JFK interview Sept. 9, 1963 raw footage

[Matt Allison]

This is an absolutely incredible historical document. Beginning to end. Be sure to watch the entire video.

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Matt Allison

[Joseph McBride]

 I find it credible. Why don't you think so?

Edited June 2, 2021 by Joseph McBride

[Matt Allison]

47 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

 I find it credible. Why don't you think so?

uh, what?

Maybe you'd prefer the description "extraordinary"?

Edited June 2, 2021 by Matt Allison

[Robert Burrows]

8 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

This is an absolutely incredible historical document. Beginning to end. Be sure to watch the entire video.

 

Watching JFK in this interview brings home all that was lost when he was brutally deposed. 

[George Govus]

6 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

6 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

 I find it credible. Why don't you think so?

uh, what?

Nowhere did I say I didn't find it credible.

Perhaps you're responding to a different thread...

I think, Matt, Joseph was having fun with the word "incredible," and how it's use has expanded to include things which are "credible," but also amazing, astounding. I live with a linguist, so I get this sort of thing all the time.

[Kirk Gallaway]

After the first 15 minutes, I'm not sure what was incredible or extraordinary Matt. It was completely boiler plate political. JFK starts out good pushing his test ban treaty , but when asked somewhat pointed questions at the time about SE Asia, He ducks, sort of tiptoes through the the tulips with the MIC. Reinstates his firm vigilant belief in the domino theory, even though we've heard so may testimonials as to JFK wanting third world countries to find their own path. As all politicians, forever putting the best face on SE Asia  "Things up to recently have gone very well". What an illusion! Rhetoric wise, you know any Democrat at the time outside of a southerner like LBJ, would give lip service to the sound bite that  ultimately "the South Vietnamese can find their own way, but we can help!

What we know now as of I believe August 24, 1963,is that JFK bows to an edict by the U.S. military stating that they're going to back a military overthrow of Diem,which I assume meant an assassination toJFK. Right? Isn't that pretty much understood to be the way such a situation would have been handled at that time? And I think you can see the trouble in his face.

Then of course, hohum , more boiler plate. The tax cuts.

Thanks Matt, That is interesting to see. What was maybe the most enlightening for me, was the last 15 minutes. Outside of Fox news, if you're a politician, there's a lot more pressure to get it right the first time. Fox opinion makers just  get around it by asking softball questions. Make no mistake, politicians these days could not get away with such media collusion. " Oh that was a rough take. I didn't answer it well enough, let's do it again". Yes that's done to some degree, but media Presidential relations are much more combative now. There's a much higher standard  that interviews are fresh, spontaneous and not near as orchestrated as this was, and the bar is so much higher, and there's 100 times the prep. In this it's as  if the press and the Presidency have made an agreement about what is the best way to portray a concept of America's interests at home and the best face to put on it abroad.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Matt Allison]

George- ha, yes, it took me a minute but I realized that was the case.

Kirk- I find any interview done by JFK this close to his death to be so valuable in trying to understand where his headspace was at. Vietnam was clearly something that was on his, as well as the media's, mind. He wanted to be incredibly careful about his answers on the subject, and thus asked for a second try at answering the questions so he could be more exact in his reply. I think it's apparent he knew he was walking a tightrope between what he wanted to do, and what he had to say in order to not jeopardize his re-election chances.

I know it seems like these guys were chummy with him, but the subjects they raise aren't petty political arguments about other politicians, but important issues that the country faced. It seems clear to me that the goal of all the men in that room was that the good of the country and its people was being served. Very touching to watch that in this day and age.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Yes I also like to see JFK's headspace, knowing what we know now.

Agreed, it was about issues,  not about other politicians and personalities, which we've  become use to with Trump.

Matt: It seems clear to me that the goal of all the men in that room was that the good of the country and its people was being served.

I sort of hear you because there was a spirit and consensus  of the common national good at that time, as I said. Which is refreshing to think about in the context of now. But you like that collusion a lot primarily because you like all the principals involved, but you may not like the principals of a press Presidency collusion in the future.

Huntley and Brinkley come off good, the questions were good questions about fear of a widening SE Asia conflict. I'm not sure JFK did any better the second time. In the end, JFK comes off like a politician trying to BS his way out of it, and even though  that's sort of understandable.  At least about SE Asia,  It really ends up being sort of a skirting BS session that further perpetuated an illusion that we only started to sense the faintest tip of the iceberg a couple of months later.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway