Robert Morrow Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 5 hours ago, Matt Cloud said: To repeat, the article states: "... most of the liberals of Texas found themselves supporting the man they had so often opposed. Within the state, however, Johnson's conservative associates were doing business as usual." Here is how that article ends: QUOTE The year of pointed confusion for Texas that has followed the assassination of John Kennedy may well be succeeded by some bitter times for that province. Either the conservatives or the liberals will have been wrong in supporting Lyndon Johnson. QUOTE Both the liberals and conservatives got what they wanted out of LBJ which was why he was able to escape the JFK assassination. The only reason the liberals supported LBJ in the wake of the JFK was that he weirdly and suddenly adopted much of their agenda after fighting it tooth and nail for decades. LBJ did this for survival purposes. The liberals got the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act and Medicare and various other lessor "Great Society" spending and regulation items. The conservatives got tax breaks targeted for right wing oil men and they also got a hawkish foreign policy, the war in Vietnam and gargantuan profits for LBJ's Texas military contractors. So bottom line the Harvard Crimson article was wrong on its supposition. HOWEVER, the price that the liberals had to pay for "looking the other way" on LBJ's participation in the JFK was going along with the Big Lie that was the JFK assassination cover up. The liberals knew that the smell of a dead rat was emanating from LBJ, Hoover and the Warren Commission. And despite all their spending goodies and civil rights reform, that was a very heavy price to pay. Edited June 3 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 34 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said: Here is how that article ends: QUOTE The year of pointed confusion for Texas that has followed the assassination of John Kennedy may well be succeeded by some bitter times for that province. Either the conservatives or the liberals will have been wrong in supporting Lyndon Johnson. QUOTE Both the liberals and conservatives got what they wanted out of LBJ which was why he was able to escape the JFK assassination. The only reason the liberals supported LBJ in the wake of the JFK was that he weirdly and suddenly adopted much of their agenda after fighting it tooth and nail for decades. LBJ did this for survival purposes. The liberals got the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act and Medicare and various other lessor "Great Society" spending and regulation items. The conservatives got tax breaks targeted for right wing oil men and they also got a hawkish foreign policy, the war in Vietnam and gargantuan profits for LBJ's Texas military contractors. So bottom line the Harvard Crimson article was wrong on its supposition. HOWEVER, the price that the liberals had to pay for "looking the other way" on LBJ's participation in the JFK was going along with the Big Lie that was the JFK assassination cover up. The liberals knew that the smell of a dead rat was emanating from LBJ, Hoover and the Warren Commission. And despite all their spending goodies and civil rights reform, that was a very heavy price to pay. The speculative ("may well be succeeded") last lines? Okay, although I didn't cite that passage. In any case, what's more you evidently didn't read that -- or understand it -- either. That sentence says somebody, either the liberals or the conservatives, are going to have a made a mistake in supporting Johnson. I think by 1968 both felt that way -- the conservatives were miffed about civil rights and the libs about VN. So the article was off a little. It was both, not "either." And that's why LBJ couldn't run in 68 -- all segments of Democratic Party support were lost. The article was essentially prescient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 6 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said: The speculative ("may well be succeeded") last lines? Okay, although I didn't cite that passage. In any case, what's more you evidently didn't read that -- or understand it -- either. That sentence says somebody, either the liberals or the conservatives, are going to have a made a mistake in supporting Johnson. I think by 1968 both felt that way -- the conservatives were miffed about civil rights and the libs about VN. So the article was off a little. It was both, not "either." And that's why LBJ couldn't run in 68 -- all segments of Democratic Party support were lost. The article was essentially prescient. Isn't that why the neo-cons (Irving Kristol) formed Democrats for Nixon in '68, which Connally would run in '72, abandoning the right-wing of the Texas Dem party (albeit leaving it in the hands of his capable and trusted aide Bob Strauss)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 And was that article written by Donald Graham? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was. Nor would I be surprised if Pat Moynihan had been the source for much of it, Deep Throat's relationship with The Post being solidified already by this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_E._Graham Donald Edward Graham (born April 22, 1945) is the majority owner and chairman of Graham Holdings Company. He was formerly the publisher of The Washington Post (1979–2000) and later was the lead independent director of Facebook's board of directors (2009–2015).[1][2] Early life[edit] His parents were Katharine Graham (née Meyer), later a publisher of The Washington Post, and her husband, Philip Graham.[3][4] His maternal grandmother was Agnes Meyer.[3][4] His maternal grandfather, Eugene Meyer, bought the bankrupt Post shortly after stepping down as Chairman of the Federal Reserve in mid-1933.[5] Graham's mother Katherine Meyer was baptized as Lutheran as a child, as her mother was Lutheran. Her father was Jewish. Katherine (Meyer) Graham later attended an Episcopal church.[6] His father Philip Graham was also raised as a Lutheran.[7] Graham graduated from the private St. Albans School. He attended Harvard College.[8][9] In 1965, he was elected president of The Harvard Crimson, the college's daily.[10] After graduation in 1966, Graham volunteered for military service. He served in the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1968, as part of the United States Army 1st Cavalry Division.[8] From January 1969 to June 1970, Graham joined the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia as a patrolman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said: The speculative ("may well be succeeded") last lines? Okay, although I didn't cite that passage. In any case, what's more you evidently didn't read that -- or understand it -- either. That sentence says somebody, either the liberals or the conservatives, are going to have a made a mistake in supporting Johnson. I think by 1968 both felt that way -- the conservatives were miffed about civil rights and the libs about VN. So the article was off a little. It was both, not "either." And that's why LBJ couldn't run in 68 -- all segments of Democratic Party support were lost. The article was essentially prescient. https://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/johnson-meets-with-the-wise-men-march-25-1968-034945 Johnson meets with ‘The Wise Men,’ March 25, 1968 They met with LBJ after being briefed by officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. They had been informed of a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the top U.S. commander in Vietnam, for additional troops in the wake of perceived U.S. setbacks in the Tet Offensive. Present at the White House meeting were Dean Acheson, George Ball, McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, Arthur Dean, Douglas Dillon, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Robert Murphy, Cyrus Vance and Gens. Omar Bradley, Matthew Ridgway and Maxwell Taylor. In the words of Acheson, who summed up the recommendations from 11 of the men, “we can no longer do the job we set out to do in the time we have left, and we must begin to take steps to disengage.” Murphy, Taylor and Fortas dissented. </q> Within days Johnson dropped out of the Prez race and appointed Averell Harriman to negotiate a peace deal. Averell Harriman -- the guy who carries the most individual responsibility for the Vietnam War. Edited June 4 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Just now, Cliff Varnell said: https://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/johnson-meets-with-the-wise-men-march-25-1968-034945 Johnson meets with ‘The Wise Men,’ March 25, 1968 They met with LBJ after being briefed by officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. They had been informed of a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the top U.S. commander in Vietnam, for additional troops in the wake of perceived U.S. setbacks in the Tet Offensive. Present at the White House meeting were Dean Acheson, George Ball, McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, Arthur Dean, Douglas Dillon, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Robert Murphy, Cyrus Vance and Gens. Omar Bradley, Matthew Ridgway and Maxwell Taylor. In the words of Acheson, who summed up the recommendations from 11 of the men, “we can no longer do the job we set out to do in the time we have left, and we must begin to take steps to disengage.” Murphy, Taylor and Fortas dissented. </q> Within days Johnson appointed Averell Harriman to negotiate a peace deal. Averell Harriman -- the guy who carries the most individual responsibility for the Vietnam War. Okay ... yes .. most individual responsibility could be debated. I see it as a tie between Harriman and Leo Cherne -- both by the way Moynihan's employers in the 1950s. First Cherne, then Harriman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said: Okay ... yes .. most individual responsibility could be debated. I see it as a tie between Harriman and Leo Cherne -- both by the way Moynihan's employers in the 1950s. First Cherne, then Harriman. Yet curiously Moynihan -- as he would with Watergate and Nixon -- escaped being tarred with responsibility for or even association with Vietnam, having been the "victim" of a (self-inflicted?) leak over "The Moynihan Report" (1965), which set-off and has never stopped setting-off inflamed argument within the democratic party about the role of fatherlessness and family in, first, black America, and now America as a whole. Neat little maneuver perhaps. Same thing would happen right before Watergate -- again, providing him reason to leave the administration -- over the "leak" (probably by future CIA director Leon Panetta) of his "Benign Neglect" memo. Edited June 4 by Matt Cloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 14 hours ago, Matt Cloud said: The speculative ("may well be succeeded") last lines? Okay, although I didn't cite that passage. In any case, what's more you evidently didn't read that -- or understand it -- either. That sentence says somebody, either the liberals or the conservatives, are going to have a made a mistake in supporting Johnson. I think by 1968 both felt that way -- the conservatives were miffed about civil rights and the libs about VN. So the article was off a little. It was both, not "either." And that's why LBJ couldn't run in 68 -- all segments of Democratic Party support were lost. The article was essentially prescient. Nope you are wrong on that. "Conservatives" as in hard right Texas oil men and hard right Texas military contractors were VERY HAPPY with the tax breaks and defense contracts they got out of LBJ. For the "Liberals" of 1963 - their number one issue was civil rights and voting rights for blacks and they were VERY HAPPY they got that. "Liberals" had been advocating a Medicare type program for decades and they got that. Vietnam was not on their radar screen in 1963. Donald Graham of the Harvard Crimson was wrong and you are wrong. And you did not cite the last line of Graham's article because the money shot conclusion was flat out wrong. I am right: both liberals and conservatives got what they wanted out of Lyndon Johnson which is why the man never went to jail for his many crimes, not merely for murdering JFK. Now, if you were an ideological or national conservative, and you were not personally making money off of your close personal/political association with Lyndon Johnson, then you might not have been so happy with LBJ. But the foreign policy conservatives like Joseph Alsop were pushing the Vietnam War hard and they got that bloody mess in spades. So I guess they were "happy." By the mid and late 1960s - the Vietnam War protesters - call them liberals against the war - were extremely unhappy with LBJ - but those types of liberals like Al Lowenstein for certainly for civil rights, voting rights and Medicare. One more thing, Donald Graham's MOTHER Katharine Graham was a complete and total ally of Lyndon Johnson who once said her support was worth 50 divisions of men in Vietnam. Katherine Graham and the Washington Post were war hawks on the topic of Vietnam until the very end. And Phil Graham, the FATHER of Donald Graham, had been one of the key ones at the 1960 Democratic convention insisting that JFK put Lyndon Johnson on the ticket as vice president. The Graham family writ large: what a bunch of morons! Edited June 4 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Just now, Robert Morrow said: Nope you are wrong on that. "Conservatives" as in hard right Texas oil men and hard right Texas military contractors were VERY HAPPY with the tax breaks and defense contracts they got out of LBJ. For the "Liberals" of 1963 - their number one issue was civil rights and voting rights for blacks and they got that. "Liberals" had been advocating a Medicare type program for decades and they got that. Vietnam was not on their radar screen in 1963. Donald Graham of the Harvard Crimson was wrong and you are wrong. And you did not cite the last line of Graham's article because the money shot conclusion was flat out wrong. I am right: both liberals and conservatives got what they wanted out of Lyndon Johnson which is why the man never went to jail for his many crimes, not merely for murdering JFK. Now, if you were an ideological or national conservative, and you were not personally making money off of your close personal/political association with Lyndon Johnson, then you might not have been so happy with LBJ. But the foreign policy conservatives like Joseph Alsop were pushing the Vietnam War hard and they got that bloody mess in spades. So I guess they were "happy." By the mid and late 1960s - the Vietnam War protesters - call them liberals against the war - were extremely unhappy with LBJ - but those types of liberals like Al Lowenstein for certainly for civil rights, voting rights and Medicare. One more thing, Donald Graham's MOTHER Katharine Graham was a complete and total ally of Lyndon Johnson who once said her support was worth 50 divisions of men in Vietnam. Katherine Graham and the Washington Post were war hawks on the topic of Vietnam until the very end. And Phil Graham, the father of Donald Graham, had been one of the key ones at the 1960 Democratic convention insisting that JFK put Lyndon Johnson on the ticket as vice president. The Graham family writ large: what a bunch of morons! You're babbling and have veered into histrionics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Just now, Matt Cloud said: You're babbling and have veered into histrionics. No, you are just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 About what? What exactly is the issue that you are having? What exactly is it that is "wrong" or that you disagree with. I fully agree both liberals and conservatives got what they wanted with LBJ. No argument. However, by 1968, neither could support him. Now what is it exactly -- to ask again -- that you are taking issue with? Don't make assertions as to what's wrong or right, simple write out what you understand to be my position and then write out where you think that is inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said: About what? What exactly is the issue that you are having? What exactly is it that is "wrong" or that you disagree with. I fully agree both liberals and conservatives got what they wanted with LBJ. No argument. However, by 1968, neither could support him. Now what is it exactly -- to ask again -- that you are taking issue with? Don't make assertions as to what's wrong or right, simple write out what you understand to be my position and then write out where you think that is inaccurate. Let's just skip this topic and move onto something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 3 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said: Let's just skip this topic and move onto something else. Haha! Right. Wise choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 17 hours ago, Matt Cloud said: Okay ... yes .. most individual responsibility could be debated. I see it as a tie between Harriman and Leo Cherne -- both by the way Moynihan's employers in the 1950s. First Cherne, then Harriman. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/08/06/archives/mrs-harriman-to-head-benefit-at-the-st-regis-party-for.html Mrs. Harriman To Head Benefit At the St. Regis; Party for International Rescue Committee to Be Held on Sept. 25 Aug. 6, 1964 Mrs W. Averell Harriman is chairman of the dinner dance to be held at the reopening of the St. Regis Maisonette on Sept. 25 for the benefit of the International Rescue Committee. Mrs. Nicholas Biddle, Mrs. Leo Cherne, Mrs. Angler Biddle Duke and Mrs. William J. vanden Heuvel are vice chairmen. Assisting with the plans for the party are Mrs. Murray Vanderbilt, Mrs. Edward M. M. Warburg, Mrs. Theodore Weicker Jr., Mrs. Stephane Groueff, Mrs. John L. Loeb, Mrs. John Barry Ryan 3d, Marchesa Allesandro di Montezemolo, Mrs. John Mosler and Mrs. Jules Stein. Also, Mrs. Edgar M. Bronfman, Mrs. John Fell, Mrs. Andrew Goodman, Mrs. Earl E. T. Smith, Mrs. George Backer, Mrs. Richard M. Clurman, Mrs. Robert Howe Everitt, Miss Susan Stein, Mrs. Joseph A. Thomas and Miss Mary McFadden. Mr. vanden Heuvel is president of the beneficiary, a voluntary, nonsectarian association that helps political refugees. Its office is at 460 Park Avenue South. https://www.maryferrell.org/php/pseudodb.php?id=MASTROCOLA_BRUCE_G Pseudonym: Mastrocola, Bruce G. Return to Main Pseudos Page Definition: Leo Cherne of the International Rescue Committee. Executive Director of the Research Institute of America, described as "the central intelligence agency of American business." He was considered an eminent authority on Cuba. Category: pseudonym Status: Documented Discussion: Cherne's alias was Leopold Chernetsky. FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 44 12/05/63: Airtel from SAC, New York to Director: Subject: LEE HARVEY OSWALD, IS - R, (OO:DALLAS): "Reference is made to urgent teletype this date re Mr. WILLIAM J. VANDEN HEUVEL, President, International Rescue Committee (IRC), and Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States, furnishing the IRC file on LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Enclosed for the Bureau are zerox copies of four pertinent letters in IRC file." https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57724#relPageId=36 104-10109-10027: LEO CHERNE One of the leading lights in the International Rescue Center was Leo Cherne, a well-connected liberal that was extremely anti-communist, “of Agency interest since 1951,” and sometimes used for cover purposes. During the 1950s, Cherne had covert security clearances in two different CIA programs, BLANKET and QKENCHANT. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=13730#relPageId=2 (These are the persons running Oswald.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now