Steve Thomas Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 If JFK was assassinated because he was soft on Communism; and to maintain our dominance in world affairs vis a vis post World War II, did it succeed or fail? It all depends on whether you measure success by how many people drink Coca Cola. "The Soviet Union seems to have survived the Chech invasion very well indeed". Read the secret CIA World Situation Report given to Richard Nixon in 1970. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2019/mar/13/cia-world-report-1970/ Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) On 3/18/2019 at 4:56 AM, Steve Thomas said: If JFK was assassinated because he was soft on Communism; and to maintain our dominance in world affairs vis a vis post World War II, did it succeed or fail? It all depends on whether you measure success by how many people drink Coca Cola. "The Soviet Union seems to have survived the Chech invasion very well indeed". Read the secret CIA World Situation Report given to Richard Nixon in 1970. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2019/mar/13/cia-world-report-1970/ Steve Thomas deleted Steve Thomas Edited August 25, 2023 by Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 Cynically, I would call it a success, since it got us into Vietnam, where the profiteering was exponentially larger and longer-lived than in Cuba. You could extend JFKA success through history to the Contra War and the ruin of the Soviet Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) On 3/18/2019 at 8:21 AM, David Andrews said: deleted Steve Thomas Edited August 25, 2023 by Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) Hindsight has 20/20 vision, someone said, and if that concern was foreseeable in 1962-1963, it was regarded as about as material as "the negro problem," or the body count for a ten-year, unwinnable overseas war. The mindset was corporate, from the same logic that brought us "air pollution" and, later, climate change. Who was going to object to defoliants from Dow Chemical? Thanks for the document and the responses from Nixon and Haig - I'll read them through tonight. Edited March 18, 2019 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) Steve: Do you really take this CIA world view stuff seriously? Or is that why you led off with Coca Cola drinkers? The JFK murder in and of itself, did not do the whole job. That is why the others followed. And if one cannot see how incredibly successful that was for the fascist right, then you must be blind. The election of the anit-RFK Nixon in 1968 could not have happened without those murders. Edited March 18, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) I wouldn't put it that harshly, however harsh it was for the world.. Just looking at the CIA 1970 report briefly, I take it seriously as an incitement to the Executive to permit CIA more liberty for successes. It's not a moaning opinion piece, it's practically a line-item budget proposal for future mayhem. Edited March 18, 2019 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick McTague Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Steve: Do you really take this CIA world view stuff seriously? Or is that why you led off with Coca Cola drinkers? The JFK murder in and of itself, did not do the whole job. That is why the others followed. And if one cannot see how incredibly successful that was for the fascist right, then you must be blind. The election of the anit-RFK Nixon in 1968 could not have happened without those murders. Jim, Your post here brings something to mind. If the fascist right were the primary benefactors of the assassinations of the 60's, why would the MSM, who are very left-leaning all the way back to Cronkite, be on the side of the findings of the Warren Commission so patently and vehemently against anyone who says otherwise? I agree that the military-industrial complex was a huge benefactor since Vietnam was escalated/expanded; is that the context that you find the fascist right benefiting or is it something else? Just trying to understand ... thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 Rick: The people who owned the media back then were not left leaning. By this I mean people like the Sarnoffs at NBC, Paley at CBS, and Bradlee/Graham at the Post. If you look at CBS, a number of their moderate to liberal journalists did want to do an expose of the WC back in 1967. But they ended up being subverted by the higher-ups. And this ended with that abominable 1967 four night salute to the WC. Everyone went along with it: Cronkite, Rather, Sevareid, Barker. But Barker ended up being an FBI informant. He told them that McCloy and Dulles would be consultants on the series. In these situations, I always refer to the Upton Sinclair quote: Its difficult to make a reporter understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it. I refer you to my microanalysis of this through the efforts of the late Roger Feinman. He allowed us, by far, the best inside view of how this all works. And he lost his job for it. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-cbs-covered-up-the-jfk-assassination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Steve: Do you really take this CIA world view stuff seriously? Or is that why you led off with Coca Cola drinkers? The JFK murder in and of itself, did not do the whole job. That is why the others followed. And if one cannot see how incredibly successful that was for the fascist right, then you must be blind. The election of the anit-RFK Nixon in 1968 could not have happened without those murders. Jim, The one take-away that I took-away (hey, I like that line. I think I'll store it away somewhere), is that the CIA is not a monolith. It's not enough to say, "The CIA did this", or "The CIA did that". I don't think the author or authors of this position paper held the same world view as someone like a George Kennan. The other thing I came away with is the idea that the only thing constant in life is change. If the idea behind JFK's assassination was to maintain U.S. hegemony in the world, it didn't work. U.S. dominance in the world in the 1950's was not the same as the U.S. position in the world in the 1970's. The authors of this paper felt the same way. From page 20: The line about Coca Cola came from the paper itself. (See page 12) I think I agree with the authors when they said that smaller nation-states like Scandanavia, aligned together based on mutual self-interest seem to work the best. (see page 30). They are better able to cope with and adjust to rapidly changing conditions, where change is the only constant in life. I think our Founding Fathers had the right idea of a confederation or republic of states bound together by mutual self-interest. (I kind of like the idea of driving from North Dakota to South Dakota without needing a passport). I agree with you wholeheartedly that Richard Nixon could not have been elected without JFK, RFK and MLK having been eliminated first. But the gain was a short term one. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: I agree with you wholeheartedly that Richard Nixon could not have been elected without JFK, RFK and MLK having been eliminated first. But the gain was a short term one. "short term" ? From my POV, this is, was and shall always be about the Bankers & Lawyers owning the majority of the wealth while doing everything in their power to insulate and keep it growing... The Council on Foreign Relations would be the place to look to see if anything "failed"... I find it extremely ethnocentric to believe JFK was anything more than a blip on the world wealth stage - at least since the days of Plato.... I'm sorry but IMO JFK's rhetoric about communism was to appease his critics... he wanted world peace... he wanted a world working together to better humanity... ... and the very rich/power do not like it when any power that may threaten their circumstances is given to the people.. unless it is them giving it as in the Bolshevik revolution... my $.02 "None Dare Call It Conspiracy".... "In the Bolshevik Revolution we see many of the same old faces that were responsible for; creating the Federal Reserve System, initiating the graduated income tax, setting up the tax-free foundations and pushing us into WWI. However, if you conclude that this is anything but coincidental, your name will be immediately expunged from the Social Register." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jolliffe Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 David, Trying to divine the ultimate sponsors of the Kennedy assassination by examining the change in policies after his murder is tricky, but at this point, that's all we can do. So, since you mentioned the Federal Reserve, is there anything to the idea that the 1963 United States Notes (not the 1963 United States Silver Certificates) actually bypassed the Fed? Is that really what happened, regardless of whether that decision had anything to do with 11/22/63? (I am not aware of any evidence linking the United States Notes to 11/22/63. Is there any?) I read Gary Allen's book decades ago, but I don't remember any discussion of the United States Notes and JFK. But it's been a very long time - is there anything in there about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 Well....Wheaton did say others above the Cubans wanted him dead for "other reasons"....wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what they were. I'm certain there were long term plans in play and I cannot imagine that there weren't any Cubans who weren't scratching their heads after JFK's murder when they later realized that they still wouldn't be going back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) Paul, that order you are talking about was not permanent. But related to that, currency comptroller James Saxon was appointed by JFK for the express purpose of opening up more state banks with easier credit than the Fed. Concerning David's point, what these assassinations did was to keep both the Power Elite and the MIC at the top of the pyramid. And those are the two places where the big money was that time. Also, the election of Nixon and then the appointment of Ford brought in the Rise of the Vulcans.(See the book of the same title) By that I mean Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush I and their later followers over at Team B. (Kirkpatrick, Pipes etc.) And that was the beginning of the whole Neocon movement which shifted American foreign policy so far to the right that these guys thought that Kissinger was too liberal. American foreign policy was then dominated by two main camps, the Neocons (Reagan, Bush I and II) and the Neolibs (Clinton, Obama). The Kennedys' foreign policy was literally ground into the dust, its something we now talk about online or at seminars up in San Francisco, which David and I go to. Which means its an artifact in a museum. So I disagree about the changes brought about by those assassinations not being permanent. The America we live in now is pretty much unrecognizable from the America I grew up in--in every way. Edited March 18, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kozlowski Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Did it fail? 1. LBJ becomes Pres and avoids jail 2. Assassination is covered up 54yrs and counting 3. CIA isnt splintered into 1000 pieces 4. Cold war went on another 27 years 5. Vietnam 6. RFK is assassinated 7. Nixon and his crew 8. Ford 9. Reagan 10. Both Bushes I could list another 20 things that probably wouldn't have happened if JFK wasn't murdered. These are just the big ones. All in all I think it was a huge success for the perpetrators. 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