Jeffrey Sachs on what JFK tried to do that led to his assassination.

[Roger Odisio]

C'mon mods your decisions are getting worse. 

You've got one person who apparently disagrees with the content saying the thread is BS vs several who want to talk about it.  Sachs is saying some of the things he was trying to do got him killed.  Is he right about that? 

If you think it is also about your definition of "politics", cut and paste to that forum. But leave the thread here.

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

C'mon mods your decisions are getting worse. 

You've got one person who apparently disagrees with the content saying the thread is BS vs several who want to talk about it.  Sachs is saying some of the things he was trying to do got him killed.  Is he right about that? 

If you think it is also about your definition of "politics", cut and paste to that forum. But leave the thread here.

I posted the note about removing the interview with Sacks before I had watched it because I've seen and heard a lot from him and know his views. But now I've watched it .  My note was too kind.  Too muted.

Sachs clearly sets out JFK's search for peace as his overriding concern and what he led him too it.  Kennedy once said, when asked what he wanted on his tombstone, "he kept the peace"

In his peace speech at AU in the Spring of '93 JFK railed against a "Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war".  But that's exactly what his killers did want.  Sachs believes that statement and the speech itself motivated his killers.  So do I.  Where the country has been taken since is but one indication of the truth of that.

What is a more important topic for this forum?

To those who disagree with Sachs, please speak up. That's why we're here.

To the mode who moved the thread, you need to not only permit such a discussion, you need to encourage it. 

"

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

C'mon mods your decisions are getting worse. 

You've got one person who apparently disagrees with the content saying the thread is BS vs several who want to talk about it.  Sachs is saying some of the things he was trying to do got him killed.  Is he right about that? 

If you think it is also about your definition of "politics", cut and paste to that forum. But leave the thread here.

I largely agree.

 Here are my thoughts:

----

There are (broadly speaking) two views on the JFKA.

1. The JFKA was perped was LN, and that is all there is to it. 

2. The CT view: The JFKA was a political assassination, by domestic forces who wanted control over US foreign, military and trade policies. 

I uneasily fall into the second camp.

Some here take umbrage when the political ramifications of the JFKA, which persist to this day (on steroids no less) are fleshed out. 

When President Biden executes a snuff job on the JFK Records, that becomes a verboten political topic. 

When both parties become merged into the DC foreign policy-military blob, that becomes a verboten topic. 

When the media becomes a Deep State mouthpiece, that becomes a verboten topic. 

But that was the point of the JFKA: to execute non-interventionism, to suffocate JFK's vision in the crib. To gain control of media. 

Should we limit our discussions of the JFKA to the mechanics of the operation, or cut history off at the BoP and Vietnam? 

History has politics embedded in it.

I welcome all views. 

[James DiEugenio]

I object also since I posted it.

 

But I also do not like the CT label today.  Stone's JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed proved conspiracy is not a theory.

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/14/2023 at 5:04 PM, Roger Odisio said:

If you think it is also about your definition of "politics", cut and paste to that forum. But leave the thread here.

 

Mods don't have the time to cut and paste threads. Though it IS quick and easy to delete posts. So to those who like to interject their political views in posts, be forewarned.

In this case the political comment that violated the rule was in the very first post. (And another followed in the post that followed). This called for moving the thread.

If you guys want to discuss that video, then by all means do it. Start a new thread. But leave contemporary politics out of it.

Note to Ben: I've said numerous times that it is only contemporary political comments that cannot be posted on the JFKA board. Please quit trying to argue that since the JFKA involved politics, then politics of all stripes are relevant to the assassination.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mods don't have the time to cut and paste threads. Though it IS quick and easy to delete posts. So to those who like to interject their political views in posts, be forewarned.

In this case the political comment that violated the rule was in the very first post. (And another followed in the post that followed). This called for moving the thread.

If you guys want to discuss that video, then by all means do it. Start a new thread. But leave contemporary politics out of it.

Note to Ben: I've said numerous times that it is only contemporary political comments that cannot be posted on the JFKA board. Please quit trying to argue that since the JFKA involved politics, then politics of all stripes are relevant to the assassination.

 

SL--

Well, we are just on different pages on this one. 

The Biden Administration snuff job on the JFK Records Act is contemporary politics.  But who is orchestrating the deep-sixing of the JFK Records that belong to the public? And the media coverage thereof? 

We can't discuss that? 

When present-day major news programs (or others) run stories on the JFKA, that is contemporary. We can't discuss the Op-Mocking of legacy media? 

Some EF-JFKA'ers are uncomfortable with what has happened to our two major parties and national institutions, or even have different views.

That is fine, and they should express themselves. 

I welcome all views. 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The Biden Administration snuff job on the JFK Records Act is contemporary politics.  But who is orchestrating the deep-sixing of the JFK Records that belong to the public? And the media coverage thereof? 

We can't discuss that?

 

Yes, you can discuss the deep state and how it may be affecting politics and politicians today. That's the reason I fought for your right to do so in that deep-state thread of yous. (Others were trying to make it a political thread, and I dealt with them.) But unless you can prove that the deep state is affecting a particular party differently than another, you are not allowed to name parties. Same thing with specific politicians.

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/14/2023 at 9:56 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

There are (broadly speaking) two views on the JFKA.

1. The JFKA was perped was LN, and that is all there is to it. 

2. The CT view: The JFKA was a political assassination, by domestic forces who wanted control over US foreign, military and trade policies. 

I think there is a third view, a second CT view: Mafia dons and CIA rogues teamed up to kill JFK because they viewed him as a threat, but they were not in a position to control, and did not control, all U.S. foreign policy, military, and trade policies after his death. The FBI and some military brass took part in the cover-up. The Mafia's and the rogue CIA elements' motives were revenge and self-preservation.

It is true that LBJ planned to escalate the war in Vietnam after the '64 election, but McMasters and other scholars have documented beyond any doubt that LBJ did not envision, and did not want, a large-scale escalation. LBJ envisioned a moderate increase in the number of "military advisors," very limited U.S. air strikes, and an increase in the U.S. Navy's presence along the coast. LBJ did not want to send combat troops, certainly not in large numbers, if at all. When North Vietnam drastically escalated the war in late 1964 and early 1965, LBJ dithered and almost waited too long to deploy combat troops. And his initial air campaign was so limited and timid that it amounted to meaningless pinpricks that did no serious damage to the North Vietnamese war effort. 

If CIA and military elements were alarmed by JFK's limited nuclear test ban treaty and his careful steps toward detente with the Soviet Union, they must have been horrified by and furious with Nixon's sweeping arms control deal and his bold steps toward Soviet-American detente. 

[Benjamin Cole]

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, you can discuss the deep state and how it may be affecting politics and politicians today. That's the reason I fought for your right to do so in that deep-state thread of yous. (Others were trying to make it a political thread, and I dealt with them.) But unless you can prove that the deep state is affecting a particular party differently than another, you are not allowed to name parties. Same thing with specific politicians.

 

SL--

Thanks for your response. 

But this seems a rather tall order: 

"But unless you can prove that the deep state is affecting a particular party differently than another, you are not allowed to name parties. Same thing with specific politicians."--SL

Sheesh, I can't even prove the Deep State perped the JFKA. It might have been LHO and a nut-job he hired. Or Cuban exiles from Miami, but rogue. 

That's the reason it is called the Deep State, or Shadow State---it operates below the radar.  

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

6 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think there is a third view, a second CT view: Mafia dons and CIA rogues teamed up to kill JFK because they viewed him as a threat, but they were not in a position to control, and did not control, all U.S. foreign policy, military, and trade policies after his death. The FBI and some military brass took part in the cover-up. The Mafia's and the rogue CIA elements' motives were revenge and self-preservation.

It is true that LBJ planned to escalate the war in Vietnam after the '64 election, but McMasters and other scholars have documented beyond any doubt that LBJ did not envision, and did not want, a large-scale escalation. LBJ envisioned a moderate increase in the number of "military advisors," very limited U.S. air strikes, and an increase in the U.S. Navy's presence along the coast. LBJ did not want to send combat troops, certainly not in large numbers, if at all. When North Vietnam drastically escalated the war in late 1964 and early 1965, LBJ dithered and almost waited too long to deploy combat troops. And his initial air campaign was so limited and timid that it amounted to meaningless pinpricks that did no serious damage to the North Vietnamese war effort. 

If CIA and military elements were alarmed by JFK's limited nuclear test ban treaty and his careful steps toward detente with the Soviet Union, they must have been horrified by and furious with Nixon's sweeping arms control deal and his bold steps toward Soviet-American detente. 

"If CIA and military elements were alarmed by JFK's limited nuclear test ban treaty and his careful steps toward detente with the Soviet Union, they must have been horrified by and furious with Nixon's sweeping arms control deal and his bold steps toward Soviet-American detente. "--MG

Jefferson Morley and others have pondered exactly that: Did the CIA depose Nixon, in part as Nixon planned to pull out of Vietnam, and in part as Kissinger had removed the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs from the deal-making with Moscow. 

The whole Watergate burglary makes no sense, and McCord seemed to want to get caught. We now know the entire op was manned by CIA'ers. 

Yet the op got blamed on the White House. 

Even Alexander Butterworth, who revealed the Nixon taping system, was former CIA. Some say Woodward is ONI, or intel. 

My take is we have seen four Presidents possibly deposed by the intel state: JFK, Nixon, Carter and one that begins with a "T." 

 

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"If CIA and military elements were alarmed by JFK's limited nuclear test ban treaty and his careful steps toward detente with the Soviet Union, they must have been horrified by and furious with Nixon's sweeping arms control deal and his bold steps toward Soviet-American detente. "--MG

Jefferson Morley and others have pondered exactly that: Did the CIA depose Nixon, in part as Nixon planned to pull out of Vietnam, and in part as Kissinger had removed the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs from the deal-making with Moscow. 

The whole Watergate burglary makes no sense, and McCord seemed to want to get caught. We now know the entire op was manned by CIA'ers. 

Yet the op got blamed on the White House. 

Even Alexander Butterworth, who revealed the Nixon taping system, was former CIA. Some say Woodward is ONI, or intel. 

My take is we have seen four Presidents possibly deposed by the intel state: JFK, Nixon, Carter and one that begins with a "T." 

Nixon had no plans to pull out of South Vietnam without leaving behind a modest residual force and without the provision of substantial long-term military and economic aid after the withdrawal. Furthermore, dramatic progress was made in the war effort under Nixon. The plotters would have had no rational motive for deposing Nixon over Vietnam.

Watergate and a hostile Democrat-dominated Congress forced Nixon to change his plans and prevented him from honoring his commitment to come to South Vietnam's aid if North Vietnam seriously violated the peace treaty. If anything, the plotters would have kicked into high gear and done everything in their power to keep Nixon in office. 

Moves toward detente with the Soviets continued under Ford, Carter, and even Reagan. Of course, Carter, to his great credit, learned his lesson with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; he became much more skeptical of Soviet aims and promises afterward. Reagan pushed for an arms deal with the Soviets and held talks with Gorbachev. 

I suggest that the plotters either were not interested in controlling all aspects of American foreign policy and/or lacked the power to do so. If they had, it is hard to imagine how or why they could have allowed LBJ to pick the dovish, limp-wristed Hubert Humphrey as his VP, how they could have allowed LBJ to so egregiously hamstring our military in Vietnam, how they could have allowed the arms control treaties under Nixon and Carter, etc., etc., etc.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Roger Odisio]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mods don't have the time to cut and paste threads. Though it IS quick and easy to delete posts. So to those who like to interject their political views in posts, be forewarned.

In this case the political comment that violated the rule was in the very first post. (And another followed in the post that followed). This called for moving the thread.

If you guys want to discuss that video, then by all means do it. Start a new thread. But leave contemporary politics out of it.

Note to Ben: I've said numerous times that it is only contemporary political comments that cannot be posted on the JFKA board. Please quit trying to argue that since the JFKA involved politics, then politics of all stripes are relevant to the assassination.

 

SL:  Mods don't have the time to cut and paste threads. Though it IS quick and easy to delete posts. So to those who like to interject their political views in posts, be forewarned.

 

RO:  Pasting something to a different location requires the following.  Highlight it.  Hit Control C to save it. Place the cursor where you want it to go.  Hit Control V.  Voila.  We're talking a matter of seconds. I don't know what you do to remove something from here and put it in "politics", but is it really simpler and faster than that?

 

SL:  In this case the political comment that violated the rule was in the very first post. (And another followed in the post that followed). This called for moving the thread.

 

If you guys want to discuss that video, then by all means do it. Start a new thread. But leave contemporary politics out of it.

 

Note to Ben: I've said numerous times that it is only contemporary political comments that cannot be posted on the JFKA board. Please quit trying to argue that since the JFKA involved politics, then politics of all stripes are relevant to the assassination.

 

RO   That's not what I, and I think Ben, are saying. It's not that the JFKA merely "involved" politics. That's obvious. The murder overturned the results of the 1960 election.

 

The replacement of JFK with Johnson and the seizure of control by the war machine and its allies fundamentally "changed" politics in ways obvious and relevant today.  It wasn't an isolated incident. Regime change to something more to the liking of the killers was a main purpose. 

 

Why each of the succeeding wars since the murder is necessary is now the focus of our politics. Kennedy's exploration of how to achieve peace has disappeared (except for the muted cries of his nephew).  Where are the major politicians who *could* give Kennedy's peace speech today, even if they wanted to?

 

If that is not true, if the effect of the JFKA is not being felt today on "contemporary" politics in ways that can help us understand what happened back then, why should we care about the murder? Why should the millions who don't care about it listen to anything said here?

 

In short, your rule separating contemporary politics from discussion of the JFKA makes sense only if you think the murder has no relevance to today.  And we're simply a debating society trying to solve interesting but irrelevant puzzles.

 

That's not why I'm here and I hope it doesn't apply to you either.

 

The rule needs to go, and discussion of the JFKA effects on today needs to not only be allowed; it should be encouraged as a way to help us understand what happened.

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, you can discuss the deep state and how it may be affecting politics and politicians today. That's the reason I fought for your right to do so in that deep-state thread of yous. (Others were trying to make it a political thread, and I dealt with them.) But unless you can prove that the deep state is affecting a particular party differently than another, you are not allowed to name parties. Same thing with specific politicians.

 

It's true that in matters of war and peace that currently dominate political discussions, the deep state affects, and in fact controls, both major parties. Relatively equally. That control is growing ever more clear since the JFKA.  We now have 2 war parties.

Focusing on Biden is mainly because he's the one currently in office to be controlled. He's the one seeking to kill the JFK Act with his "Transparency Plan". Forbidding the mention of his name only serves to stunt the discussion of the plan. In fact, discussion of the plan is at the moment crucial. It doesn't imply he or the Democrats are necessarily worse that Republicans. 

Nor should mentioning the name of Biden or the Democrats lead automatically to the dreaded red-blue pissing contest about the current parties. If it does, that's something specific to discourage.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Nixon had no plans to pull out of South Vietnam without leaving behind a modest residual force and without the provision of substantial long-term military and economic aid after the withdrawal. Furthermore, dramatic progress was made in the war effort under Nixon. The plotters would have had no rational motive for deposing Nixon over Vietnam.

Watergate and a hostile Democrat-dominated Congress forced Nixon to change his plans and prevented him from honoring his commitment to come to South Vietnam's aid if North Vietnam seriously violated the peace treaty. If anything, the plotters would have kicked into high gear and done everything in their power to keep Nixon in office. 

Moves toward detente with the Soviets continued under Ford, Carter, and even Reagan. Of course, Carter, to his great credit, learned his lesson with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; he became much more skeptical of Soviet aims and promises afterward. Reagan pushed for an arms deal with the Soviets and held talks with Gorbachev. 

I suggest that the plotters either were not interested in controlling all aspects of American foreign policy and/or lacked the power to do so. If they had, it is hard to imagine how or why they could have allowed LBJ to pick the dovish, limp-wristed Hubert Humphrey as his VP, how they could have allowed LBJ to so egregiously hamstring our military in Vietnam, how they could have allowed the arms control treaties under Nixon and Carter, etc., etc., etc.

Maybe.

Evidently, even before they got into office, Kissinger and Nixon regarded Vietnam as a lost cause, and Nixon wanted to get out, but waited for the 1972 election. 

Remember, after the Tet offensive, Westmoreland wanted 750,000 troops for South Vietnam. That is a matter of public record.

From a military perspective, maybe there was a case to be made that some sort of victory could be had in South Vietnam. With enough outlays and fighting, maybe. From the perspective of US interests, and taxpayer dollars, South Vietnam did not add up. 

Remember, the US had to abandon Khe Sanh, after spending who knows how many lives and dollars there. 

In a way, you are arguing the case Nixon was deposed. Nixon and political leaders of the US had concluded that Vietnam should not be a national priority, that the cost of victory was too high for a non-existential war, in fact a volitional war.  

But the military---the Pentagon, CIA---still thought the war should be prosecuted. And that Russia had to be alienated, not negotiated with. 

Another reason for deposing Nixon was his insistence on reviewing the "Bay of Pigs" files. 

I am open-minded on the topic whether deposing Nixon was an intel-Pentagon op. Carter, and Mr. T too. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

This is simply wrong about Nixon.

Even though Nixon knew the war was lost, he still tried to get a Korea type of peace plan through.

How?

By doing something that JFK would have never done and would have strongly protested.

The invasions of Cambodia and Laos.  

These ended up being twin disasters. The former resulted in one of the great post war genocides by the Khymer Rouge.

The bombing of Laos was utterly ridiculous since there was just about nothing to bomb there. 

But the problem really was this: as many commentators have proven, like Theodore Draper, the agreement Nixon got in 1973 was hardly any different than the one he could have had in 1969. 

In other words the destruction of Cambodia and Laos was simply useless in a purely practical sense. Which is what Nixon always advertised himself as being.

Edited October 17, 2023 by James DiEugenio