Interesting account of JFK affair, Gore Vidal

[Cory Santos]

44 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Like Ron I suspect Lodge. But I’m certain that Cliff has studied Diem more than I. Does he think Jfk was killed as payback for Diem’s murder? I recall him suggesting that assassins from that Asian milieu, CIA or military covert operatives, were part of the hit team in Dealey Plaza.

I don’t live far from SF if that’s where you both reside. Maybe we should talk over a glass or cup sometime. 

Paul I would be happy to host you at the University Club sometime, though it will need to be next year as I am swamped this year.   
 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Regarding JFK and the Diem assassination. This clip shows JFK clearly doesn't have control of his foreign policy, as in August 63, Henry Cabot lodge informs JFK of a coup that will assassinate Diem. Later on Nov. 4th, JFK records for a private historical record that his administration does bear ultimate responsibility for the coup, but says he's shocked by the death of Diem,and the death of members of his family when he clearly wasn't.

 

https://fullmeasure.news/news/shows/jfk-vietnam

 

 

It's interesting to note that not only did JFK beat Lodge out of his incumbent Senate seat. But had Nixon won the Presidency in 1960, and been assassinated like JFK in 1963, Lodge would have become President as Lodge was Nixon's running ,mate in 1960.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Joe Bauer]

On 11/15/2022 at 7:55 PM, Cory Santos said:

Cliff and I had an interesting debate the other night over prettiest First Ladies.   Apparently there are lists online with real debates about them.  It is surprising who is usually top three.   

My top three?

Jackie Kennedy number 1 by far.

Number 2: Pat Nixon.

Number 3: Rosalynn Carter.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

On 11/18/2022 at 10:55 PM, Chris Barnard said:

I will say this; it is true that when a man or woman is cut down somewhere near their prime in life, or in JFK’s case, just past the midpoint (he was ill), that the result can be that they become larger in death, than in life, or they are remembered as perfect, because the world didn’t see them grow old and foolish. In JFK’s case, some will choose to revere him, a small minority will revile him and the rest will be apathetic. The words remain, as does the purple heart, as enough evidence of his will to create peace, make rapprochement’s and secure detente’s. To stop the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. Remember the America that he inherited from old Eisenhower? The one where people of ethnic minorities daren’t hold their heads high? Their lives became a little bit better because this guy and his brother existed and spoke up. They paid in blood for their choices. Perhaps if we take a step back for a moment and ask; have you had a better president / leader since? 
Has America ever recovered? 

Here Here.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Regarding JFK and the Diem assassination. This clip shows JFK clearly doesn't have control of his foreign policy, as in August 63, Henry Cabot lodge informs JFK of a coup that will assassinate Diem. Later on Nov. 4th, JFK records for a private historical record that his administration does bear ultimate responsibility for the coup, but says he's shocked by the death of Diem,and the death of members of his family when he clearly wasn't.

 

According to Jim DiEugenio, JFK was furious and surprised by the news of Diem's murder. In this interview he said:

So when Diem comes out of that church thinking he is going to have a limousine to the airport, it is really the generals who greeted him and they assassinated him in the back of the truck. [See Douglass, pgs. 192-210]

Kennedy was furious about this when he heard about it. He walked out of the meeting with Taylor pounding his teeth. He told Forrestal that he was going to recall Lodge for the purposes of firing him and then they were going to have a huge meeting, and then we're going to go ahead and educate everybody about how the hell we got into this mess because he was going to try and educate them to his point of view. [My highlighting.]

 

[Lori Spencer]

Jim DiEugenio’s “Posthumous Assassination of JFK” changed my whole view of Kennedy when I read it for the first time many years ago. 
 

Unfortunately, as a Gen X kid growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, I thought all the tawdry tales about JFK’s sex life had to be true. After all, it was in People Magazine, so it’s a fact, right?

After tracing most of these stories back to their dubious sources, they simply fall apart. They don’t hold up to scrutiny (Pics, or it didn’t happen!)

 

And if it did happen, to quote a future president, “when you’re famous, they let you do it!” 😉 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Lori Spencer

[Joe Bauer]

5 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

Jim DiEugenio’s “Posthumous Assassination of JFK” changed my whole view of Kennedy when I read it for the first time many years ago. 
 

Unfortunately, as a Gen X kid growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, I thought all the tawdry tales about JFK’s sex life had to be true. After all, it was in People Magazine, so it’s a fact, right?

After tracing most of these stories back to their dubious sources, they simply fall apart. They don’t hold up to scrutiny (Pics, or it didn’t happen!)

As I have been expressing earlier on this thread...let us consider the possibility that JFK truly was that sexually addicted promiscuous, even during his presidency?

Yes, it was reckless and risky in the national security sense and for that reason alone seriously wrong. It was also wrong in the traditional marriage vow violating ( and especially Catholic church teachings) sense.

It would have been perfect world wonderful if on top of JFK's many other high moral  value traits he could have been a Jimmy Carter in the marriage vow honoring and carnal lust control department.

I have learned to be much more tolerant and liberal toward judging others in the marriage vow breaking realm in my 71 years.

There are simply too many reasons why so many couples veer from this particular vow. One of the toughest to keep in any marriage imo. American life styles are just too arbitrarily complicated, stressful and even tempting in keeping things on the straight and narrow 24/7, year in and year out.

I have separated JFK's alleged sexual promiscuity sinning from the sins of other U.S. Presidents in the category of moral leadership and Constitution and criminal law violating value importance.

LBJ, Nixon, maybe Bush senior and now Trump? 

Read Russ Baker's, Phillip Nelson and yes, even Barr McCllellans books and several others to consider or at least contemplate the true depth of corruption and wrong doing of these other presidents compared to JFK's reported philandering.

JFK was an American Democracy and equal rights values respecting gift to America versus those other darkly nefarious corrupt characters imo.

Even if Mary Meyer was his sometimes lover and LSD dealer.

And if it did happen, to quote a future president, “when you’re famous, they let you do it!” 😉 

DJT is such a crude thinking and speaking man. JFK never was. 

Really separates them in the class department. Total versus none.

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 6 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

Jim DiEugenio’s “Posthumous Assassination of JFK” changed my whole view of Kennedy when I read it for the first time many years ago. 
 

Unfortunately, as a Gen X kid growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, I thought all the tawdry tales about JFK’s sex life had to be true. After all, it was in People Magazine, so it’s a fact, right?

After tracing most of these stories back to their dubious sources, they simply fall apart. They don’t hold up to scrutiny (Pics, or it didn’t happen!)

 

 

 6 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

 

 

Lori ...As I have been expressing earlier on this thread...let us consider the possibility that JFK truly was that sexually addicted promiscuous, even during his presidency?

Yes, it was reckless and risky in the national security sense and for that reason alone seriously wrong. It was also wrong in the traditional marriage vow violating ( and especially Catholic church teachings) sense.

It would have been perfect world wonderful if on top of JFK's many other high moral  value traits he could have been a Jimmy Carter in the marriage vow honoring and carnal lust control department.

I have learned to be much more tolerant and liberal toward judging others in the marriage vow breaking realm in my 71 years.

There are simply too many reasons why so many couples veer from this particular vow. One of the toughest to keep in any marriage imo. American life styles are just too arbitrarily complicated, stressful and even tempting in keeping things on the straight and narrow 24/7, year in and year out.

I have separated JFK's alleged sexual promiscuity sinning from the sins of other U.S. Presidents in the category of moral leadership and Constitution and criminal law violating value importance.

LBJ, Nixon, maybe Bush senior and now Trump? 

Read Russ Baker's, Phillip Nelson and yes, even Barr McCllellans books and several others to consider or at least contemplate the true depth of corruption and wrong doing of these other presidents compared to JFK's reported philandering.

JFK was an American Democracy and equal rights values respecting gift to America versus those other darkly nefarious corrupt characters imo.

Even if Mary Meyer was his sometimes lover and LSD dealer.

And if it did happen, to quote a future president, “when you’re famous, they let you do it!” 😉 

DJT is such a crude thinking and speaking man. JFK never was. 

Really separates them in the class department. Total versus none.

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

Jim DiEugenio’s “Posthumous Assassination of JFK” changed my whole view of Kennedy when I read it for the first time many years ago. 
 

Unfortunately, as a Gen X kid growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, I thought all the tawdry tales about JFK’s sex life had to be true. After all, it was in People Magazine, so it’s a fact, right?

After tracing most of these stories back to their dubious sources, they simply fall apart. They don’t hold up to scrutiny (Pics, or it didn’t happen!)

As I have been expressing earlier on this thread...let us consider the possibility that JFK truly was that sexually addicted promiscuous, even during his presidency?

Yes, it was reckless and risky in the national security sense and for that reason alone seriously wrong. It was also wrong in the traditional marriage vow violating ( and especially Catholic church teachings) sense.

It would have been perfect world wonderful if on top of JFK's many other high moral  value traits he could have been a Jimmy Carter in the marriage vow honoring and carnal lust control department.

I have learned to be much more tolerant and liberal toward judging others in the marriage vow breaking realm in my 71 years.

There are simply too many reasons why so many couples veer from this particular vow. One of the toughest to keep in any marriage imo. American life styles are just too arbitrarily complicated, stressful and even tempting in keeping things on the straight and narrow 24/7, year in and year out.

I have separated JFK's alleged sexual promiscuity sinning from the sins of other U.S. Presidents in the category of moral leadership and Constitution and criminal law violating value importance.

LBJ, Nixon, maybe Bush senior and now Trump? 

Read Russ Baker's, Phillip Nelson and yes, even Barr McCllellans books and several others to consider or at least contemplate the true depth of corruption and wrong doing of these other presidents compared to JFK's reported philandering.

JFK was an American Democracy and equal rights values respecting gift to America versus those other darkly nefarious corrupt characters imo.

Even if Mary Meyer was his sometimes lover and LSD dealer.

And if it did happen, to quote a future president, “when you’re famous, they let you do it!” 😉 

DJT is such a crude thinking and speaking man. JFK never was. 

Really separates them in the class department. Total versus none.

 

Joe,

You really should use marks of some kind to distinguish between what you say and what the person you're replying to says. For example, by making your text a different color. The way it is now, I just give up trying to figure it out.

 

[Joe Bauer]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Joe,

You really should use marks of some kind to distinguish between what you say and what the person you're replying to says. For example, by making your text a different color. The way it is now, I just give up trying to figure it out.

 

I see. I am not good at changing font or even color...but I will go back and edit the aforementioned post and see what I can do.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Sandy Larsen]

53 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

I see. I am not good at changes font or even color...but I will go back and edit the aforementioned post and see what I can do.

 

There are all kinds of things you could do. For example:

 

-----

Lori's text here.

-----

Joe's text here.

-----

More of Lori's text here.

-----

More of Joe's text here.

-----

 

A lot of people like to read your writings. I think that they would appreciate your doing this.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

According to Jim DiEugenio, JFK was furious and surprised by the news of Diem's murder. In this interview he said:

So when Diem comes out of that church thinking he is going to have a limousine to the airport, it is really the generals who greeted him and they assassinated him in the back of the truck. [See Douglass, pgs. 192-210]

Kennedy was furious about this when he heard about it. He walked out of the meeting with Taylor pounding his teeth. He told Forrestal that he was going to recall Lodge for the purposes of firing him and then they were going to have a huge meeting, and then we're going to go ahead and educate everybody about how the hell we got into this mess because he was going to try and educate them to his point of view. [My highlighting.]

 

 

Sandy, Yes I've read that. We were always told that.

 

Sandy did you listen to the tape?. It's hard evidence! JFK was informed by Lodge, and didn't lift a finger.

 

at 3:46--LODGE telling  JFK: They're all going to be assassinated: her daughter , son in law, Nhu. and the President Diem, they're all going to be assassinated! I don't think there's any question about it.

JFK:" I assume that probably this fellow is in a impossible situation to save, I don't know if we'd be better off, if the alternative would be better-- maybe it will be. If so we well have to move in that direction".

 

Cabot's telling JFK where it's at. I guess we wouldn't call it an edict. But it may as well have been.

JFK acquiesces and goes along.

 

Sandy's quote of Jim:     Kennedy was furious about this when he heard about it. He walked out of the meeting with Taylor pounding his teeth. He told Forrestal that he was going to recall Lodge for the purposes of firing him and then they were going to have a huge meeting, and then we're going to go ahead and educate everybody about how the hell we got into this mess because he was going to try and educate them to his point of view. [My highlighting.] 

 

Sandy, The tape proves that Kennedy hadn't  just heard about it, but knew of it and passively stood by and let it happen. So this is all just a bunch of faux rage. He didn't end up recalling Cabot, did he? He couldn't very well, without implicating himself.

 

Similarly at 2:30, there is a November 4th JFK private tape recording that is also on this tape. He tries to make it sound like he had no idea Diem and part of his family would actually be killed, but he knew quite well that was to happen and he stood by.

 

Is this that hard to believe?

 

[Paul Brancato]

On 11/20/2022 at 9:28 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Regarding JFK and the Diem assassination. This clip shows JFK clearly doesn't have control of his foreign policy, as in August 63, Henry Cabot lodge informs JFK of a coup that will assassinate Diem. Later on Nov. 4th, JFK records for a private historical record that his administration does bear ultimate responsibility for the coup, but says he's shocked by the death of Diem,and the death of members of his family when he clearly wasn't.

 

https://fullmeasure.news/news/shows/jfk-vietnam

 

 

It's interesting to note that not only did JFK beat Lodge out of his incumbent Senate seat. But had Nixon won the Presidency in 1960, and been assassinated like JFK in 1963, Lodge would have become President as Lodge was Nixon's running ,mate in 1960.

 

 

I assume you listened to the Lodge call. It sounds to me like Lodge talking the whole time, but the second part is ascribed to JFK. Is it though? His accent is usually unmistakable. 
Will everyone following this thread please listen to this? 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Sandy, Yes I've read that. We were always told that.

 

Sandy did you listen to the tape?. It's hard evidence! JFK was informed by Lodge, and didn't lift a finger.

 

at 3:46--LODGE telling  JFK: They're all going to be assassinated: her daughter , son in law, Nhu. and the President Diem, they're all going to be assassinated! I don't think there's any question about it.

JFK:" I assume that probably this fellow is in a impossible situation to save, I don't know if we'd be better off, if the alternative would be better-- maybe it will be. If so we well have to move in that direction".

 

Cabot's telling JFK where it's at. I guess we wouldn't call it an edict. But it may as well have been.

JFK acquiesces and goes along.

 

Sandy's quote of Jim:     Kennedy was furious about this when he heard about it. He walked out of the meeting with Taylor pounding his teeth. He told Forrestal that he was going to recall Lodge for the purposes of firing him and then they were going to have a huge meeting, and then we're going to go ahead and educate everybody about how the hell we got into this mess because he was going to try and educate them to his point of view. [My highlighting.] 

 

Sandy, The tape proves that Kennedy hadn't  just heard about it, but knew of it and passively stood by and let it happen. So this is all just a bunch of faux rage. He didn't end up recalling Cabot, did he? He couldn't very well, without implicating himself.

 

Similarly at 2:30, there is a November 4th JFK private tape recording that is also on this tape. He tries to make it sound like he had no idea Diem and part of his family would actually be killed, but he knew quite well that was to happen and he stood by.

 

Is this that hard to believe?

 

 

Kirk,

Those are some important tapes and I hope Jim is aware of them. But I don't see anything inconsistent between them and what Jim said in the interview I linked to.

Jim said that JFK knew about the coup plan early on (in August 1963 apparently). And he said that JFK was looking for a way for Diem to be removed without bloodshed. He said that some of JFK advisors had come up with such a plan, but it was really a con job on JFK.

The coup was delayed and took place in November. According to Jim, JFK was shocked by Diem's death because he was expecting the bloodless coup plan to take place.

 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I assume you listened to the Lodge call. It sounds to me like Lodge talking the whole time, but the second part is ascribed to JFK. Is it though? His accent is usually unmistakable. 
Will everyone following this thread please listen to this? 

Hi Paul, apologies if I missed it above but, is there a link to the whole call? I have listened to the media story and a small part of the call and I do have some opinions. I would prefer to listen to the whole thing before airing them. 
 

Am I also right in thinking such a call will have now been digitalised, as opposed to on that old film tape?