Greenwald Show: "Did the CIA Kill JFK?"

[Benjamin Cole]

Man, this is interesting. 

[Paul Brancato]

Awesome

[Benjamin Cole]

48 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Awesome

Greenwald does not (relatively speaking) have a large following.

But one can still wonder how long he will been on Youtube. 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for this Ben.

Greenwald first did a segment with Stone and now with Talbot.

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for this Ben.

Greenwald first did a segment with Stone and now with Talbot.

JD-

Here were are, 60 years after the JFKA, with the mountain of evidence that the official story on the JFKA is misleading, that the JFK Records documents are being suppressed for no good reason, and even with the HSCA finding that JFKA likely died from a conspiracy...

And still, the only journalists willing to touch the JFKA-CIA story are the outsiders, the alt-media. 

There was one legacy media journalist who began talking about the JFKA-CIA story...and he is now on X-Twitter. 

Op Mock has become a fleet of B-52s....

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ben, you do realize that a more complete version  of this interview entitled "David Talbot interviewed by Glenn Greenwald" was posted here last week by JJ Lane and you actually contributed to the post thanking him for posting? If you remember this, why didn't you just contribute to his thread, instead of opening a new one?

Since most of the us know Talbot pretty well.  I've read Devil's Chessboard, some of "Brothers" a lot of articles and interviews and I could anticipate many of Talbot's answers in this interview. I would say Talbot and Newman have become the JFKA community sort of middle of the road here and Talbot's general views  and specific indictment of Dulles is probably embraced by the most people here. So, unless you're not familiar with Talbot, who is a good read. There was little new here except I might  try to add something fresh here other than  the usual din of praise, and mention the things I thought were most interesting.

Greenwald who lives in Brazil alleges  a 1964 coup in Brazil that was first initiated by both JFK and LBJ over a Prime Minister who the U.S. thought to be Socialist  for only wanting simple things such as rent control and some land reform. It certainly goes counter to Talbot's as well as a number of authors here preaching of JFK's non interventionism. I didn't know anything about this. But when Greenwald confronts Talbot about it, he is silent. Of course not addressing it is sort of more of the same politics. Let's all get along and not further investigate it, and agree to spare JFK's non interventionist image, nor investigate the accuracy of Greenwald's claims.  If I didn't bring this matter up. I would expect it to be thrown in the trash bin as it has been for the last week and I suspect that will continue..

 

Of course Ben, you've continually roasted Biden for not releasing the JFKA files while ignoring that Trump first resisted opening the JFKA files. But there was another such free speech issue that you've taken up the mantle of, and that is the the freeing of Julian Assange. But as Greenwald says here, Trump could have pardoned Assange. A number of people pleaded with him to, but Trump refused!  Greenwald  knee jerk automatically assumes that it was due to the some pressuring by the NSS "deep state" and  maybe you do as well. But the reason  could be as simple as Trump might just look at Assange as a" dirty hippy", and if he didn't have any people around him who were that concerned, what reason would Trump have to pardon Assange? Like the Magas, you're projecting on Trump that he holds your ideals.

 

Talbot and Greenwald do delve into their politics, which is to be expected if you've read either of them. Regarding the War in Israel, Talbot is not pro Israel, and takes up his cause by saying the opposition to Israeli decimation of the Gaza strip was being suppressed in the U.S. media.  He also cites that there is a concerted "clampdown on dissent among intellectuals' political leaders  and artists'". 

"Clampdown?" I don't know what he' talking about! It looks to me like everybody is stirring up sh-t on both sides, and things are occasionally getting ugly. While I agree with him the MSM has staunchly backed Biden's reasons for backing Israel,which is the immediate reaction to the Hamas terrorist attack, there's becoming just as much coverage now for humanitarian concerns about the plight of the innocent victims in the Gaza strip, and I see it on both CNN and Fox. It represents a case to me where the left just knee jerk talks about the media oppression, whether it's happening in reality or not.

 

You can decry veering into "politics" again, but that's exactly what Greenwald and Talbot do. And there's no reason that relevant topics such as U.S. intervention in Brazil shouldn't be explored any more than either Talbot or Greenwald shouldn't be scrutinized.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ben, you do realize that a more complete version  of this interview entitled "David Talbot interviewed by Glenn Greenwald" was posted here last week by JJ Lane and you actually contributed to the post thanking him for posting? If you remember this, why didn't you just contribute to his thread, instead of opening a new one?

Since most of the us know Talbot pretty well.  I've read Devil's Chessboard, some of "Brothers" a lot of articles and interviews and I could anticipate many of Talbot's answers in this interview. I would say Talbot and Newman have become the JFKA community sort of middle of the road here and Talbot's general views  and specific indictment of Dulles is probably embraced by the most people here. So, unless you're not familiar with Talbot, who is a good read. There was little new here except I might  try to add something fresh here other than  the usual din of praise, and mention the things I thought were most interesting.

Greenwald who lives in Brazil alleges  a 1964 coup in Brazil that was first initiated by both JFK and LBJ over a Prime Minister who the U.S. thought to be Socialist  for only wanting simple things such as rent control and some land reform. It certainly goes counter to Talbot's as well as a number of authors here preaching of JFK's non interventionism. I didn't know anything about this. But when Greenwald confronts Talbot about it, he is silent. Of course not addressing it is sort of more of the same politics. Let's all get along and not further investigate it, and agree to spare JFK's non interventionist image, nor investigate the accuracy of Greenwald's claims.  If I didn't bring this matter up. I would expect it to be thrown in the trash bin as it has been for the last week and I suspect that will continue..

 

Of course Ben, you've continually roasted Biden for not releasing the JFKA files while ignoring that Trump first resisted opening the JFKA files. But there was another such free speech issue that you've taken up the mantle of, and that is the the freeing of Julian Assange. But as Greenwald says here, Trump could have pardoned Assange. A number of people pleaded with him to, but Trump refused!  Greenwald  knee jerk automatically assumes that it was due to the some pressuring by the NSS "deep state" and  maybe you do as well. But the reason  could be as simple as Trump might just look at Assange as a" dirty hippy", and if he didn't have any people around him who were that concerned, what reason would Trump have to pardon Assange? Like the Magas, you're projecting on Trump that he holds your ideals.

 

Talbot and Greenwald do delve into their politics, which is to be expected if you've read either of them. Regarding the War in Israel, Talbot is not pro Israel, and takes up his cause by saying the opposition to Israeli decimation of the Gaza strip was being suppressed in the U.S. media.  He also cites that there is a concerted "clampdown on dissent among intellectuals' political leaders  and artists'". 

"Clampdown?" I don't know what he' talking about! It looks to me like everybody is stirring up sh-t on both sides, and things are occasionally getting ugly. While I agree with him the MSM has staunchly backed Biden's reasons for backing Israel,which is the immediate reaction to the Hamas terrorist attack, there's becoming just as much coverage now for humanitarian concerns about the plight of the innocent victims in the Gaza strip, and I see it on both CNN and Fox. It represents a case to me where the left just knee jerk talks about the media oppression, whether it's happening in reality or not.

 

You can decry veering into "politics" again, but that's exactly what Greenwald and Talbot do. And there's no reason that relevant topics such as U.S. intervention in Brazil shouldn't be explored any more than either Talbot or Greenwald shouldn't be scrutinized.

 

 

KG-

Sorry, I had forgotten about KK Lane's post.

I am not for whitewashing JFK's record. He authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion, and sent troops to Vietnam. If JFK torpedoed a socialist in Brazil, that was wrong act.  

I think it can be said JFK wanted peace with Cuba, and to get out of Vietnam. 

Trump should have pardoned Assange, and should have released the JFK Records. Biden appears to be of the same high moral and ethical calibre as Trump, in regards to those two topics (except the Biden went further, and created the Orwellian "Transparency Board," and has crafted a plan for a permanent snuff job on the JFK Records). 

In truth, I am uncomfortable with the "JFKA: Dulles Did It" conclusion. 

What Larry Hancock has uncovered in SWHT points to the Miami Station of the CIA, Cuban exiles, mercs and so on. One could posit Dulles fed the Miamians the right things to say to LHO. But there is no evidence of that.

Dulles was corporate gunsel and had zero ethics in representing corporate interests inside of US foreign-military policy. Read Smedley Butler for an overview. Does that mean Dulles perped the JFKA? 

Anyway, as the great Chick Hearn would say, "No harm, no foul" on a second post of Greenwald's i-vu of Talbot. 

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Kirk - your distillation of the interview is so colored by your own bias as to make it useless. So I will not repost it here. You mischaracterized the exchange on the 1964 Brazil Coup, made it look like Talbot was ducking evidence that JFK wasn’t really anti-colonialist. I suppose most readers won’t bother to listen to the interview in Ben’s shorter version, much less the full one, so they won’t see what I saw, which is that the question Greenwald was posing, which Talbot did not shy away from, was the biased media coverage, then and now. The Brazil coup took place in the spring of 1964. That should be enough to cause anyone to hesitate assigning blame to JFK. We know for certain that his policy on Vietnam was immediately reversed after his death. Rather than provide evidence that JFK started this 1964 coup, and LBJ finished it, you chose via your own bias to share your intuition that he must have because Talbot didn’t go back to that subject at the end of Greenwald’s long question about media bias. Thanks for that. Now’s your chance to prove your point. 

[Benjamin Cole]

22 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Kirk - your distillation of the interview is so colored by your own bias as to make it useless. So I will not repost it here. You mischaracterized the exchange on the 1964 Brazil Coup, made it look like Talbot was ducking evidence that JFK wasn’t really anti-colonialist. I suppose most readers won’t bother to listen to the interview in Ben’s shorter version, much less the full one, so they won’t see what I saw, which is that the question Greenwald was posing, which Talbot did not shy away from, was the biased media coverage, then and now. The Brazil coup took place in the spring of 1964. That should be enough to cause anyone to hesitate assigning blame to JFK. We know for certain that his policy on Vietnam was immediately reversed after his death. Rather than provide evidence that JFK started this 1964 coup, and LBJ finished it, you chose via your own bias to share your intuition that he must have because Talbot didn’t go back to that subject at the end of Greenwald’s long question about media bias. Thanks for that. Now’s your chance to prove your point. 

Good points PB.

[James DiEugenio]

The coup in Brazil took place in 1964.

It was instigated by the Rockefeller clan, specifically David.  His group was called Business Group for Latin America. Kennedy was pretty cold to this group since Rockefeller was opposed to the Alliance for Progress.

Johnson did see them and he then put their ultimatum into action, with John McCloy as the point man who first tried to negotiate with Goulart.  But for whatever reason that attempt fell apart. LBJ and the CIA then activated Operation Brother Sam, which was backed also by the Brazilian military.  There are two good books on this, A J Langguth's Hidden Terrors and Kai Bird's The Chairman.  (pp. 96-117 in the former and pp. 550-53 in the latter.)

Kennedy was getting some horrible advice from his ambassador Lincoln Gordon, who he should have never appointed.  Since Gordon was more in the Thomas Mann group than the Alliance for Progress group. Gordon even went as far as saying that under Goulart, Brazil would go communist and it would be the biggest loss since China.  So JFK sent Bobby down to talk to Goulart.  But as Latin American specialist Wayne Smith told me, Goulart was very difficult to deal with. RFK thought he would keep their agreements but it was not a satisfactory result, as it would then repeat itself with McCloy. So the CIA prepared some contingency plans for JFK.  We do not know if Kennedy would have enacted them. 

We do know that Rockefeller had a much warmer relationship with Johnson than he did with Kennedy.  And that was the deciding factor in what happened in April of 1964.

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 11/7/2023 at 5:31 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Kirk - your distillation of the interview is so colored by your own bias as to make it useless. So I will not repost it here. You mischaracterized the exchange on the 1964 Brazil Coup, made it look like Talbot was ducking evidence that JFK wasn’t really anti-colonialist. I suppose most readers won’t bother to listen to the interview in Ben’s shorter version, much less the full one, so they won’t see what I saw, which is that the question Greenwald was posing, which Talbot did not shy away from, was the biased media coverage, then and now. The Brazil coup took place in the spring of 1964. That should be enough to cause anyone to hesitate assigning blame to JFK. We know for certain that his policy on Vietnam was immediately reversed after his death. Rather than provide evidence that JFK started this 1964 coup, and LBJ finished it, you chose via your own bias to share your intuition that he must have because Talbot didn’t go back to that subject at the end of Greenwald’s long question about media bias. Thanks for that. Now’s your chance to prove your point. 

Paul: I suppose most readers won’t bother to listen to the interview in Ben’s shorter version, much less the full one, so they won’t see what I saw, which is that the question Greenwald was posing, which Talbot did not shy away from, was the biased media coverage, then and now.

? So what is more important Paul? The fact that the U.S. engineered a coup to overthrow the standing Brazilian President or the eventual U.S. media suppression of that fact? I know that's Greenwald's point, but I want to dig deeper and would have liked to have heard  Talbot's reaction, to see if he even knew about it!  But all I said concerning Talbot was that  Talbot was silent. Come on Paul, do you really think Talbot would shy away from the topic of biased media coverage? That's the low hanging fruit.

Jim: The Brazil coup took place in the spring of 1964. That should be enough to cause anyone to hesitate assigning blame to JFK.

Yes Jim, well, maybe to hesitate. But  Goulart first came to the presidency in 1961!  The coup started in March 1964! Plans for the overthrow of a government could have been years in the making! That's why  Greenwald, assigned blame to both JFK and LBJ!  The coup was in the early months of LBJ . See that to me Paul, is far more interesting than just to  review the interview as "awesome" and why I don't think my review was at all 'useless" as you said. And as I said, being familiar with Talbot, 90% of his answers I anticipated, as I assume you maybe did too. But this was to me  by far  the most interesting event raised in the interview.  

Jim I appreciate you giving us some background. You've covered a lot of JFK foreign policy, and I've never Ive never heard you talk about the coup in Brazil..

Re: the coup in March 1964, 3 years after Goulart became president. Here's what it says in just a preliminary look into Wikipedia.

"Throughout his tenure,   (1961-1964)Goulart had come under numerous efforts to pressure and destabilize his government and plots to overthrow him. Brazil's relations with the United States deteriorated and the American government allied with opposition forces and their efforts, supporting the coup. "

 

On 11/7/2023 at 6:12 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Jim: Kennedy was getting some horrible advice from his ambassador Lincoln Gordon, who he should have never appointed.

Gordon even went as far as saying that under Goulart, Brazil would go communist and it would be the biggest loss since China.  So JFK sent Bobby down to talk to Goulart.  But as Latin American specialist Wayne Smith told me, Goulart was very difficult to deal with. RFK thought he would keep their agreements but it was not a satisfactory result, as it would then repeat itself with McCloy. So the CIA prepared some contingency plans for JFK.  We do not know if Kennedy would have enacted them. 

Thanks Jim. So we know at the time of JFK's death, Goulart, (who according to Greenwald,  wanted some rent control and to address  more equitable land reform from the wealthy land barons) was perceived for some period of time by JFK and RFK as a "problem" that they tried to address without any results. And then 4 months later  the U.S. started a coup!

Wow!, that's about as damning a scenario cast on JFK foreign policy as you'll ever get from Jim!

But I agree, we don't know if JFK would have started the coup.

Yeah, it sounds like another bad appointment!                                                                                                  heh heh

 

Paul: Now’s your chance to prove your point!

Is that good enough for you Paul, that there might be some suspicion??   Oh no?  Take it up with Greenwald!

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

On 11/7/2023 at 10:44 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ben, you do realize that a more complete version  of this interview entitled "David Talbot interviewed by Glenn Greenwald" was posted here last week by JJ Lane and you actually contributed to the post thanking him for posting? If you remember this, why didn't you just contribute to his thread, instead of opening a new one?

Since most of the us know Talbot pretty well.  I've read Devil's Chessboard, some of "Brothers" a lot of articles and interviews and I could anticipate many of Talbot's answers in this interview. I would say Talbot and Newman have become the JFKA community sort of middle of the road here and Talbot's general views  and specific indictment of Dulles is probably embraced by the most people here. So, unless you're not familiar with Talbot, who is a good read. There was little new here except I might  try to add something fresh here other than  the usual din of praise, and mention the things I thought were most interesting.

Greenwald who lives in Brazil alleges  a 1964 coup in Brazil that was first initiated by both JFK and LBJ over a Prime Minister who the U.S. thought to be Socialist  for only wanting simple things such as rent control and some land reform. It certainly goes counter to Talbot's as well as a number of authors here preaching of JFK's non interventionism. I didn't know anything about this. But when Greenwald confronts Talbot about it, he is silent. Of course not addressing it is sort of more of the same politics. Let's all get along and not further investigate it, and agree to spare JFK's non interventionist image, nor investigate the accuracy of Greenwald's claims.  If I didn't bring this matter up. I would expect it to be thrown in the trash bin as it has been for the last week and I suspect that will continue..

 

Of course Ben, you've continually roasted Biden for not releasing the JFKA files while ignoring that Trump first resisted opening the JFKA files. But there was another such free speech issue that you've taken up the mantle of, and that is the the freeing of Julian Assange. But as Greenwald says here, Trump could have pardoned Assange. A number of people pleaded with him to, but Trump refused!  Greenwald  knee jerk automatically assumes that it was due to the some pressuring by the NSS "deep state" and  maybe you do as well. But the reason  could be as simple as Trump might just look at Assange as a" dirty hippy", and if he didn't have any people around him who were that concerned, what reason would Trump have to pardon Assange? Like the Magas, you're projecting on Trump that he holds your ideals.

 

Talbot and Greenwald do delve into their politics, which is to be expected if you've read either of them. Regarding the War in Israel, Talbot is not pro Israel, and takes up his cause by saying the opposition to Israeli decimation of the Gaza strip was being suppressed in the U.S. media.  He also cites that there is a concerted "clampdown on dissent among intellectuals' political leaders  and artists'". 

"Clampdown?" I don't know what he' talking about! It looks to me like everybody is stirring up sh-t on both sides, and things are occasionally getting ugly. While I agree with him the MSM has staunchly backed Biden's reasons for backing Israel,which is the immediate reaction to the Hamas terrorist attack, there's becoming just as much coverage now for humanitarian concerns about the plight of the innocent victims in the Gaza strip, and I see it on both CNN and Fox. It represents a case to me where the left just knee jerk talks about the media oppression, whether it's happening in reality or not.

 

You can decry veering into "politics" again, but that's exactly what Greenwald and Talbot do. And there's no reason that relevant topics such as U.S. intervention in Brazil shouldn't be explored any more than either Talbot or Greenwald shouldn't be scrutinized.

 

 

If Trump didn't pardon him it's because he couldn't come up with the $2 million.

[James DiEugenio]

I have Kirk on ignore but I have to read this stuff when someone else quotes him.

DId I say this? Jim: The Brazil coup took place in the spring of 1964. That should be enough to cause anyone to hesitate assigning blame to JFK.

Anyone who can leave out David Rockefeller in what happened in 1964 in Brazil is simply not being honest.

You might also want to look up Lincoln Gordon and the Ramey Clark panel.

You might also want to refer as revelatory as what happened when Bobby Kennedy visited Brazil the next year.

Hold your breath for Kirk to mention those two.

[Kirk Gallaway]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have Kirk on ignore but I have to read this stuff when someone else quotes him.

DId I say this? Jim: The Brazil coup took place in the spring of 1964. That should be enough to cause anyone to hesitate assigning blame to JFK.

Anyone who can leave out David Rockefeller in what happened in 1964 in Brazil is simply not being honest.

You might also want to look up Lincoln Gordon and the Ramey Clark panel.

You might also want to refer as revelatory as what happened when Bobby Kennedy visited Brazil the next year.

Hold your breath for Kirk to mention those two.

Jim:I have Kirk on ignore but I have to read this stuff when someone else quotes him

But nobody else quoted the post where I quoted you Jim. So your claim that you put me on ignore is false. 

Jim:DId I say this? Jim: The Brazil coup took place in the spring of 1964. That should be enough to cause anyone to hesitate assigning blame to JFK.

Yes that's exactly what you said. it's a direct quote!

Jim:So the CIA prepared some contingency plans for JFK.  We do not know if Kennedy would have enacted them.

I agree completely. This is the first time you admitted any possibility of JFK being party to any coup planning and a possibility he may have enacted this plan. I also think that's possible.

 

Jim: Anyone who can leave out David Rockefeller in what happened in 1964 in Brazil is simply not being honest!

 

Read what I wrote. I said I never knew anything about this. Are you sure you're not also researching this for the first time? Do you have anything from K&K to share with us? How come you've been silent about the coup in Brazil for 10 years here, Jim ?

 

Oh, I some good news for you Jim. Jill Stein is running for President again!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

No Kirk, Jim didn’t say that, I did.