John Newman and Greg Burnham Interview

[Cliff Varnell]

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

At one time it was commonly understood that the concept of post world war II limited warfare/counterinsurgency was a liberal conception, the product of the egg-heads at Harvard and RAND and "the "East Coast Establishment." 

The main architects of that policy were George Kennan, Robert Lovett and Averell Harriman.  That's your idea of "the Left"?

The Rockefellers and the Dulles brothers were "the Left"?

In 1959 Nikita Khrushchev toured the United States.  His first stop was Washington DC, his next stop New York City.

From Spanning the Century The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson, pg. 575

<quote on>

In his second-floor drawing room, Harriman gathered leaders from mining, manufacturing, oil, chemicals, banking, and insurance industries, including John D. Rockefeller III; General David Sarnoff, chairman of RCA; Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics Corporation; W. Alton Jones, chairman of Cities Service Corporation; and John J. McCloy, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. By his estimate, scribbled on a yellow legal pad before Khrushchev arrived, they represented assets of some $38 billion. Among them, as witnesses to history, were a few men of ordinary means, former ambassadors, educators, and, notably, Rockefeller Foundation president Dean Rusk, and Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, the latter having invited himself as a "representative of the proletariat."

Surround by Picassos and Derains, their voices muffled by Persian carpets, the capitalist Titans greeted the Communist chieftain one by one, then sat in a semi-circle savoring caviar and sipping champagne and New York wine as Averell conducted his exposition of capitalism, war profits, and American politics. No one present, nor any of their friends, he and the others assured the guest of honor, favored world tensions. The assembled war profiteers, said the host, were men who'd champion disarmament the moment it became safe for the United States. There was not a hint, however, that mingling with the millionaires did anything except reinforce Khrushchev's belief that he was then in the presence of the men who controlled America far more than Eisenhower and the members of Congress he had met in Washington.

One testimonial to free enterprise followed another. And when the Soviet leader reasserted his stubborn belief that the men present composed the country's ruling circle, Galbraith later tattled, "Somebody demurred, but in perfunctory fashion."

After it was over, Harriman insisted that the Soviet leader had gained insights of "real importance."  

<quote off>

Note the heavy Rockefeller presence -- John D. 3, McCloy and Rusk.  A bunch of lefties, Matt?

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

If that doesn't represent those whom you say represent the true left so what?  What is the significance of the persons you name-drop to the topic?  What at all? 

YOU brought up "the Ramparts crowd."  What was that other than an unjustified smear?

YOU stated --  "The Left wanted Vietnam."  But "the Left" opposed the Vietnam War.  Were you around in the 60's, Matt?

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

That they were the true left and they were anti-vietnam from the start?  Fine.  If so they don't represent the other left -- the Trotskyites/would-be neo-cons -- who do.

Averell Harriman was a "Trotskyite"?

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

That has been my point all long: the 1950s had been largely about allegations that CIA for one was run by leftists, com-symps, if not outright communists. 

So the 50's were all about John Birch Society propaganda?

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

This created a fissure in the D Party between hard-line dems and appeasers.

Be specific, please.  How did Bircher propaganda create a fissure in the Democratic Party?  In 1952 Adlai Stevenson was a reluctant Democratic nominee -- his main competition was Estes Kefauver.  How did they fit your "hard-line"/"appeaser" narrative?

In 1960 a neo-con Democratic Senator from Washington became Chair of the Democratic National Committee -- for 6 months, then he drifted back into obscurity until 1972.  Henry "Scoop" Jackson.  

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

It was through this gap, this convulsion within the left, created by The Red Scare that the neo-cons infiltrated the D party.  Then they did it to the R party in the 70s.

In 1968 three Democrats ran for President -- Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and eventual nominee Hubert Humphrey.

Do they fit your hard-line/appeaser narrative?

In 1972 the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party emerged.  Was that what you were thinking of?

[Paul Brancato]

Mr. Cloud - do identify yourself and your sources. Every so often someone like you posts here, claiming bonafides that are mostly left to our imaginations to figure out. You have inside info? Share it. Pat Moynihan ran the US government and is the real identity of Deep Throat? I’m open to hearing what yo have to say, regardless of how weird some of your conclusions and your wordsmithery appear. It’s so unsatisfactory to have someone come here and sit on their lofty all knowing perch, looking down on us plebes. So allow yourself to descend to our level and reveal what and who you know. 

[Matt Cloud]

41 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The main architects of that policy were George Kennan, Robert Lovett and Averell Harriman.  That's your idea of "the Left"?

The Rockefellers and the Dulles brothers were "the Left"?

In 1959 Nikita Khrushchev toured the United States.  His first stop was Washington DC, his next stop New York City.

From Spanning the Century The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson, pg. 575

<quote on>

In his second-floor drawing room, Harriman gathered leaders from mining, manufacturing, oil, chemicals, banking, and insurance industries, including John D. Rockefeller III; General David Sarnoff, chairman of RCA; Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics Corporation; W. Alton Jones, chairman of Cities Service Corporation; and John J. McCloy, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. By his estimate, scribbled on a yellow legal pad before Khrushchev arrived, they represented assets of some $38 billion. Among them, as witnesses to history, were a few men of ordinary means, former ambassadors, educators, and, notably, Rockefeller Foundation president Dean Rusk, and Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, the latter having invited himself as a "representative of the proletariat."

Surround by Picassos and Derains, their voices muffled by Persian carpets, the capitalist Titans greeted the Communist chieftain one by one, then sat in a semi-circle savoring caviar and sipping champagne and New York wine as Averell conducted his exposition of capitalism, war profits, and American politics. No one present, nor any of their friends, he and the others assured the guest of honor, favored world tensions. The assembled war profiteers, said the host, were men who'd champion disarmament the moment it became safe for the United States. There was not a hint, however, that mingling with the millionaires did anything except reinforce Khrushchev's belief that he was then in the presence of the men who controlled America far more than Eisenhower and the members of Congress he had met in Washington.

One testimonial to free enterprise followed another. And when the Soviet leader reasserted his stubborn belief that the men present composed the country's ruling circle, Galbraith later tattled, "Somebody demurred, but in perfunctory fashion."

After it was over, Harriman insisted that the Soviet leader had gained insights of "real importance."  

<quote off>

Note the heavy Rockefeller presence -- John D. 3, McCloy and Rusk.  A bunch of lefties, Matt?

YOU brought up "the Ramparts crowd."  What was that other than an unjustified smear?

YOU stated --  "The Left wanted Vietnam."  But "the Left" opposed the Vietnam War.  Were you around in the 60's, Matt?

Averell Harriman was a "Trotskyite"?

So the 50's were all about John Birch Society propaganda?

Be specific, please.  How did Bircher propaganda create a fissure in the Democratic Party?  In 1952 Adlai Stevenson was a reluctant Democratic nominee -- his main competition was Estes Kefauver.  How did they fit your "hard-line"/"appeaser" narrative?

In 1960 a neo-con Democratic Senator from Washington became Chair of the Democratic National Committee -- for 6 months, then he drifted back into obscurity until 1972.  Henry "Scoop" Jackson.  

In 1968 three Democrats ran for President -- Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and eventual nominee Hubert Humphrey.

Do they fit your hard-line/appeaser narrative?

In 1972 the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party emerged.  Was that what you were thinking of?

Let's take things a step at a time here because this is spiraling out of coherence by you, and you are seemingly not understanding what I have already stated as a thesis.  You seem to be attached to some out-of-power "Left" that to you represents the true Left, and which evidently you feel has not been represented in American politics.  Is that correct?  If so, we would be in agreement.  As I have already stated, management of the Cold War by persons such as Harriman was designed to remove extremes of either left or right as commonly understood.  In other words, the Left that you think is The True Left was excluded during the 60 years of centrism and neo-conism.  

How I'm doing so far?  Are we in agreement here or what?

 

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

22 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Kennedy was regarded as too conservative by the Left, both on Vietnam and on civil rights. 

 

Whew! I like this:

 

So the people who were for Civil Rights in the 60's were also most pro Vietnam War?

Yes, another one bites the dust!,  MLK just knuckled under to Harvard and Rand "eggheads" and the Eastern Establishment" with that "Civil Rights "thing! Right?

 

Another reason it's too bad MLK isn't living so you could ask him and hear his ideas about that.

I'm not sure I can do much with your concept of alliances. That's the roster and team lineup change of the  20th century!

 

Cliff: YOU stated --  "The Left wanted Vietnam."  But "the Left" opposed the Vietnam War.  Were you around in the 60's, Matt?

Obviously not. That is the most contrived theory based on premises, many of which have no foundation or really causal links to events. It seems to be straining to put square  political covert actions into round outcomes, as you've pointed out Cliff.  

It can be dismissed from the gitgo  for it's pure omnisciency. Obviously in this world, nothing can happen organically.  It sounds like a laboriously conceived , straining  narrative to justify not getting up in the morning.

 

heh heh

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26 by Kirk Gallaway

[Matt Cloud]

8 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Whew! I like this:

 

So the people who were for Civil Rights in the 60's were also most pro Vietnam War?

Yes, another one bites the dust!,  MLK just knuckled under to Harvard and Rand "eggheads" and the Eastern Establishment" with that "Civil Rights "thing! Right?

 

Another reason it's too bad MLK isn't living so you could ask him and hear his ideas about that.

I'm not sure I can do much with your concept of lliances. That's the roster and team lineup change of the  20th century!

 

Cliff: YOU stated --  "The Left wanted Vietnam."  But "the Left" opposed the Vietnam War.  Were you around in the 60's, Matt?

Obviously not. That is the most contrived theory based on premises, many of which have no foundation or really causal links to events. It seems to be straining to put square  political covert actions into round outcomes, as you've pointed out Cliff.  

It can be dismissed from the gitgo  for it's pure omnisciency. Obviously in this world, nothing can happen organically.  It sounds like a laboriously conceived , straining  narrative to justify not getting up in the morning.

 

heh heh

 

Yes the dirty secret is that Left -- not your student protesters of later years -- but your egghead intellectuals -- your whiz kids, people with actual policy power, were both pro VN war (until they were against it, after it was "lost" politically in America) and pro Civil Rights.   That's what the Left is desperate to hide and never admit.  As evidenced here.  That's how you get Progressive change -- which the Left wants.  That's how you get decolonialization -- which the Left wants.  You need conflict.  You need turmoil.  You need upheaval.  These are not conservative tactics and goals.  This is not complex.

Edited May 26 by Matt Cloud

[Matt Cloud]

55 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mr. Cloud - do identify yourself and your sources. Every so often someone like you posts here, claiming bonafides that are mostly left to our imaginations to figure out. You have inside info? Share it. Pat Moynihan ran the US government and is the real identity of Deep Throat? I’m open to hearing what yo have to say, regardless of how weird some of your conclusions and your wordsmithery appear. It’s so unsatisfactory to have someone come here and sit on their lofty all knowing perch, looking down on us plebes. So allow yourself to descend to our level and reveal what and who you know. 

Lighten up.  The comments stand on their own and are here to be subjected to scrutiny.  Besides, Geneva Conventions for the Treatment of Prisoners require I give only name, rank, and serial number.  

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Yes the dirty secret is that Left -- not your student protesters of later years -- but your egghead intellectuals -- your whiz kids, people with actual policy power, were both pro VN war (until they were against it, after it was "lost" politically in America) and pro Civil Rights.   That's what the Left is desperate to hide and never admit.  As evidenced here.  That's how you get Progressive change -- which the Left wants.  That's how you get decolonialization -- which the Left wants.  You need conflict.  You need turmoil.  You need upheaval.  These are not conservative tactics and goals.  This is not complex.

I think the confusion comes from the definition of left--which has changed throughout history. 

At the beginning of the sixties pro-civil rights supporters--no matter their political affiliation--were considered leftists.

But people "soft on communism" were also considered leftists. 

These narrow definitions were inadequate, of course. To my understanding, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles would be considered leftists because of their view on civil rights, but Dulles was as anti-commie as it got. So he wasn't really a leftist...

There has been an attempt in recent decades by right-wing "historians' and zealots to re-write history, and blame the left for the Vietnam War, the chaos of the sixties, and so on. But this isn't really true. And is akin to Southern sympathizers re-writing history to make the South more sympathetic after the civil war...which then led to the rebirth of the Klan and lynchings, etc.

The fact is that LBJ KNEW he would need to appear tough on communism to get support on his civil rights agenda, and escalated the Vietnam War not to appease the left, but the right. 

[Matt Cloud]

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I think the confusion comes from the definition of left--which has changed throughout history. 

At the beginning of the sixties pro-civil rights supporters--no matter their political affiliation--were considered leftists.

But people "soft on communism" were also considered leftists. 

These narrow definitions were inadequate, of course. To my understanding, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles would be considered leftists because of their view on civil rights, but Dulles was as anti-commie as it got. So he wasn't really a leftist...

There has been an attempt in recent decades by right-wing "historians' and zealots to re-write history, and blame the left for the Vietnam War, the chaos of the sixties, and so on. But this isn't really true. And is akin to Southern sympathizers re-writing history to make the South more sympathetic after the civil war...which then led to the rebirth of the Klan and lynchings, etc.

The fact is that LBJ KNEW he would need to appear tough on communism to get support on his civil rights agenda, and escalated the Vietnam War not to appease the left, but the right. 

To be sure, yes, once "boots on the ground" typical refrain from the Right is to do more.  That's one reason why wars start under "left" administrations perhaps.  They can always be ramped-up.  

 

And yes, democratic party was fractured by the Red Scare.  Already noted.  And yes, terminology is very relative and even reversible.  Yes. Especially as right and left fuse into essentially a uni-party from esp 1975 say to 2003.

 

The Soviet Union was the backer of wars of national liberation.  That's a fact.  The Left -- the Soviet Union -- wants wars in the third-world to end colonialization, imperialism, racism.  A goal shared by many on the Left in America and many on the Right, too.  No a slight or an insult.  Both of these groups would effectively merge during the cold war, as I have been stating.  And the isolationists, the "america-firsters", the old-time right, was effectively removed from political discourse during this time.  Same for the "true Left" as referenced above.  This really is not anything controversial as regards history of the last 80 years, provided it is done with detached and straight-forward perspective.  All that's happening here, on this thread, is certain contributors are having reactionary recoil based on certain terminology as if they can't take an honest look in the mirror.  Labels and associations are controlling and getting in the way of honest understanding. 

[James DiEugenio]

The three godfathers of the Neocon movement are considered to be, Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter, and Irving Kristol.

 

Please explain what you mean about Moynihan.

[Paul Cummings]

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The three godfathers of the Neocon movement are considered to be, Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter, and Irving Kristol.

 

Please explain what you mean about Moynihan.

Get in line Jim. Seems to be a lot of that going around.

[Matt Cloud]

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The three godfathers of the Neocon movement are considered to be, Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter, and Irving Kristol.

 

Please explain what you mean about Moynihan.

If the words Moynihan and neo-con are two you haven't seen together before, you're going to have read-up on the side. But I'll throw in a couple teasers for you to help you along. Kristol and Podhoretz were among Moynihan's closest friends.  Kristol having published him at neo-con The Reporter magazine in 1958.  Moynihan essentially founded The pUblic Interest, along with Kristol and Bell.  Virtually his entire first-term senate staff was the neo--cons like Elliot Abrams who would join the Reagan administration.  

This is like you telling me the sky is not blue and demanding I prove it.  Come on. 

[Matt Cloud]

Just now, Matt Cloud said:

If the words Moynihan and neo-con are two you haven't seen together before, you're going to have read-up on the side. But I'll throw in a couple teasers for you to help you along. Kristol and Podhoretz were among Moynihan's closest friends.  Kristol having published him at neo-con The Reporter magazine in 1958.  Moynihan essentially founded The pUblic Interest, along with Kristol and Bell.  Virtually his entire first-term senate staff was the neo--cons like Elliot Abrams who would join the Reagan administration.  

This is like you telling me the sky is not blue and demanding I prove it.  Come on. 

Or if you like Bill Kristol interning for Moynihan at Nixon WH.  Or ... George Will being recommended to Moynihan by Kristol and than Moynihan recommending to The Post that he be hired there.   Utterly absurd display of (feigned?) ignorance.

[Matt Cloud]

Just now, Matt Cloud said:

Or if you like Bill Kristol interning for Moynihan at Nixon WH.  Or ... George Will being recommended to Moynihan by Kristol and than Moynihan recommending to The Post that he be hired there.   Utterly absurd display of (feigned?) ignorance.

See also Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt.  I could go on for days on this.  But I won't because that's your responsibility. 

[Matt Cloud]

2 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

See also Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt.  I could go on for days on this.  But I won't because that's your responsibility. 

See also Stephen Sestonovich.

 

A Neo-Con Repents

 

University of Redlands

http://bulldog2.redlands.edu › Spickard › NeoConservative

 

 

 

 

Feb 19, 2006 — ... Stephen Sestanovich calls American maximalism, wherein Washington acted first and sought legitimacy and support from its allies only after ...

 

The neoconservative theory of international politics

 

AUC Knowledge Fountain

https://fount.aucegypt.edu › cgi › viewcontent

 

 

PDF

 

by Z Larwood · 2018 · Cited by 2 — New York Times editorial board member Bret Stephens, a neoconservative himself, ... Moynihan, and Stephen Sestanovich. “Responses to ... “Looking Back on Neo- ...

 

After Neoconservatism

 

The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com › 2006/02/19 › magazine › af...

 

 

 

 

Feb 19, 2006 — Of course, the cold war was replete with instances of what the foreign policy analyst Stephen Sestanovich calls American maximalism, wherein ...

 

Stephen Sestanovich

 

Council on Foreign Relations

https://www.cfr.org › expert › stephen-sestanovich

 

 

 

 

Stephen Sestanovich is the George F. Kennan senior fellow for Russian and Eurasian studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Kathryn and Shelby ...

[Matt Cloud]

Or see his other bestest friend James Q. Wilson who vouched for him to get the Harvard professorship in 1965 when and where he began tutoring Edward Jay Epstein.  Moynihan did.  His office was like bureau of Commentary Magazine.  What do you think "giving them hell at the  U.N. was all about?"  How bout Claire Sterling and Michael Ledeen?  Ever read The Spike, Arnaud's 1980 "novel" about Pat Moynihan taking over the US government?  "Zionism is not racism."  1975.  How bout the destruction of the Paul Warnke nomination?   How bout creating FISA?  Didn't W F Buckley urge Moynihan as Reagan VP over Bush?  How bout Intelligence Identities Protection Act?  

 

When Cheney and Rumsfeld are mobilizing in December 2000, who do they call? Pat Moynihan.