Monica Wiesak on BOR: America's Last President

[Michael Griffith]

On 1/14/2023 at 4:57 PM, Matthew Koch said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMzvgCLtCG8

Every one of the arguments made by Paul Jay in that video is answered in the links I've provided. Every single one of them. And he ignores a large body of evidence that contradicts his anti-Israeli narrative. I'm guessing you have not bothered to read any of the linked sources I've provided, right?

Are any of you Israel bashers who are repeating these timeworn arguments about the USS Liberty incident going to read any of the scholarly sources that I've provided in my replies? Any of you? Or are you just so determined to believe the worst about the only genuine, pluralistic democracy in the Middle East that you won't read anything that defends the Israeli position on the subject (and the position of every single U.S. Government investigation into the incident, including the U.S. Nany Court of Inquiry investigation)?

Here again we see JFK assassination research hijacked by a far-left agenda. As I've noted, if Wiesak had not gone beyond what JFK said about Israel, there could be no complaints about her chapter on Israel, but she went well beyond what JFK said on the matter. 

She did the same thing in her chapter on Laos/Vietnam. She mentions American "atrocities" in the war, but JFK never said one word about American "atrocities" in Vietnam. For the record, there was one small-sized American atrocity during the entire the war, i.e., the My Lai Massacre in early 1968, whereas there were dozens of Communist atrocities, including the Hue Massacre, which dwarfed My Lai in size and scope. None other than Adlai Stevenson set the record straight on who were the good guys and the bad guys in the war:

Adlai Stevenson and the Vietnam War: A Stirring Reminder

Wiesak quotes every hearsay claim from anti-war liberals who knew JFK regarding his alleged intention to totally disengage from South Vietnam after the '64 election, but she does not quote a single anecdote that contradicts this belated hearsay. If you look at her notes for the chapter, you see that she relied on only a handful of sources, mostly Newman's book and Douglass's book.

She says that although JFK publicly opposed a withdrawal of all military advisers from South Vietnam, privately he was "making moves in that direction." No, he most certainly was not. This was clear even before Selverstone's book came out. Even John K. Galbraith admitted in a 2013 article that the JFK withdrawal plan would have left behind over 1,000 support troops and that economic and military aid to South Vietnam would have continued. If even Galbraith can admit this, the fact that Wiesak does not reflects poorly on her research for the chapter and on her bias on the subject. 

[James DiEugenio]

What happened after the strafing and torpedoing of the LIberty was an enormous cover up that took place almost instantly as the ship came into Malta.

Therefore, the best witnesses, the sailors on board, were not allowed to speak.  In fact, they were instructed not to or they would be sent to prison.  Consequently, they did not speak until  decades later. Also, the evidence was altered as the ship was repaired.

With those kinds of conditions then yes, there were two sets of facts.  One that was meant to conceal, the other was censored because it was too honest.

As per your comments on Monika and Vietnam, look, how could one do much better than Newman and Douglass?   Those two books are stellar in the field.

Bottom line: Bundy, McNamara and Taylor all said Kennedy was never sending combat troops into Vietnam. That is the National Security Advisor, Sec of Defense, and JCS Chair.  End of story. And the evidence is overwhelming he was pulling out the advisors. Even the NY TImes admitted this.

You know Mike, I was not going to review Selverstone's book.  But you are so pugnacious on this, so eager to lead with your chin, that now I will. Should be fun.  A guy who says Kennedy did not know about his own withdrawal plan? 😀

Edited January 16, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Matthew Koch]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Every one of the arguments made by Paul Jay in that video is answered in the links I've provided. Every single one of them. And he ignores a large body of evidence that contradicts his anti-Israeli narrative. I'm guessing you have not bothered to read any of the linked sources I've provided, right?

Are any of you Israel bashers who are repeating these timeworn arguments about the USS Liberty incident going to read any of the scholarly sources that I've provided in my replies? Any of you? Or are you just so determined to believe the worst about the only genuine, pluralistic democracy in the Middle East that you won't read anything that defends the Israeli position on the subject (and the position of every single U.S. Government investigation into the incident, including the U.S. Nany Court of Inquiry investigation)?

Here again we see JFK assassination research hijacked by a far-left agenda. As I've noted, if Wiesak had not gone beyond what JFK said about Israel, there could be no complaints about her chapter on Israel, but she went well beyond what JFK said on the matter. 

 

I take witnesses who were on the ship who survived the attack over apologists for the Military and Israel. You just are biased, and it's not worth arguing because you're not an honest debater and like Lance are a waste of my time. You call people who disagree with you; nutty or quacks, but you aren't able to understand the nuance of being "America First" and so you fall for labels like Anti Semitic. You weren't able to comprehend what the "Liberty Lobby" was.. it's basically America First, while citing the ship our "Greatest Ally" tried to sink the ship eavesdropping on Israeli communications, a double entendre (good thing the Ruskies showed up and saved us from another war involving a false attack on one of our ships). You support the Israel Lobby, L Fletcher Prouty and people like me on the right believe that we shouldn't be funding human rights abuser Israel. Especially since they tried to sink our ship and stole bomb components and illegally made a nuke and tested it in the atmosphere, so they can have a North Korea grip on the area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

 L. Fletcher Prouty was a Colonial in the Air Force for God sake.. who went on to be a professor at Princeton. And you call him a quack, he's way more "scholarly" than say, you.. IMHO. 

Israel is not a democracy it is an theocratic ethno-apartheid state that can't exist without America being tricked into conflict with it's adversaries and funding it's military. If you don't know the far right and the far left both don't like Israel, and it's support with Protestants and Evangelicals is fading fast, deservedly.

The last part I found kinda humorous about going beyond what JFK said, since the letters between him and Ben-Gurion are still classified. The 6 day war was a pre-emptive strike and land grab so this False Flag attempt fits and makes perfect sense why Zionists would want it to happen. 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

This thread has become about JFK's Israeli mid-east policy.  How it changed under Johnson.  And what that has led us too today.  I think this article is relevant from then to now.  Hope the moderators agree.

Nations express 'deep concern' at Israeli punitive measure (msn.com)

[Michael Griffith]

Wiesak's odd puzzlement over why JFK agreed to greatly increase the number of U.S. military advisors and the amount of U.S. military aid to South Vietnam is revealing. It is an unfortunate example of how extreme bias can make one miss the forest for the trees, can make one miss the obvious because they find the obvious unacceptable. She says,

          Nevertheless, JFK agreed to expand the number of military advisors in South Vietnam and supply general military aid to support the South Vietnamese against the North Vietnamese Communist infiltration. Why JFK decided to do this, we may never fully know. (p. 160)

"We may never fully know"? Actually, we have known why JFK did this since the time he did it. JFK himself made his reasons for doing this very clear: First and foremost, he wanted to prevent a Communist takeover of South Vietnam. He also wanted to bolster South Vietnamese morale and demonstrate that we were serious about helping them remain free. The evidence on this point is so abundant and clear that it is hard to comprehend how anyone could be confused about why JFK approved NSAM 111 and why he continued to increase economic and military aid to South Vietnam. 

Anti-war liberals frequently quote JFK's comment in his September 1963 interview with Walter Cronkite that the war was South Vietnam's war and that the South Vietnamese were the ones who had to win or lose it:

          In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the Communists.

But moments later, JFK said that he disagreed with those who called for withdrawal, that withdrawal would be a "great mistake," and that whether we liked it or not we had to participate in the defense of Asia:

          But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. . . . [The United States] made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

Because that was before he signed NSAM 263 Mike!

If you recall, he had to ram through that NSAM  and the report over objections by several people in his own administration.  But John Newman, in the revised version of JFK and Vietnam, notes how JFK was the guy who steamrolled the opposition on this. And when he sent out McNamara to brief the press he shouted, and tell them that means the helicopters also.

I swear you sound like Buzzanco on this.

[Matthew Koch]

 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

 

Pretty clear. 

[Ron Bulman]

Just got this book in.  Looking forward to reading it.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Just got this book in.  Looking forward to reading it.

It’s superb, Ron! 

[Ron Bulman]

I started reading this a little over a week ago.  Slowly, 10-20 pages every day or two.  A third of the way through.  More of JFK's actual words than I've ever seen in one book before.  One, two and three or more paragraph quotes of both speeches I have read parts of and several I've never heard of, press conferences.  Advisors, assistants, confidants, employees and more.  A great insight into his actual thoughts and beliefs never achieved by anyone else before that I know of.  Highly recommended.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Ron Bulman

[Ron Bulman]

I finally got back to finishing this in the last few days.  It is outstanding throughout.  A fresh younger open minded take on the subject.  While concise on multiple aspects still detailed for it's size.  As mentioned above, lot's of JFK's actual words from several sources.  Many I've never read before.  A few things I noted/learned.

JFK was the only president to ever have an over 70% approval rating, despite press attacks.  The last one to reach 50% was Clinton.

I'd read of Angleton telling the Israeli's where the enriched uranium at NUMEC in Pennsylvania was and having the gate left open for them in 1964 or 65.  But I did not know about his friendship with Ben-Gurion.  Who, while putting off inspections at Dimona pursued by JFK, resigned, which resulted in a six month delay in the talks about this.  During which time JFK was killed.  When Ben-Gurion resigned, while JFK was still alive it seems to imply, Angleton went to visit him, at his home away from the capitol, just the two alone to "discuss business".

A little more in a day or two.

[Ron Bulman]

I've read this before, but worth repeating.  When the leader of Ghana, Nkrumah, was given a copy of the Warren Commission Report by the U S Ambassador, he pointed to the name Dulles and said "Whitewash".  Some in Africa knew the Truth in 1964.

JFK's American University speech on Peace was praised by Khruschev, broadcast in full and printed in news papers in Russia.  It was barely covered in the American press. 

 I never knew JFK was a champion of consumer rights.  His four basic rights letter to congress 3/15/62 was revolutionary.  Which is why it's known as Consumer Rights Day, to this day.

[Ron Bulman]

Another thing JFK was saying (read the lyrics) was,

 

[James DiEugenio]

Her book is the best book in the last couple of years I think.

She really did some digging on multiple fronts.