James DiEugenio Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 Here is Part 3, it just went up. Its about Rumsfeld, Jackson and Strauss. https://substack.com/home/post/p-147174529?source=queue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 BTW, the reaction I am getting to this is something. Even Monika Wiesak is chiming in. People don't know that, hey Truman ok'd an intervention in Guatemala, but Acheson took it back. And Acheson's ambassador to Iran blamed the coup there on his boss, because Acheson let England take over the driver's seat, so it was inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Here is Part 3, it just went up. Its about Rumsfeld, Jackson and Strauss. https://substack.com/home/post/p-147174529?source=queue Where's Moynihan? Didn't he write Scoop Jackson's campaign speeches in 76? Didn't he adopt whole-cloth virtually the Jackson staff onto his own Senate staff after Jackson's withdrawal and Carter's ascendancy thanks to TIME? Didn't that staff go on to the Reagan admin? Didn't Moynihan kill the Warnke nomination? Didn't he kill the Sorenson nomination? Hadn't Moynihan eliminated the ADA's left-orientation in 1967 when he proposed they merge with Buckley's conservatives? (A proposal with which Buckley eagerly welcomed?) Didn't Rumsfeld come out of the briefing on the Cambodian bombing and exclaim to Moynihan "Did you see the look in his eyes?! He loved it!" Not a word, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: BTW, the reaction I am getting to this is something. Even Monika Wiesak is chiming in. People don't know that, hey Truman ok'd an intervention in Guatemala, but Acheson took it back. And Acheson's ambassador to Iran blamed the coup there on his boss, because Acheson let England take over the driver's seat, so it was inevitable. Who the hell is Monika Wiesak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Here is Part 3, it just went up. Its about Rumsfeld, Jackson and Strauss. https://substack.com/home/post/p-147174529?source=queue Very interesting article, Jim. Thanks for posting. Another key advisor to Scoop Jackson in the 70s was the Harvard historian, Daniel Pipes. Pipes was a Russia expert who was highly critical of detente. He was later involved with Team B during the Reagan administration-- which had been originally organized by Rumsfeld and CIA Director George H.W. Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 (edited) 39 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Very interesting article, Jim. Thanks for posting. Another key advisor to Scoop Jackson in the 70s was the Harvard historian, Daniel Pipes. Pipes was a Russia expert who was highly critical of detente. He was later involved with Team B during the Reagan administration-- which had been originally organized by Rumsfeld and CIA Director George H.W. Bush. Team B did not come from Rumseld. It came from Leo Cherne. Now. Here's the dirty secret, which no one-dimensional analysis will provide. The philosophy of the neoconservatives requires the clash of civilizations in order for history to progress. The greater the clash, the faster the history unfolds or, if you like, the progress. The progress toward what, you ask? Hold that thought. The opposition to detente -- by those really in charge, not Frank Gaffney -- was a head-fake, to enable the convergence of East and West. That is to say, Russian Collusion. This is the dialectics. This is the Hegel. This is the philosophy that must be understood in order to explain what's been going on. Failing to do this, a la this article, merely compounds the confusion and hides the reality. Neo-conservatism is not some hawkish wing of a political party. Those always existed. And it has far more to do with the internal, civil order within a society than has even been remotely alluded to here. As the dominant political philosophy in the world today, across the world, it is a method of reality-creation. It is far greater than Scoop Jackson. If the author had begun to consider with any thoughtfulness why a liberal such as he -- who opposes neo-conism perpetual war -- would be joined in that view by the Trump wing of the Republican Party, the author might, might be getting somewhere. (Conversely, the neo-cons and the neo-libs are united now in opposition to the Trump wing.) As it is, he merely, again, compounds and perpetuates the superficial understanding of today's political reality, which suits the neo-cons/neo-libs just fine. Edited July 30 by Matt Cloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Kevin, There are multiple convoluted, conflicting stories from Ben Bradlee, the Angletons, Truitts, et.al., about James Angleton's confiscation of Mary Meyer's diary. The two best analyses of the bunk are; 1) James DiEugenio's essay on The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy, in The Assassinations, (pp. 339-345) 2) Peter Janney's book, Mary's Mosaic, (pp. 73-80) As Janney points out, Ben Bradlee's autobiographical account differs from his testimony, under oath, in Mary Meyer's murder trial. In court, Bradlee testified that he went to Meyer's apartment on the night of her murder, not later. He also reported that Angleton was in the apartment when he (Bradlee) got there. P.S. Did you post this on the wrong thread? If she knew something vital about the assassination, why didn’t she reveal it in the nearly one year that elapsed between the assassination and her murder? Why would Bradlee even bring up the matter of the diary and Angleton if it was to help cover up the assassination? If the diary was brought up during the trial, why wasn’t it subpoenaed as evidence? Sounds more like it was intended to cover up embarrassing personal information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 2 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: If she knew something vital about the assassination, why didn’t she reveal it in the nearly one year that elapsed between the assassination and her murder? Why would Bradlee even bring up the matter of the diary and Angleton if it was to help cover up the assassination? If the diary was brought up during the trial, why wasn’t it subpoenaed as evidence? Sounds more like it was intended to cover up embarrassing personal information. That is, certainly, the convoluted CIA narrative, Kevin. Check out the references I posted for you (above.) But, again, did you mean to post these questions about Mary Pinchot Meyer on the Hit List thread? This is the DiEugenio Neocon history thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said: That is, certainly, the convoluted CIA narrative, Kevin. Check out the references I posted for you (above.) But, again, did you mean to post these questions about Mary Pinchot Meyer on the Hit List thread? This is the DiEugenio Neocon history thread. What if the diary says something to the effect that "Kennedy told me we have a mole deep within the CIA put there on purpose to keep the CIA from running amuck and with the full knowledge of previous presidents designed to set the CIA on a self-destructive mole-hunt while merging East and West [that's the neo-con angle] in an effort to avoid full-out destruction. He says it's the only way forward."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 16 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: If she knew something vital about the assassination, why didn’t she reveal it in the nearly one year that elapsed between the assassination and her murder? Why would Bradlee even bring up the matter of the diary and Angleton if it was to help cover up the assassination? If the diary was brought up during the trial, why wasn’t it subpoenaed as evidence? Sounds more like it was intended to cover up embarrassing personal information. This story does not come out until it is ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said: What if the diary says something to the effect that "Kennedy told me we have a mole deep within the CIA put there on purpose to keep the CIA from running amuck and with the full knowledge of previous presidents designed to set the CIA on a self-destructive mole-hunt while merging East and West [that's the neo-con angle] in an effort to avoid full-out destruction. He says it's the only way forward."? And the reason we are talking about Meyer, and Janney, now for the second time, is because of this post, by me. It is not in the wrong place. The issue is where this "neo-con revolution" is coming from. It's coming from Moynihan, who lives at the house that houses (possibly) COMOR and then (certainly) COMSAT. DiEugenio does not want to go there. That is a mistake. As I wrote, or excerpted: "Through the Post Company's Newsweek arm, Graham eventually met Australian journalist Robin Webb, and in 1962 they began an affair. In 1963, he and Webb flew to Arizona; he appeared at a newspaper publishing convention inebriated and/or manic. At the microphone he made a number of provocative comments, including the revelation that Kennedy was sleeping with Mary Pinchot Meyer. His assistant, James Truitt, called for his doctor, Leslie Farber, who flew in by private jet, as did (subsequently) Graham's wife. Graham was sedated, bound in a straitjacket, and flown back to Washington. He was committed for five days to Chestnut Lodge, a psychiatric hospital in Rockville, Maryland with CIA connections.[2] Graham then left his wife for Robin Webb, announced to his friends that he planned to divorce his wife and immediately remarry, and indicated that he wanted to purchase sole control of the Post Company. In June, in a fit of depression, he broke off his affair and returned home. On June 20, 1963, he entered Chestnut Lodge for the second time, and was formally diagnosed with manic depression (now called bipolar disorder). He was treated with psychotherapy. On August 3, 1963, after Graham had made repeated requests of his doctors to be allowed a short stay away from the hospital, and "quite noticeably much better", according to his wife, he was permitted to go to their farmhouse in Virginia, Glen Welby, for the weekend. Graham killed himself with a shotgun while his wife was in another part of the retreat.[3] His body was found in a bathroom about 1:00 pm.[3] He was buried at Oak Hill Cemetery in Washington, D.C.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Graham "Kennedy realized that he had made a serious error in judgment. Fearing that Phil would start to talk about the internal workings of COMSAT, he asked Clark Clifford, former intelligence advisor to President Truman, the future head of the National Intelligence Advisory Board, and Kennedy’s personal lawyer, to report Phil’s activities to him. Clifford could oblige with no trouble because he was already involved with the Grahams’ problems as Agnes’s personal counselor and attorney for the divorce." https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/KatharineTheGreat.pdf" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: That is, certainly, the convoluted CIA narrative, Kevin. Check out the references I posted for you (above.) But, again, did you mean to post these questions about Mary Pinchot Meyer on the Hit List thread? This is the DiEugenio Neocon history thread. Matt Cloud cited the Role of Truitt in the Phil Graham mental breakdown and Mary Pinchot Meyer. I remembered reading that Truitt’s wife called from Japan to have Meyer’s diary secured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 Jackson vs Warnke: Carter capped these by naming Paul Warnke as head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and chief weapons negotiator. As chief defense-policy adviser to McGovern’s 1972 campaign, Warnke had authored a plan to reduce the entire U.S. military by one-third. This appointment was too much for Scoop, and he decided to fight Warnke’s nomination despite the tradition of allowing a new president a honeymoon. Warnke won confirmation in the Senate but only by a vote of 58 to 40. This implied that Scoop would be able to muster the votes to block any arms-control treaty that did not meet his approval since ratification requires a two-thirds vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 More on Jackson vs Warnke: https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/08/archives/senators-rallying-dissent-on-warnke.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 31 Author Share Posted July 31 18 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said: Matt Cloud cited the Role of Truitt in the Phil Graham mental breakdown and Mary Pinchot Meyer. I remembered reading that Truitt’s wife called from Japan to have Meyer’s diary secured. Kevin, You need to do some remedial reading on the history of Mary Pinchot Meyer's assassination, and the conflicting, convoluted CIA narratives about Angleton's confiscation of her diary. (See the references above.) Do you even read the comments and references posted in response to your comments here? As for Matt Cloud, perhaps he should start a separate Hegelian thread entitled, "Mary Pinchot Meyer's Diary and the Dialectical Rise of the Neocons Under Daniel Patrick Moynihan." 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