Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK vs the Neocons Pt. 4


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

JFK put 15,000 advisors in Vietnam to placate Joint Chiefs of Staff among others urging combat troops.  He authorized the Bay of Pigs under false pretenses perpetuated by Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell of the CIA, among others.  Under pressure from them and some of the JCS less than three months into his new presidency.  "How could I ever have been so stupid" I believe is a close approximation of a statement by him afterwards.

I agree with your sentiments. 

But JFK was President and has to take responsibility for his actions. He put the 15,000 troops, called "advisors" into SV.  He must have had reasons, and I believe JFK thought he was supporting Western liberal democracy ideals in doing so. 

No doubt, JFK regretted the BoP op. He properly fired Dulles afterwards. 

See my related post on JFK's Orange Bowl speech. 

Edited by Benjamin Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Michael Griffith summed up my views on Monica W's book in his review, that you can read Amazon review section.

I don't dare discuss Griffith's review here, because it will bring the anti-Semitic crackpots out of the woodwork, and derail a pretty good, collegial thread.

Here's Jim's review to contrast whatever Griffith said with.

America’s Last President, by Monika Wiesak (kennedysandking.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm running behind here, just catching up.  I somehow missed part III.  Just found and read it.  Very enlightening.  It seems Strauss kind of gave the movement wings so to speak.  In case anyone else missed it:

JFK and the Neocons, Pt. 3 - by James Anthony DiEugenio (substack.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I googled "Donald Rumsfeld's net worth at time of death" and came up with a website that estimated his net worth as being $200 million at his time of death. https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/republicans/donald-rumsfeld-net-worth/

This criminal is buried at Arlington National Cemetery - https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/231163335/donald_henry-rumsfeld

So let's google Dick Cheney's net worth ... okay I just did and Wikipedia says it is between $19 and $86 million (with most of that money coming from extravagant Halliburton (a defense contractor) compensation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#:~:text=Cheney's net worth%2C estimated to,from his post at Halliburton.

Another web site guessing Cheney's net worth to be $150 million. https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/republicans/dick-cheney-net-worth/

Hey, who says murdering and torturing a bunch of people (usually having brown skin) overseas is not good for an American politician's net worth!

Need a remind you that Lyndon Johnson's Texas blood brothers D.H. Byrd and George Brown of Brown and Root/Halliburton made a TON of money off of the Vietnam War.

I wonder how much money LBJ made in cash kickbacks from defense contractors over the decades - had to have been in the tens of millions of dollars.

Pitiful slug Robert Caro documents LBJ as taking a $50,000 bribe (worth $500,000 in today's dollars) when he was Vice President.

In 2006 I admired Donald Rumsfeld.

Years later, after being "red pilled," I wish Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush had been put in jail for life for being the mass murderers they are.

(My opinion.)

 

 

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about Cong. Michael McCaul - he's a neocon right? Ever heard him oppose having a war?

McCaul is MY congressman down here in Texas in the 10th Congressional District, a wildly gerrymandered congressional district that is nothing like the 10th Congressional District of Lyndon Johnson, except that it juts into Austin where I live.

2011 - Cong. Michael McCaul's net worth was estimated at $292 million, most of that money coming from his wife's daddy radio kingpin Lowry Mays. God knows what his net worth is in 2024.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2011/08/michael_mccaul_richest_mmber_of_congress.html

Last time I checked Cong. McCaul was 100% for fighting a proxy war with Russia and 100% for backing Israel to the hilt in the Middle East.

McCaul personally knew Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Bush (Crime) family.

These super rich neocons - the dead bodies pile up overseas while at home in the USA they are safely ensconced in large mansions in gated communities, always on the very nice part of town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I assume you mean through NUMEC?

Israel’s nuclear weapons program was based on using natural (unenriched) uranium in a heavy water reactor to create plutonium. This reactor and the plutonium extraction capability were supplied by France for the reasons I provided above. The plutonium route was taken because uranium enrichment using the technology of the 1950-60s was very energy intensive requiring large facilities that could be easily detected. While heavy water was also energy intensive bought it could be obtained from abroad for a “research reactor” with far less suspicion. Heavy water has nuclear properties that allow it to be used in a reactor fueled by unenriched uranium. This is the route that India and Pakistan later opted for as well.

The difficulty in using plutonium is that the plutonium extracted from the reactor is made up of several different plutonium isotopes which can not be totally removed but can cause a premature criticality which could blow the bomb apart before sufficient fissions take place to achieve an appreciable yield. The Manhattan Project solved this problem by keeping subcritical masses separate and using precisely shaped and timed explosives to force the pieces together to form a supercritical geometry (sphere) with enough inward directed momentum to keep the pieces together long enough to allow enough fissions to occur.

The much less severity of this problem with the uranium bomb means that a simple gun type device can bring to masses together to achieve the same objective. This was done for the Hiroshima bomb which was never tested before it was actually used as it was so simple it was unnecessary to test it, plus they didn’t have all that much enriched uranium for reasons stated previously. So the Israelis could also avoid a nuclear test which could also be easily detected.

It’s my speculation that the Israeli plutonium track ran into financial or technical obstacles that delayed the availability of Israel’s first nuclear weapons. As an expedient, they opted to steal the enriched uranium from the NUMEC plant for the simpler gun-type device to make it available for a war planned in the near-term.

It’s interesting that the definitive source on the Israeli nuclear weapons program, Avner Cohen’s Israel and the Bomb makes no mention of NUMEC, Apollo PA or Zalman Shapiro. Neither does Michael Karpin’s The Bomb in the Basement. Israel didn’t use that uranium obtained at great political risk for paper weights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was actually another book, Divert! by Grant Smith  on the same subject, NUMEC.

The Kennedy vs Johnson reaction to this tells you all you need to know about the two men and the Middle East and what happened there after Kennedy's murder.

As does Kennedy's advocacy of the Jospeh Johnson plan for Palestinian repatriation.

Oh and did you know that as a rising diplomat in New York, Benjy N slept in Jared Kushner's bed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

There was actually another book, Divert! by Grant Smith  on the same subject, NUMEC.

The Kennedy vs Johnson reaction to this tells you all you need to know about the two men and the Middle East and what happened there after Kennedy's murder.

As does Kennedy's advocacy of the Jospeh Johnson plan for Palestinian repatriation.

Oh and did you know that as a rising diplomat in New York, Benjy N slept in Jared Kushner's bed?

Grant Smith introduces Roger Mattson in the video.

Yes. The Kushner’s were (are) very loyal zionists. Kushner’s father is a real scumbag. Jared is also studying real estate opportunities in Gaza. I wonder how active he is in the Trump campaign. Ever notice the mai stream media never discusses who is advising Trump? Even if his public appearances are just repeated ramblings of familiar talking points and boasts, you can be sure that there is a group advising him on specific courses of action if he gets into office. You can be sure it’s NOT John Mearsheimer.

My belief is that both Kamala AND Trump are in the pocket of Bibi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Henry Jackson was a very strong Zionist, and you can see how his offspring followed him.

Richard Perle once said words to the effect, everything I know about foreign policy I learned from Jackson.

One of the things I really find maddening is this: that the Neocons had a habit of comparing the USSR with the Nazis.

Jackson would do this explicitly. And this is how he justified advocating for almost each and every Pentagon project that came down the pike. And this is how he went nose to nose with Warnke.

I don't agree with that. When the Russians took control of East Europe it was with Churchill's approval as part of spheres of influence.  Because the Germans had invaded Russia twice in less than three decades. With utterly horrendous impact.  No country even came close to the casualties and waste endured by the USSR during World War II.  And Kennedy credited them for this in his Peace Speech.

And let us never forget--and the Kuznick/Stone book makes this clear--contrary to what Hanks and Spielberg  try and say,  it was the Russians who broke the back of Hitler's great war machine.   At the siege of Leningrad, the battle outside of Moscow (the first time the blitzkrieg had been stopped), and the climactic battles of Stalingrad--the greatest infantry battle ever-- and Kursk--the greatest tank battle ever.  In a very bad miscalculation, really a reckless gamble, Hitler had placed about 85 percent of the Wehrmacht on the Russian front.  And over two years, they were defeated.  Has any other president ever given them the credit that Kennedy did? But its the truth.

That is why they wanted control of East Europe, I mean they were carrying the war against Hitler until the invasion of Africa.  And George Kennan, not exactly a dove, always said one of the stupidest things he ever heard was that somehow the Russians were going to invade West Europe through Germany.

Albright was one of the dunces he was talking about.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Henry Jackson was a very strong Zionist, and you can see how his offspring followed him.

Richard Perle once said words to the effect, everything I know about foreign policy I learned from Jackson.

One of the things I really find maddening is this: that the Neocons had a habit of comparing the USSR with the Nazis.

Jackson would do this explicitly. And this is how he justified advocating for almost each and every Pentagon project that came down the pike. And this is how he went nose to nose with Warnke.

I don't agree with that. When the Russians took control of East Europe it was with Churchill's approval as part of spheres of influence.  Because the Germans had invaded Russia twice in less than three decades. With utterly horrendous impact.  No country even came close to the casualties and waste endured by the USSR during World War II.  And Kennedy credited them for this in his Peace Speech.

And let us never forget--and the Kuznick/Stone book makes this clear--contrary to what Hanks and Spielberg  try and say,  it was the Russians who broke the back of Hitler's great war machine.   At the siege of Leningrad, the battle outside of Moscow (the first time the blitzkrieg had been stopped), and the climactic battles of Stalingrad--the greatest infantry battle ever-- and Kursk--the greatest tank battle ever.  In a very bad miscalculation, really a reckless gamble, Hitler had placed about 85 percent of the Wehrmacht on the Russian front.  And over two years, they were defeated.  Has any other president ever given them the credit that Kennedy did? But its the truth.

That is why they wanted control of East Europe, I mean they were carrying the war against Hitler until the invasion of Africa.  And George Kennan, not exactly a dove, always said one of the stupidest things he ever heard was that somehow the Russians were going to invade West Europe through Germany.

Albright was one of the dunces he was talking about.

25 million Russians died in WWII-- about 75 Russian casualties for every American casualty in WWII (in the European and Pacific theaters combined.)

And 80% of Nazi military casualties in WWII occurred on the Russian front.

Many Americans don't realize the massive scale of the war on Russian soil.  Two million people died at Stalingrad alone-- the turning point in WWII.

And D-Day happened almost FIVE YEARS after WWII began (with Hitler's blitzkrieg of Poland.)

Some years ago, we were celebrating the name's day of a Russian emigre acquaintance of mine who bragged that his father had fought in the Red Army during Russia's "Great Patriotic War."   I casually mentioned that my own father had also fought against Nazi Germany in WWII.

My Russian friend expressed genuine surprise to learn that some Americans had fought against the Nazis!  True story.

(They may not have taught that part of WWII history in the Soviet schools.)

I told him that, during my childhood, we had all been afraid of Kruschev and the Russians-- even ducking-and-covering in school, etc.

He told me that, growing up in Russia, he always feared and hated the Germans, not Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is a great story William.  I mean really.

Thanks, it shows just how different the education systems are.

To be perfectly honest, I never knew about the failure of Operation Barbarossa until I went to college.  And I was a history major.

But World War II was lost on the steppes of Russia.  It was really over by Normandy.  That is one reason that no one was there for the Germans.

Cornelius Ryan made a mint from a myth.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And George Kennan, not exactly a dove, always said one of the stupidest things he ever heard was that somehow the Russians were going to invade West Europe through Germany.

 

Yes - France had nukes after 1960.  

If the Commie tanks had rolled into West Germany, France would have given them about 24 hours to turn around and go back home.

Couple that with the horrific losses they took during WW2 and there was no way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice one Bill.

Thanks. 

Funny about Kennan.  He is really the author of the whole containment policy toward the USSR from about 1946 and the Long Telegram.  But as time went on, he thought his ideas had been hijacked and transformed into something he did not mean.  In fact, on that ground, he was one of the witnesses during the Fulbright hearings  that Johnson feared the most. In fact, IIRC, LBJ  got CBS to not show him live. He said that if the USA reacts like a wild elephant in every Cold War confrontation in Asia and Africa, we will lose the respect of the world.

Which is why I closed my last part as I did, with Kennedy's warning about being on the wrong side of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Henry Jackson was a very strong Zionist, and you can see how his offspring followed him.

Richard Perle once said words to the effect, everything I know about foreign policy I learned from Jackson.

One of the things I really find maddening is this: that the Neocons had a habit of comparing the USSR with the Nazis.

Jackson would do this explicitly. And this is how he justified advocating for almost each and every Pentagon project that came down the pike. And this is how he went nose to nose with Warnke.

I don't agree with that. When the Russians took control of East Europe it was with Churchill's approval as part of spheres of influence.  Because the Germans had invaded Russia twice in less than three decades. With utterly horrendous impact.  No country even came close to the casualties and waste endured by the USSR during World War II.  And Kennedy credited them for this in his Peace Speech.

And let us never forget--and the Kuznick/Stone book makes this clear--contrary to what Hanks and Spielberg  try and say,  it was the Russians who broke the back of Hitler's great war machine.   At the siege of Leningrad, the battle outside of Moscow (the first time the blitzkrieg had been stopped), and the climactic battles of Stalingrad--the greatest infantry battle ever-- and Kursk--the greatest tank battle ever.  In a very bad miscalculation, really a reckless gamble, Hitler had placed about 85 percent of the Wehrmacht on the Russian front.  And over two years, they were defeated.  Has any other president ever given them the credit that Kennedy did? But its the truth.

That is why they wanted control of East Europe, I mean they were carrying the war against Hitler until the invasion of Africa.  And George Kennan, not exactly a dove, always said one of the stupidest things he ever heard was that somehow the Russians were going to invade West Europe through Germany.

Albright was one of the dunces he was talking about.

Most of those people died from the Russian Retreat where they implemented a scorched earth policy aka from starvation not from the Nazis killing them. Kuznik calls Republicans in the Spanish civil war "Progressives" lols Kim Philby who defected to Progressive Russia was recruited their. 

Kennedy as a 'Progressive' is funny since the word means 'Communist' when used by socialists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...