donald Trump.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DiEugenio:

Well, it is similar to the occasion that Hamsher embarrassed herself about.

---

Pure bullshi*.

If Caroline Kennedy had been a sitting US Rep, Hamsher would have backed her for Senate since she'd paid her dues.

Hamsher argued that Caroline hadn't paid her dues and the Kennedy name cut no ice.

Jim argued that Gillibrand wasn't liberal enough but outside of her vote to extend the Patriot Act her record is okeydoke.

It depends on how much of a JFK fan you want to be -- I'm a fan but not a fanboy.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...