COUP IN DALLAS

[James DiEugenio]

There is actually more to it than that Sandy.

Kennedy was worried about a downturn in the economy left over from the Eisenhower years.

So he called in his Council on Economic Advisors led by Heller.  Heller said that they had two options if this was what he was worried about.  Either a tax cut, or a capital improvements program.  When JFK asked which would have the faster impact, Heller said the former.  So JFK said, we should do both but the tax cut first for the faster impact.

Kennedy was in the process of figuring out the second at the time of his death. It was going to be part of his program to ameliorate poverty inspired by the Harrington book.

BTW, I have always found Irving Bernstein's book, Promises Kept to be the best on Kennedy's domestic policies.  I used it as a source for the book of JFK Revisited. 

[James DiEugenio]

2 hours ago, Norman T. Field said:

I believe that Harry Truman was first on this issue. 

That is correct. But my point holds.

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

<< Mike, Whew.  Stoll worked for Newsmax and Reason.  And the New York Sun. >>

And? So what? Have you read his book? Or, do you just assume that because he wrote for two conservative journals and a libertarian journal that he can have nothing valid to say?

<< The idea that Kennedy was a conservative is kind of ridiculous. >>

Actually, it is not. It is not ridiculous at all. It is based on his record in the House, in the Senate, and in the White House. Have you read Stoll's book?

<< As ridiculous as saying he would be a Manchin Democrat. >>

I think JFK's record proves he would be at least as center-right as Manchin, if not more so. 

Please understand one thing: I am not using the term "liberal" as a pejorative adjective. As an Independent, I'm liberal on some issues, such as a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare, red-flag laws, background checks for gun purchases, raising the age limit for rifle purchases to 21, most federal-level affirmative action policies, granting citizenship to "Dreamers," etc.

However, I think liberal conspiracy theorists have done JFK a disservice by painting him to be a liberal peacenik who would have readily abandoned South Vietnam to communist tyranny, who would have gutted the defense budget, who would have endorsed today's mammoth welfare and regulatory state, etc.

[W. Niederhut]

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is correct.

       Teddy Roosevelt advocated universal health insurance back in the day, almost a century before Obama signed the ACA in 2009.

       As for Michael Griffith's notion that JFK would have been appalled by an alleged leftward shift in liberalism today, it's absurd.  It sounds like an anhistorical meme from the Breitbart/Fox MAGA-verse.

      If anything, the American political spectrum has shifted dramatically to the right since the days when Eisenhower denounced Prescott Bush and the right wing Republican plutocrats who wanted to abolish Social Security and roll back the New Deal.  Since 2009, that Eisenhower era extreme right wing Koch agenda has become mainstream in the GOP.

    Nixon helped create the EPA, but subsequent Republican presidents spent the past 40 years trying to abolish it.

      Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida) and other Republican Koch-sters are currently pushing a roll back of Social Security.  And Paul Ryan's Koch/Tea Party House actually passed two House budget bills after 2010 that would have abolished Medicare as we know it for Americans born after 1959, converting Medicare into an inadequately funded "Voucher Care" program.

     If anything, JFK would have been shocked and appalled by the marked rightward shift in the American political spectrum, including the SCOTUS, after 1980.

Edited August 21, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

William is correct.

In Robert Shaw's book, which is about Kennedy's senate days, he says that JFK's signal achievement in congress was forming a foreign policy that was opposed to the reigning Dulles/Eisenhower "my way or the highway" policy in the Third World.  

And Shaw is no big fan of Kennedy.   He is even handed to a fault.

As per your question about my reading habits, can I counter that with this list?  Have you read the following:

Gordon Goldstein, Lessons in Disaster

James Blight, Virtual JFK

Brad SImpson, Economists with Guns

Greg Poulgrain, The Incubus of Intervention

Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game

Richard Mahoney, JFK: Ordeal in Africa

David Kaiser, American Tragedy

Gardner and GIttinger, Vietnam: The Early Decisions

Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street

I have read all the above.  And I know the way the game is played in the rightwing playground.  When you do things like Stoll did, that is how you get your ticket punched.  Monica Cowley trying to rehab Nixon being another prime example. 

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I also agree with William on the issue of how the American political spectrum has been redefined.  In fact, in some ways beyond recognition. In the fifties, the battle for the Republican party was between Ike and Bob Taft, the latter was essentially an isolationist.

Goldwater changed all that.  And slowly but surely the extreme right, which Ike opposed, eventually took over the GOP.  This was done through Buckley, Reagan, Gingrich and DeLay.  There actually used to be both a centrist and liberal wing of the GOP: Javits, Packwood etc.  That was all done away with.

Therefore, if Kennedy was a liberal back then, we can imagine what they would call him today.  And the Bobby Kennedy of 1968 made JFK look like a moderate.  

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

Someone asked me for some examples of ultra-liberal preaching in the documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed. One of the most unfortunate statements that jumped out at me when I watched it was this one in Episode 2 (starting at 27:22):

John Foster Dulles and Alan Dulles came from a Christian background, and they felt, you know, what they had to say was good enough for the rest of the world.

Are you kidding me? Seriously? What if someone made that same statement but replaced "Christian background" with "LGBT background" or "African-American background" or "Muslim background"? Nearly everyone, regardless of ideology, would call the statement bigoted and insulting. But I guess it's okay when Christians are the target?

This is a needless, senseless insult to every person raised as a Christian and who takes their faith seriously. This is exactly the kind of far-left stuff that has caused so many conservatives to have the perception that the only people who reject the Warren Report are "godless, immoral liberals."

To even imply that Alan Dulles and John Foster Dulles were Christians is an insult to every genuine Christian. Hitler made an annual donation to a Christian fund from the time he took over Germany until the end of the war, but no rational person would suggest that Hitler was a Christian. Alan Dulles ordered innocent people murdered. He was a pathological xxxx. The fact that he "came from a Christian background" is irrelevant because obviously he abandoned whatever Christian teaching he was given. 

Thank goodness that this insulting statement is omitted from JFK Revisited. 

[Michael Davidson]

42 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

John Foster Dulles and Alan Dulles came from a Christian background, and they felt, you know, what they had to say was good enough for the rest of the world.

Ever heard of missionaries ? Empire ? White mans burden ? Thats what its referring to 

[David Andrews]

1 hour ago, Michael Davidson said:

Ever heard of missionaries ? Empire ? White mans burden ? Thats what its referring to 

It was American neocolonialism, and America supporting the neocolonialism of its allies, such as Belgium and anti-Gaulleist France, as Michael says.  That, cloaked in the guise of Christian "improvement" of native cultures, was what was missing in the "Christian background" elision by the interview subject, Mr. Griffith.  As the film shows in other ways, it was what JFK and Gullion opposed.

Edited August 21, 2022 by David Andrews

[Joe Bauer]

On 8/21/2022 at 7:15 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Someone asked me for some examples of ultra-liberal preaching in the documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed. One of the most unfortunate statements that jumped out at me when I watched it was this one in Episode 2 (starting at 27:22):

John Foster Dulles and Alan Dulles came from a Christian background, and they felt, you know, what they had to say was good enough for the rest of the world.

Are you kidding me? Seriously? What if someone made that same statement but replaced "Christian background" with "LGBT background" or "African-American background" or "Muslim background"? Nearly everyone, regardless of ideology, would call the statement bigoted and insulting. But I guess it's okay when Christians are the target?

This is a needless, senseless insult to every person raised as a Christian and who takes their faith seriously. This is exactly the kind of far-left stuff that has caused so many conservatives to have the perception that the only people who reject the Warren Report are "godless, immoral liberals."

To even imply that Alan Dulles and John Foster Dulles were Christians is an insult to every genuine Christian. Hitler made an annual donation to a Christian fund from the time he took over Germany until the end of the war, but no rational person would suggest that Hitler was a Christian. Alan Dulles ordered innocent people murdered. He was a pathological xxxx. The fact that he "came from a Christian background" is irrelevant because obviously he abandoned whatever Christian teaching he was given. 

Thank goodness that this insulting statement is omitted from JFK Revisited. 

My apologies but could you clarify your point here? Are you upset that anyone would mention the Dulles brothers being Christian as if doing so taints other Christians?

No argument here. Just a little confused.

My take on JFK was he was a liberal in line with his Irish Catholic upbringing roots.

Despite his individual family's great wealth...I am sure JFK knew that the cultural history of Irish Catholics was one of great faith yet almost always combined with great poverty.

People raised in poor cultures generally are more liberal in their identity with and sympathy for other poor peoples.

I grew up with many Irish Catholic families right here on the California Coast in the 1950's and 60's.

They all seemed to have 10 kids each! And it seemed to me they were always struggling with basic need bills, especially food.

I was so close to these families I was often at their homes sharing the cheapest white bread, meatless spaghetti and powdered milk meals.

We were as poor and even more so at times. 7 boys with no father and dependent on county welfare.

Our mom just didn't like organized religion so she didn't make us go to church...although she always said she believed in Jesus Christ and his general teachings of right and wrong. I still have this same religious view.

In my assessment, there seemed to be much, much more to JFK besides any liberal leanings he may have had. 

He was a tough cookie in so many other areas of political, social, economic and military beliefs that were conservative if he had to be.

One thing I have always noticed about JFK was his tough character when he was confronted by other power groups and individuals who felt they could intimidate him when they felt he wasn't going along with their agendas.

JFK stood up to such groups and men as LeMay, Dulles, Hoover, Texas Oil, General Walker, Southern governors you name it.

Firing Dulles and Cabell?  Firing Walker?

I am sure JFK got this toughness from his father. A ruthless son-of-a-gun when he wanted something bad enough.

There is a telephone call audio tape of JFK personally ripping into an Air Force officer who stupidly put out a press release which in some way depicted a perception of indulgent spending on JFK's part regards some furniture purchases?

JFK was livid! He told the mumbling officer he just blew the entire Air Force budget with his silly stupid actions.

To me this tape revealed JFK had a red hot temper at times that was not to be messed with, even by those highest power people who opposed him and his agendas versus their own.

Fired and vindictive Allen Dulles on JFK ..."he thought he was a little God."

For what it's worth.

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/18/2022 at 7:56 PM, James DiEugenio said:

In my opinion, and as our film shows, I think it is counterproductive to not talk about Indochina, and other places like Congo, Indonesia etc.

Oh, I have no problem with the segments on the Congo and Indonesia. I agree with them, and I'm certain that most conservatives who view the documentary will see no problem with them. 

However, most conservatives, and even some centrists and liberals, will find the segment on Vietnam to be questionable. I strongly doubt that JFK would have stood back and done nothing to prevent South Vietnam from falling to communist tyranny. I don't think the record supports that view at all. I think the record shows that although JFK may have eventually withdrawn all of our advisers, he would have done so based on the situation on the ground, and he would have continued to provide South Vietnam with weapons and logistics, and quite possibly with close air support from Navy carriers. 

I think our knowledge of the record of JFK's views and intentions on Vietnam will be considerably expanded with the release of Dr. Marc Selverstone's upcoming book The Kennedy Withdrawal: Camelot and the American Commitment to Vietnam, scheduled for release on 1/27/2023. 

Yes, Powers and O'Donnell, in a book published in 1973, claimed that JFK planned a complete pullout and didn't care if he lost South Vietnam. But the earlier memoirs of Sorenson and Schlesinger, published in 1965, made no such claims and did not interpret NSAM-263 as evidence of an intention to withdraw and disengage from Vietnam. 

 

 

[Richard Price]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

I strongly doubt that JFK would have stood back and done nothing to prevent South Vietnam from falling to communist tyranny. I don't think the record supports that view at all. I think the record shows that although JFK may have eventually withdrawn all of our advisers, he would have done so based on the situation on the ground, and he would have continued to provide South Vietnam with weapons and logistics, and quite possibly with close air support from Navy carriers. 

I will not argue with your opinion since we all have one and are entitled to it.  My only comment is that this is the same reasoning that led the CIA/military/etc. to completely misread JFK on Cuba/the Bay of Pigs.  He stood firm and did not flinch when he knew the operation was going to be a debacle.  I think he had already reached this conclusion on Viet Nam.  As he had already said, the war in Viet Nam could only be won by South Vietnamese themselves.  If they did not have the commitment required to win their own freedom, no amount of aid could supply that.  It was their war to win or lose, not America's (the US).

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

The idea that somehow the Power Elite did not use Christian missionaries as a way of influencing the Third World  is undermined by both George Michael Evica's A Certain Arrogance, and Gerard Colby's Thy Will be Done, a classic book on how the Rockefellers essentially took over a huge swath of South America, through a large missionary program.

As per JFK's withdrawal plan in Indochina, whenever I hear some established academic, like Selverstone, using the word Camelot in the title of the book, I immediately smell something in the air. We recently got this from LBJ guardian Updegrove, the picture of Kennedy as an empty suit.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-vs-lbj-the-msm-in-overdrive

Vietnam has been decided: by Goldstein, Blight, and Kaiser, in addition to Newman, Prouty and Scott. Plus people who were there: McNamara and Bundy and Taylor. How much do you need?

No firm commitment?  Why was McNamara collecting the withdrawal schedules at the May '63 Sec/Def meeting?  And why did he say they were too slow?

 What is the last thing Kennedy said on the subject?  He told Forrestal right before he left for Texas:  We have about a 100-1 chance of winning this thing. When I get back, we are going to begin an extensive review, including how we got there in the first place.

Now, was he going to review how the French could have actually won, even though he said we had virtually no chance of winning? Please Mike.  I am very familiar with how the game is played in both the MSM and academia. Neither one wants to admit that they missed the story on the assassination, and even worse, that the first combat troops went into Vietnam three months after the Warren Commission volumes were released.  Eight months later, there were 170,000 of them there.

On the day Kennedy was killed, there were none. 

I stand 100 per cent by what we said in the film on this subject.

Edited August 21, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Leslie Sharp]

Yes Paul, Hank was persuaded that Tracy Barnes was the likely candidate for "T" - a code used in the Pierre Lafitte datebook for someone he (Lafitte) was liaising with regarding the Dallas plot; that said,  Hank and I both wondered if T might have been a composite similar to QJ/WIN, including J. Walton Moore.

 

A work in progress.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Leslie Sharp

[Ron Bulman]

13 hours ago, Michael Davidson said:

13 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

John Foster Dulles and Alan Dulles came from a Christian background, and they felt, you know, what they had to say was good enough for the rest of the world.

Ever heard of missionaries ? Empire ? White mans burden ? Thats what its referring to 

 

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Gerard Colby's Thy Will be Done, a classic book on how the Rockefellers essentially took over a huge swath of South America, through a large missionary program.