Jump to content
The Education Forum

Alecia Long Lays an Egg-part 2


Recommended Posts

Alecia Long is up there with Philip Shenon as one of the worst on the JFK case. So now the Post allows her to do an utterly phony review of JFK Revisited.   She actually says don't worry about bullets and ballistics--in a HOMICIDE CASE!   She also adds that one cannot determine if JFK would have done what LBJ did in Vietnam: that is invade the country with American combat troops.  She then ignores the evidence we advanced on both fronts. Much of which had never been presented in any TV broadcast before. Most of it made possible by the ARRB.  This is why the public does not trust the MSM today.

 https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/alecia-long-lays-an-egg-part-2?fbclid=IwAR1mOQRcEGfy8eJP-KmJNlYyPK304poRMQJe-Q-3ycdA2rWfMitOeWJfPfU

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

She also adds that one cannot determine if JFK would have done what LBJ did in Vietnam: that is invade the country with American combat troops. 

She is not alone in the belief that what JFK would have done about Vietnam is unknowable. Here is an excellent piece by another academic who provides both sides of the argument:

Without Dallas: John F. Kennedy and the Vietnam War | American Diplomacy Est 1996 (unc.edu)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, let me add this about what John said about the McNamara debriefs.

When I talked to Jamie Galbraith about the film--who is our other expert on the Vietnam issue--not even he was  aware of that.  He said words to the effect:  wow, that is really important.

To me, its more than that. It closes a debate that should have never began. And to think, Long is a history professor.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure which is more depressing.

It's depressing to see a university history professor engaging in this kind of blatant intellectual fraudulence.

It's also depressing to see one of the most prestigious newspapers in the U.S. publishing such fraudulent articles.

I know that Harvard established some standards proscribing faculty work with CIA propagandists.

Apparently, Louisiana State University has no such scruples.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egads. Where to start?

The sad situation today is what used to be America's two most credible newspapers---at least to a younger version of myself---have become untrustworthy. 

The Wuhan lab leak was a debunked conspiracy theory? 

And this excrement from Alecia Long? Fine if you want publish Long, but not also a lengthy (and accurate) rebuttal from Jim DiEugenio? 

Except, the WaPo and NYT are so deep into their worlds, they may not even know who is DiEugenio. 

And the WaPo-NYT-M$M want to censor the internet to prevent misinformation? 

By that standard, well, we would shut down the WaPo and NYT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

awaited  what JFK would have done about Vietnam is unknowable. Here is an excellent piece by another academic who provides both sides of the argument:

Without Dallas: John F. Kennedy and the Vietnam War | American Diplomacy Est 1996 (unc.edu)

let's deal with what is real – at the time of his death, there were orders to bring the first of the 17 ,00 advisors home in units and not as individuals. and so the die was cast. i'll stick with jfk.  he knew what kind of storm awaited him. so, as he said "we had better, make dam sure i get re-elected.

Edited by Martin Blank
garbled typing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I see an article which uses the terms "Camelot" and "acolytes" but does not use the words hack for someone like Thomas Reeves, I am suspect of the author's objectivity.

The evidence for the withdrawal plan is constructed out of real time, not something added later.  Any historian can find it, if they are looking for it. People like Sheehan and Halberstam were not looking for it. Johnson was trying to dispose of it.

1.  Fall of 1961: Galbraith brings in Nehru to begin a neutralization program in Indochina. Kennedy agrees to meet him to explore this possibility.  Later sandbagged by Harriman. (Not mentioned at all by White, who actually denies something like this happened.)

2. Galbraith hears about the Rostow/Taylor plan for escalation during this visit. He goes over to Rostow's office and steals a copy. (Not mentioned by White)

3. Galbraith takes it back to his hotel room and writes a counter memo to it for JFK to use.  Kennedy and his brother go over the memo. (Not mentioned by White.)

4. Kennedy, after postponing the showdown meeting to prepare with Galbraith's memo, has his brother explicitly say during the meeting that "There will be no combat troops in Vietnam." This is sourced to notes by both David Kaiser and Richard Parker. (Not mentioned by White)

5. Kennedy tells Galbraith, knowing full well that it will counter the hawks, to go to Saigon and write his own report about the situation there. This ends up being three reports that discourage any further involvement or backing of Diem. (Not mentioned by White)

6. In April of 1962, Galbraith is in town again and Kennedy tells him to take his reports to McNamara.  He does so and later tells JFK that they had a good talk and the Sec Def got the message. (Not mentioned by White.)

7. After this , at a Sec Def meeting in 1962, McNamara tells General Harkins to stay after.  The Secretary  instructs him that he wants Harkins to begin to prepare a withdrawal plan for all American forces in Vietnam. Harkins says it may take awhile.  McNamara says just do it. (Not mentioned by White.)

8. At the May 1963 Sec Def Conference in Hawaii, McNamara calls for the withdrawal schedules from everyone. He looks them over, and then turns to the audience and says words to the effect, these are too slow. (Not mentioned by White.) 

9. Realizing that McNamara has prepared the way, Kennedy authorizes he and Taylor to go to Saigon and write a report which will recommend that America can now leave. That report is being partly written in DC by Krulak. But when they return, Sullivan and Taylor try to pull out the section on withdrawal. Kennedy insists that it be put back in the report. (Not mentioned by White.)

10. At the accompanying meeting to hash out NSAM 263, Kennedy steamrolls those in dissent and then tells McNamara to alert the press. As McNamara walks out, Kennedy says that the order will include all the helicopters too. (Not mentioned by White.)

 

If you leave out the above ten steps over two years, then yes, one can construct a mythology saying things like Kennedy did not like long terms plans, and was indecisive until 1963 etc.  If you do include the above facts, its pretty clear that what happened began in 1961 and was consistent all the way until Kennedy's death. And this was all knowingly taken apart piece by piece by LBJ who knew what Kennedy was doing, as shown by the use of the tape in JFK Revisited. There is nothing "Camelotish" or "acolytish" in the above.  These are all facts that the other side has studiously avoided or discounted in order to disguise the breakage in policy after LBJ took over.  Kennedy drew a line in 1961 that he was not going to cross.  At the time of his death he was getting the advisors out. LBJ reversed that policy with astonishing alacrity; it was completely obliterated by March of 1964 where, with NSAM 288, Johnson was planning for a full scale air war against the north. What JFK had not done in three years, LBJ was doing in three months.

Within one year of getting elected, LBJ had 175,000 combat troops in theater which provided the land war;  on the day he was killed Kennedy had no combat troops there. These are facts that  there is no getting around no matter what gymnastics so called historians use..

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s obvious now that JFK was assassinated twice - first physically and then the historical record of his presidency.

Our family were JFK fans and no one ever knew of his true record on Vietnam or his bold initiatives to end the Cold War and his battles with the security state.

His presidency was erased like they used to do in USSR and China when someone once in power is no longer in favor by the state.

I think Orwell called it becoming an “Unperson,” or someone who has been “vaporized.”

And what they couldn’t hide they distracted by making JFK some kind of lightweight mid-century glamourpuss.

Amazing how MSM and historians fell in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, i agree with that.

And the other thing is this.  When the first edition of Newman's book appeared, with the thesis of it being carried out in the film JFK, this was really a blow to the MSM.  Because it was a colossal story that they had completely missed.  In fact, they had helped cover it up.

But if you look at the record, it was pretty much all there to see pretty quickly. Most of it in real time--not afterwards.  This was a body blow to the whole concept of journalism as being reportage of facts. Because it should have been  obvious as to what happened to anyone who was looking for it. And this is one reason I have spent so much time on this of late. Because it conveys a real, almost scary, failure on their part.

And I agree with the other aspect also.  They disguised who Kennedy really was by turning him into "charismatic", "glamorous" etc. All meant to distract from what really happened. That was the second assassination.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

 

His presidency was erased like they used to do in USSR and China when someone once in power is no longer in favor by the state.

I think Orwell called it becoming an “Unperson,” or someone who has been “vaporized.”

Michaleen,

This goes all the way back to ancient Egypt when succeeding pharaohs would chip off the faces of their predecessors, and chip off their cartouches from historical records.

It never works in the long run.

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

It’s obvious now that JFK was assassinated twice - first physically and then the historical record of his presidency.

Our family were JFK fans and no one ever knew of his true record on Vietnam or his bold initiatives to end the Cold War and his battles with the security state.

His presidency was erased like they used to do in USSR and China when someone once in power is no longer in favor by the state.

I think Orwell called it becoming an “Unperson,” or someone who has been “vaporized.”

And what they couldn’t hide they distracted by making JFK some kind of lightweight mid-century glamourpuss.

Amazing how MSM and historians fell in line.

       And, IMO, the "erasure" of JFK's true legacy in Vietnam-- his decision to get out-- was about LBJ and the Deep State Cold Warriors covering up one of their main motives for his murder. 

       LBJ aggressively promoted the false notion that his Vietnam policy was a mere continuation of JFK's Vietnam policy.

       The ruse worked for years.  And, obviously, it's still being promoted in the M$M.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

It’s obvious now that JFK was assassinated twice - first physically and then the historical record of his presidency.

Our family were JFK fans and no one ever knew of his true record on Vietnam or his bold initiatives to end the Cold War and his battles with the security state.

His presidency was erased like they used to do in USSR and China when someone once in power is no longer in favor by the state.

I think Orwell called it becoming an “Unperson,” or someone who has been “vaporized.”

And what they couldn’t hide they distracted by making JFK some kind of lightweight mid-century glamourpuss.

Amazing how MSM and historians fell in line.

Great post, worth a bump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have not read this book, its very much worth doing so. In fact, the doves were using it to talk Obama out of Afghanistan.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/goldstein-gordon-lessons-in-disaster

It is  Bundy's version of In Retrospect.

I really wanted the author, Gordon Goldstein, in JFK Revisited.  Then we would have had Jamie Galbraith/JK Galbraith and John Newman/ McNamara and Goldstein/Bundy. So we would have had three authorities with direct connections to those who were involved.

Goldstein backed out at the last minute. 

 

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...