JFK vs the Neocons Pt. 4

[James DiEugenio]

Ben:

The Neocons control both parties today.  That was the point of my article.

Did you miss that?  Both HRC and Biden voted for the war resolution against Iraq. Any idiot could have found out that there was no yellowcake in Iraq.  I mean if I could find it, you are going to tell me that those two could not? Sorry, but no sale.

What they wanted to do was to protect themselves from any attack from the right, whether it be from the GOP or from the MSM.

Biden was the administration's point man on Ukraine. And now for two years at least he has refused to countenance at least three agreements to end that war. Because he thinks that would be giving Russia a "victory." So 400,000 casualties and over a hundred billion dollars is not enough. This is pure Cold War style thinking. Something Kennedy said back in 1960 that we have to get away from.

And it was Biden who essentially ran Snowden into Russia.

Do you really think that Kennedy would have used NATO to bomb Africa? Over 9,000 strike sorties. Thus creating a failed state with arms and slave auctions?

Do you really think that Kennedy would have gone to war against a secularist leader in Syria? That was the kind of thing he was trying to encourage in the Middle East.

The Neocons won.  I don't like it.  Perhaps you do. Fine, we have a difference of opinion.

[Matthew Koch]

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The Neocons won.  I don't like it.  Perhaps you do. Fine, we have a difference of opinion.

If they won then why did they just try to assassinate Donald Trump?!? 

Unfortunately Progressive JFKA researchers like you James, act like the Frog from Looney Tunes and will tell us every little obscure fact except when the political assassination attempt goes against their Leftist Political Bias 

 

[James DiEugenio]

I made a mistake and looked at Matt Koch.

Hey we all do.

Are you going to tell me the Trump attempt was a plot?

  How many pictures were taken?

Where were the frame up films from New Orleans?

And please do not tell me the SS allowed it to happen because the SS has been out to lunch for decades on end. They are a lawless agency.

And I do not consider myself a leftist.  I consider myself a Kennedy Democrat.

I do consider myself a credible historian.  Sorry.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

The Neocons control both parties today.  That was the point of my article.

Did you miss that?  Both HRC and Biden voted for the war resolution against Iraq. Any idiot could have found out that there was no yellowcake in Iraq.  I mean if I could find it, you are going to tell me that those two could not? Sorry, but no sale.

What they wanted to do was to protect themselves from any attack from the right, whether it be from the GOP or from the MSM.

Biden was the administration's point man on Ukraine. And now for two years at least he has refused to countenance at least three agreements to end that war. Because he thinks that would be giving Russia a "victory." So 400,000 casualties and over a hundred billion dollars is not enough. This is pure Cold War style thinking. Something Kennedy said back in 1960 that we have to get away from.

And it was Biden who essentially ran Snowden into Russia.

Do you really think that Kennedy would have used NATO to bomb Africa? Over 9,000 strike sorties. Thus creating a failed state with arms and slave auctions?

Do you really think that Kennedy would have gone to war against a secularist leader in Syria? That was the kind of thing he was trying to encourage in the Middle East.

The Neocons won.  I don't like it.  Perhaps you do. Fine, we have a difference of opinion.

JD--- If opposing Putin is a neocon position, then yes, I am a neocon. 

IMHO, this underlines my point. Modern geopolitics has scrambled the chess board. I was no fan of the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Putin is madman, a lunatic warmonger. Biden may be a puppet, and his enablers poor diplomats. Harris may be even worse. But Putin was not forced to declare war on Ukraine, and send 500k men to their deaths...and counting.

The US alt-left has fabricated a fictional world in which Putin, Hamas and Xi are OK and Western liberal democracies are the bad guys. 

Include me out.

Edited August 15 by Benjamin Cole

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 8/13/2024 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Not to mention Putin's inexcusable and ghastly war on Ukraine, a nation that barely had a military before the Putin war.

Hundreds of thousands dead, more wounded.  Vast infrastructure and housing destroyed. And it ain't over yet.

Some nations have bellicose warmongers, oppressive ideologues and thugs, intractable and implacable in every way, running government. And have been that way for centuries, often supported by domestic populations (one can say populations are brainwashed by propaganda or theocrats, but still....)

Western liberal democracies are not perfect...but the options are revolting.

 

Ben, heh heh! You're kind of a babe in the woods talking to Di Eugenio about this and other things. 

As I've said you are the foremost Ukraine hawk on the forum. I think everyone here thinks  concerning the U.S. relation with Post War Russia, a great opportunity for peace was missed. But apparently you're not aware of what end of the spectrum  Jim is really coming from. This is in 2019.  I'm going to cite my disagreements. 

 

 

Jim Di : Putin annexed Crimea?   And he's helping those in Donbass.  OMG.  This is why I have CV on ignore.  He's like the NY Times on this. The people who took control of Ukraine in 2014 are the followers of the neo Nazi Bandera. They murdered scores, if not hundreds of people, in their illegal overthrow.  Their paramilitary bands literally set buildings on fire with innocent civilians inside.  Sometimes they wore helmets with the swastika inscribed on  them.  In the State Department's anti Putin mania, we backed these nutcases.  Many people on the scene, like in Crimea, understood who they were and did not want to be part of a mini Fourth Reich led by idolators of the anti-Semitic  Bandera. It would be sort of like Zhukov laying down for the Wehrmacht in 1941.  These rightwing nuts have made an absolute mess out of Ukraine, similar to what Yeltsin and Jeff Sachs did to Russia during their shock doctrine days.  It became nothing but a plunderers' paradise, while the masses suffered socially and economically in every way. And it was not just a Democratic or Republican debacle, it was both. Because many times, at the top, both parties are CFR/Bohemian Grove types. And its been that way since Jerry Ford let the neocons take over in 1975.

 

This is Jim, about Putin taking Crimea.

 

Jim Di:When a region or state votes overwhelmingly to save themselves from being taken over by a bunch of paramilitary Neo Nazi thugs and murderers who are intent on making Ukraine into a mini Fourth Reich, then that is not annexation from outside but inside.  Crimea is a beautiful, well frequented resort area.  They did not want any part of being tied in with a bunch of criminals and Fascists. Its that simple.

 

"It's that simple!" says Jim! This is so largely BS! And Stone himself has been backpedaling on this. If you want to see what real Ukranian people thought of the uprising as it was happening and get a different point of view from the Putin- melded - Stone film version.

 

Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom | Full Feature | Netflix

 

 

 Just as you will never hear Jim Di make  a critical statement about JFK that might inspire a fuller understanding of JFK. Believe me, I've tracked Oliver Stone's public statements over the last 10 years and Di Eugenio's mirrors him completely.

 

Jim Di: a bunch of paramilitary Neo Nazi thugs and murderers who are intent on making Ukraine into a  mini Fourth Reich led by idolators of the anti-Semitic  Bandera

Is that what happened Jim? They ended up electing a Jew comedian! How could you be more wrong??

 

Jim Di: When did Russia move to annex Ukraine?  Putin had a great opportunity, but he did not!
 

Yeah, think of how much easier our lives would be now, if Putin had just annexed Ukraine when he had the opportunity, but he was too principled, right Jim?

I love this! That statement was anything but prophetic! If you have no understanding of facts on the ground, you're useless in prediction.

 

 

Jim Di:These rightwing nuts have made an absolute mess out of Ukraine, similar to what Yeltsin and Jeff Sachs did to Russia during their shock doctrine days.It became nothing but a plunderers' paradise, while the masses suffered socially and economically in every way. And it was not just a Democratic or Republican debacle, it was both!

 

This is interesting. Jim wrote a piece more recently extolling Jeffrey Sachs! After his followers kept praising it. I felt obligated to mention that Di Eugenio left out of his Sachs bio that Sachs was the single most important American figure in trashing the Russian economy for 10 years that gave rise to Putin!

Now it turns out Jim knew of that over 5 years ago. So he was omitting a major point he knew to extol Sach's mentioning of the JFKAC! 

JMO, but as  sort of a primer for understanding Jim, Jim is never  nuanced or balanced at all, either people are exalted, emulated  and paragons of virtue,  like the Kennedy's, Oliver Stone or Jim Garrison, Putin or.......

Jim Di:The Neocons control both parties today.  That was the point of my article. Did you miss that? 

Or now they're the Neocons, or some other menace, Jim doesn't know that these elements were around  long before even Jackson or then PNAC, and seems to forget who killed JFK!

Now Jim's world is either JFK people who want peace or neocons! Jim is just by nature a one note propagandist 

Okay!, Okay!.... 2 notes!.                                                                        heh heh

 

JimDi: It became nothing but a plunderers' paradise, while the masses suffered socially and economically in every way. And it was not just a Democratic or Republican debacle, it was both!

 

Right, and Russia bears no responsibility at all ?  It was all the Democrats and Republicans Jim? They had no choice at all.? Being Socialist they had at least built a decent social safety net ,but they made a choice to threw out the baby with the bath water!  Similarly we can't put it all on Sachs, besides he's your new hero!

 

It's interesting with  all these squabbles we're having about politicizing the forum now, Jim was allowed to indoctrinate everybody here about his political beliefs sometimes with no resistance at all back then!

 

****

[Benjamin Cole]

40 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Ben, heh heh! You're kind of a babe in the woods talking to Di Eugenio about this and other things. 

As I've said you are the foremost Ukraine hawk on the forum. I think everyone here thinks  concerning the U.S. relation with Post War Russia, a great opportunity for peace was missed. But apparently you're not aware of what end of the spectrum  Jim is really coming from. This is in 2019.  I'm going to cite my disagreements. 

 

 

Jim Di : Putin annexed Crimea?   And he's helping those in Donbass.  OMG.  This is why I have CV on ignore.  He's like the NY Times on this. The people who took control of Ukraine in 2014 are the followers of the neo Nazi Bandera. They murdered scores, if not hundreds of people, in their illegal overthrow.  Their paramilitary bands literally set buildings on fire with innocent civilians inside.  Sometimes they wore helmets with the swastika inscribed on  them.  In the State Department's anti Putin mania, we backed these nutcases.  Many people on the scene, like in Crimea, understood who they were and did not want to be part of a mini Fourth Reich led by idolators of the anti-Semitic  Bandera. It would be sort of like Zhukov laying down for the Wehrmacht in 1941.  These rightwing nuts have made an absolute mess out of Ukraine, similar to what Yeltsin and Jeff Sachs did to Russia during their shock doctrine days.  It became nothing but a plunderers' paradise, while the masses suffered socially and economically in every way. And it was not just a Democratic or Republican debacle, it was both. Because many times, at the top, both parties are CFR/Bohemian Grove types. And its been that way since Jerry Ford let the neocons take over in 1975.

 

This is Jim, about Putin taking Crimea.

 

Jim Di:When a region or state votes overwhelmingly to save themselves from being taken over by a bunch of paramilitary Neo Nazi thugs and murderers who are intent on making Ukraine into a mini Fourth Reich, then that is not annexation from outside but inside.  Crimea is a beautiful, well frequented resort area.  They did not want any part of being tied in with a bunch of criminals and Fascists. Its that simple.

 

"It's that simple!" says Jim! This is so largely BS! And Stone himself has been backpedaling on this. If you want to see what real Ukranian people thought of the uprising as it was happening and get a different point of view from the Putin- melded - Stone film version.

 

Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom | Full Feature | Netflix

 

 

 Just as you will never hear Jim Di make  a critical statement about JFK that might inspire a fuller understanding of JFK. Believe me, I've tracked Oliver Stone's public statements over the last 10 years and Di Eugenio's mirrors him completely.

 

Jim Di: a bunch of paramilitary Neo Nazi thugs and murderers who are intent on making Ukraine into a  mini Fourth Reich led by idolators of the anti-Semitic  Bandera

Is that what happened Jim? They ended up electing a Jew comedian! How could you be more wrong??

 

Jim Di: When did Russia move to annex Ukraine?  Putin had a great opportunity, but he did not!
 

Yeah, think of how much easier our lives would be now, if Putin had just annexed Ukraine when he had the opportunity, but he was too principled, right Jim?

I love this! That statement was anything but prophetic! If you have no understanding of facts on the ground, you're useless in prediction.

 

 

Jim Di:These rightwing nuts have made an absolute mess out of Ukraine, similar to what Yeltsin and Jeff Sachs did to Russia during their shock doctrine days.It became nothing but a plunderers' paradise, while the masses suffered socially and economically in every way. And it was not just a Democratic or Republican debacle, it was both!

 

This is interesting. Jim wrote a piece more recently extolling Jeffrey Sachs! After his followers kept praising it. I felt obligated to mention that Di Eugenio left out of his Sachs bio that Sachs was the single most important American figure in trashing the Russian economy for 10 years that gave rise to Putin!

Now it turns out Jim knew of that over 5 years ago. So he was omitting a major point he knew to extol Sach's mentioning of the JFKAC! 

JMO, but as  sort of a primer for understanding Jim, Jim is never  nuanced or balanced at all, either people are exalted, emulated  and paragons of virtue,  like the Kennedy's, Oliver Stone or Jim Garrison, Putin or.......

Jim Di:The Neocons control both parties today.  That was the point of my article. Did you miss that? 

Or now they're the Neocons, or some other menace, Jim doesn't know that these elements were around  long before even Jackson or then PNAC, and seems to forget who killed JFK!

Now Jim's world is either JFK people who want peace or neocons! Jim is just by nature a one note propagandist 

Okay!, Okay!.... 2 notes!.                                                                        heh heh

 

JimDi: It became nothing but a plunderers' paradise, while the masses suffered socially and economically in every way. And it was not just a Democratic or Republican debacle, it was both!

 

Right, and Russia bears no responsibility at all ?  It was all the Democrats and Republicans Jim? They had no choice at all.? Being Socialist they had at least built a decent social safety net ,but they made a choice to threw out the baby with the bath water!  Similarly we can't put it all on Sachs, besides he's your new hero!

 

It's interesting with  all these squabbles we're having about politicizing the forum now, Jim was allowed to indoctrinate everybody here about his political beliefs sometimes with no resistance at all back then!

 

****

KG-

I am not here to bash Jim DiEugenio, who is a terrific scholar on the JFKA. He is also a nice guy. This is no cause to respond to DiEugenio with anything but civil and collegial commentary. 

I prefer to disagree on issues, not with people. (The moderators would benefit from this approach also). 

I disagree with DiEugenio on Ukraine, and on his acceptance of Monica Weisak's take on the Middle East (pretty much the Muslim mythology version).

But Vietnam was a mistake, and one JFK almost surely would have avoided (the large-scale version, that is).  I suspect JFK-types would have sidestepped the Iraq and Afghan wars. But those wars are over too. 

DiEugenio has done excellent work fleshing out under-discussed parts of JFK foreign policy, and his preference to avoid colonialism. Sadly, post-colonialism has largely flopped, and the former colonies perhaps worse places to live than ever. So it goes. 

I agree with you, that we have entered a new stage in global relations, and the Cold war, and even the neocon era are receding further into the past. Colonialism is long dead and gone, and should be. 

The resource and ag companies that dominated US foreign policy through the 1970s have faded, replaced by much larger enterprises such as Apple, Disney, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Tesla, Microsoft, NBC Universal, all champing to do business with the CCP, not fight it. (Mostly Donk-side buddies, btw). 

The Donks are the new neo-cons? How? 

Biden is fist-bumping with MbS, shortly after MbS had the WaPo journalist Khashoggi cut up into little pieces. What is what anymore? 

What to do with a lethal lunatic like Putin? This is not a Cold war or neocon topic. Putin is not even a commie. Does that make me a hawk to want Putin beaten? 

The most vile, illiberal sadistic ghouls are earth are Hamas...The US sought unconditional surrender from Japan, and I understand why Israel wants conditional surrender also. Sinwar could have surrendered and ended this war at almost anytime. 

Tehran is good government? Have people gone nuts? The CCP? The alt-left is valorizing Hamas. If that is the left wing, include me out. 

BTW, stay tuned. Coming up with interesting under-told story on the Kennedy Administration.

The Kennedy Administration never stopped trying to put Castro down, one way or the other. The policy only changed when LBJ became president. 

BTW, read the link to JFK's Orange Bowl speech: 

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-miami-the-presentation-the-flag-the-cuban-invasion-brigade

This may be the most bellicose speech ever given by a US President. 

JFK is not a simpleton, nor can simpletons size his presidency up. There is a lot of grey zones and twists in the story. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

Geez, Ben...

The only disagreements I have ever had with you on this forum have been specifically about issues-- January 6th, JFK's policies, the scope of the JFK assassination op, (and cover up) etc.

Your perceptions are truly distorted.

As for the old DiEugenio, Gallaway, and Varnell conflicts, they antedated my membership here.

I like all three of those guys.

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Ben, heh heh! You're kind of a babe in the woods talking to Di Eugenio about this and other things. 

As I've said you are the foremost Ukraine hawk on the forum. I think everyone here thinks  concerning the U.S. relation with Post War Russia, a great opportunity for peace was missed. But apparently you're not aware of what end of the spectrum  Jim is really coming from. This is in 2019.  I'm going to cite my disagreements. 

 

 

Jim Di : Putin annexed Crimea?   And he's helping those in Donbass.  OMG.  This is why I have CV on ignore.  He's like the NY Times on this. The people who took control of Ukraine in 2014 are the followers of the neo Nazi Bandera. They murdered scores, if not hundreds of people, in their illegal overthrow.  Their paramilitary bands literally set buildings on fire with innocent civilians inside.  Sometimes they wore helmets with the swastika inscribed on  them.  In the State Department's anti Putin mania, we backed these nutcases.  Many people on the scene, like in Crimea, understood who they were and did not want to be part of a mini Fourth Reich led by idolators of the anti-Semitic  Bandera. It would be sort of like Zhukov laying down for the Wehrmacht in 1941.  These rightwing nuts have made an absolute mess out of Ukraine, similar to what Yeltsin and Jeff Sachs did to Russia during their shock doctrine days.  It became nothing but a plunderers' paradise, while the masses suffered socially and economically in every way. And it was not just a Democratic or Republican debacle, it was both. Because many times, at the top, both parties are CFR/Bohemian Grove types. And its been that way since Jerry Ford let the neocons take over in 1975.

 

This is Jim, about Putin taking Crimea.

 

Jim Di:When a region or state votes overwhelmingly to save themselves from being taken over by a bunch of paramilitary Neo Nazi thugs and murderers who are intent on making Ukraine into a mini Fourth Reich, then that is not annexation from outside but inside.  Crimea is a beautiful, well frequented resort area.  They did not want any part of being tied in with a bunch of criminals and Fascists. Its that simple.

 

"It's that simple!" says Jim! This is so largely BS! And Stone himself has been backpedaling on this. If you want to see what real Ukranian people thought of the uprising as it was happening and get a different point of view from the Putin- melded - Stone film version.

 

Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom | Full Feature | Netflix

 

 

 Just as you will never hear Jim Di make  a critical statement about JFK that might inspire a fuller understanding of JFK. Believe me, I've tracked Oliver Stone's public statements over the last 10 years and Di Eugenio's mirrors him completely.

 

Jim Di: a bunch of paramilitary Neo Nazi thugs and murderers who are intent on making Ukraine into a  mini Fourth Reich led by idolators of the anti-Semitic  Bandera

Is that what happened Jim? They ended up electing a Jew comedian! How could you be more wrong??

 

Jim Di: When did Russia move to annex Ukraine?  Putin had a great opportunity, but he did not!
 

Yeah, think of how much easier our lives would be now, if Putin had just annexed Ukraine when he had the opportunity, but he was too principled, right Jim?

I love this! That statement was anything but prophetic! If you have no understanding of facts on the ground, you're useless in prediction.

 

 

Jim Di:These rightwing nuts have made an absolute mess out of Ukraine, similar to what Yeltsin and Jeff Sachs did to Russia during their shock doctrine days.It became nothing but a plunderers' paradise, while the masses suffered socially and economically in every way. And it was not just a Democratic or Republican debacle, it was both!

 

This is interesting. Jim wrote a piece more recently extolling Jeffrey Sachs! After his followers kept praising it. I felt obligated to mention that Di Eugenio left out of his Sachs bio that Sachs was the single most important American figure in trashing the Russian economy for 10 years that gave rise to Putin!

Now it turns out Jim knew of that over 5 years ago. So he was omitting a major point he knew to extol Sach's mentioning of the JFKAC! 

JMO, but as  sort of a primer for understanding Jim, Jim is never  nuanced or balanced at all, either people are exalted, emulated  and paragons of virtue,  like the Kennedy's, Oliver Stone or Jim Garrison, Putin or.......

Jim Di:The Neocons control both parties today.  That was the point of my article. Did you miss that? 

Or now they're the Neocons, or some other menace, Jim doesn't know that these elements were around  long before even Jackson or then PNAC, and seems to forget who killed JFK!

Now Jim's world is either JFK people who want peace or neocons! Jim is just by nature a one note propagandist 

Okay!, Okay!.... 2 notes!.                                                                        heh heh

 

JimDi: It became nothing but a plunderers' paradise, while the masses suffered socially and economically in every way. And it was not just a Democratic or Republican debacle, it was both!

 

Right, and Russia bears no responsibility at all ?  It was all the Democrats and Republicans Jim? They had no choice at all.? Being Socialist they had at least built a decent social safety net ,but they made a choice to threw out the baby with the bath water!  Similarly we can't put it all on Sachs, besides he's your new hero!

 

It's interesting with  all these squabbles we're having about politicizing the forum now, Jim was allowed to indoctrinate everybody here about his political beliefs sometimes with no resistance at all back then!

 

****

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1097135961

I thought people here might like to read Jeff Sachs' account of what he did, first in Poland and then Russia, in the 90s to counter your ignorant rants about the subject.

Sachs' 5 part plan worked to revive the Polish economy, which is why Yeltson asked him to help Russia.  The Russian task was much harder for several reasons.  Parliament stood in opposition and the US and international financial institutions didn't help, unlike in Poland.  The US viewed Poland as a potential ally.  Russia has always been the enemy.

The failure of the plan and Yeltsin's reversal of course paved the way for the rise of a group of oligarchs to in your phrase trash what remained of the economy.

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

You're kind of a babe in the woods talking to Di Eugenio about this and other things. 

That's why I say "among other things." You're certainly being met with  strong resistance to the idea that JFK was trying to undermine Cuba to the end. It would seem there was diminishing returns until it was LBJ who just nixed any subversive action toward Cuba.

I could see this. I think what  might have scared JFK's opponents was the realization that he really is very duplicitous. Not really honoring his pledge to Khrushchev to back off from subversive action toward Cuba and as Ron said, placating or kissing ass to the JCS,Anti Castro Cubans,  Intelligence all the while,trying to establish a connection to Castro.

I tend to think they're all true.

As far as the speech in Miami, I've read it before. It is bellicose. You should probably include a link, though I'm not sure many would check it out. Di Eugenio would simply say it was "JFK politicking." And he's not completely wrong. But IMO, it's exacerbated with JFK because he twisted himself into a pretzel trying to please everybody.

Even despite W's pleas, I noticed Jim Di hasn't weighed in.

"Where have you gone, Jim Di Maggio?, our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you!"

*******

Ben:I agree with you, that we have entered a new stage in global relations, and the Cold war, and even the neocon era are receding further into the past.

Certainly, any real discussion of the current world situation in a thread entitled "JFK and the Neocons" is purely incidental.

Up to now there's always been this supposition, that 1)democracy is best. and 2) Democratic countries are not near as apt to declare war on their democratically elected neighbors. But that's breaking down now. As the world is now starting to democratically elect Fascists to head their governments.

A case on both ends of the spectrum is Israel. Unfortunately  despite a public more sophisticated than ours, and many  advocates of human rights, free speech and liberties. Israel has had fascist Netanyahoo in charge for 18 of the last 28 years, and we look now at the result.

But for me what's also discouraging is that I believe in a 2 state solution but I think the experiment of Palestinian self rule will at least start out being a disaster! But I can only hope for it's success and hope it's Arab neighbors can for once be big boys stepping up to the table and help out.

Well, we'll see how this all plays out.

[W. Niederhut]

Kirk,

   Surely you don't believe that JFK intended to invade Cuba, after narrowly averting a catastrophic nuclear war with the USSR in October of 1962, partly by assuring Khruschev that he would not invade Cuba if the Soviet nukes were removed from the island.

  You and Ben Cole don't seem to understand JFK's longstanding, deep-rooted fear of nuclear war (and nuclear testing.) Wiesak documents that history quite cogently.

  Given that history, it's difficult to interpret the December 1962 Orange Bowl speech as anything other than awkward, poorly-conceptualized damage control -- empty rhetorical outreach to the angry, anti-Castro community.

  Putting lipstick on a pig (i.e., the Bay of Pigs?)

Addendum: And, BTW, we probably wouldn't be here debating about JFK and Cuba right now if JFK had done what the Joint Chiefs wanted in October of 1962.  Those guys were arrogant, trigger-happy idiots.

Edited August 15 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for that Roger.

Its the untold part of the story.  And it explains much of what happened in the late Yeltsin phase and after Yeltsin.

And why his regime was such a failure. It set the stage for Putin.

Secondly, my information on Kennedy and the Middle East does not come from Monika.

My information on that comes from Philip Muehlenbeck, Robert Dreyfus, and Robert Rakove.

And I would be willing to wager that no one here has read their three books, and probably 90 per cent of you never heard of all three.

Which is saying something because IMO the  Rakove book is the best there is on JFK and the Third World, and the Dreyfus book is the best on American/British relations with Moslem fundamentalists.  For example, it was the British who started The Moslem Brotherhood.

If anyone thinks the Neocons are doing well, well you did not read tne end of my piece. If that were so then why is BRICS making so much progress?  Also ask yourself, when is the last time Biden had a sit down with Putin?  400,000 casualties is not something to talk about?  I predict, even though he has five months,  that he will never talk to Putin about a settlement. Just remember, even Ike tried to arrange a summit near the end.  And when the U2 crash ended that, he made his best speech ever.  One that rivals JFK's Algeria speech, his civil rights speech and the Peace Speech.

But this is how far past the old GOP the Democratic Neocons have gone.

 

Edited August 15 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Whew, Ben is really working overtime to try and turn JFK into a neocon on Cuba.

I guess I hit a nerve.

The CIA sent a letter to Johnson after Kennedy's death telling him that in the whole six month period of Jan-June 1963 that there had been something like 5 raids into Cuba.  They said these were worse than useless. Because 1.) They had no impact and 2.) Castro would boast about turning them back. That is why they recommended stopping the whole thing.

But as anyone familiar with the subject would know, once Kennedy was killed, the quest for detente also ended.  Castro was still interested, but Johnson was not.  William Attwood said that if Kennedy had lived, he had no doubt that he would have been flying to Havana through Mexico City.

That was the real difference.

[Robert Morrow]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Whew, Ben is really working overtime to try and turn JFK into a neocon on Cuba.

I guess I hit a nerve.

The CIA sent a letter to Johnson after Kennedy's death telling him that in the whole six month period of Jan-June 1963 that there had been something like 5 raids into Cuba.  They said these were worse than useless. Because 1.) They had no impact and 2.) Castro would boast about turning them back. That is why they recommended stopping the whole thing.

But as anyone familiar with the subject would know, once Kennedy was killed, the quest for detente also ended.  Castro was still interested, but Johnson was not.  William Attwood said that if Kennedy had lived, he had no doubt that he would have been flying to Havana through Mexico City.

That was the real difference.

What other president besides John Kennedy would be hanging out in the White House with a Marxist journalist named Jean Daniel and then send him as a back-channel communicator with Fidel Castro? None that I can think of? Would Dick Cheney are Jeanne Kirkpatrick or Scoop Jackson or John McCain or George W. Bush or LBJ do something like that?

Jean Daniel https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/business/media/jean-daniel-dead.html

Btw, the New York Times in 2020 was still identifying Lee Harvey Oswald as "the assassin" of John Kennedy:

QUOTE

“He came back, sat down and repeated three times the words: ‘Es una mala noticia.’ (‘This is bad news.’)” They tuned into a Miami radio station as the reports trickled out of Dallas. Mr. Daniel paraphrased them: “Kennedy wounded in the head; pursuit of the assassin; murder of a policeman; finally the fatal announcement: President Kennedy is dead.”

Both knew instantly that rapprochement had died with the president. “Then Fidel stood up,” Mr. Daniel related, “and said to me: ‘Everything is changed. Everything is going to change.’”

In the swirl of investigations and conspiracy theories that followed the assassination — many of them linking the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, to Castro — Kennedy’s offer became a footnote to history, and Mr. Daniel moved on to other crises in a career that touched major conflicts of an era: the French-Algerian war, Israeli-Palestinian clashes, Indochina, the Cold War and, more recently, terrorism.

 

UNQUOTE

[Kevin Balch]

JFK was no neocon. He was a pragmatic pol with an idealistic streak that intensified toward the end of his life. He did have to court the Jewish vote more intensely than others because of his father’s reputation.

While JFK certainly did not want to get bogged down in Vietnam, I’m not sure how he would have reacted to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the middle of the 1964 campaign.

I don’t think JFK’s assassination had anything to do with Vietnam and is more likely to be related to Cuba. The contrast between our relations with Vietnam which killed 50,000 US servicemen and Cuba which killed Rudolf Anderson and maybe a few others says a lot. We still have a hard spot with Cuba about something. And it’s not hotels and casinos. 

I think the Kennedy brothers were deeply concerned about Cuba being an issue in the 1964 campaign either revelations about the secret missile deal or the BoP humiliation. The book 13 Days was intended to be released during the campaign as a counter. In the final year of his administration a dual-track policy with Cuba of negotiations and nasty deeds was being followed. While all factions in Cuba knew about the sabotage, propaganda and assassinations, who knows what the factions in Cuba knew about the negotiations?

The neocons are not really “rightwing” other than their bellicose foreign policy. Many are former democrats or even Trotskyites that have brought their left-wing social and economic views with them. Remember, the Trotskyites despised the USSR. Many were Jewish and despised Russia as well for historical reasons. Many of the neocons such as John Bolton have supported decidedly non right wing causes such as gay marriage.

The “shock doctrine” handed the former Soviet Union into the hands of what are known as the Oligarchs. I haven’t come across a good account of how mid-level technocrats of a supposedly persecuted minority gained control of the bulk of state assets. I think the Harvard advisors were fined over irregularities in their activities but I don’t recall the details. Sachs was a part of that, maybe he has regrets.

[Kevin Balch]

46 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

What other president besides John Kennedy would be hanging out in the White House with a Marxist journalist named Jean Daniel and then send him as a back-channel communicator with Fidel Castro? None that I can think of? Would Dick Cheney are Jeanne Kirkpatrick or Scoop Jackson or John McCain or George W. Bush or LBJ do something like that?

Jean Daniel https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/business/media/jean-daniel-dead.html

Btw, the New York Times in 2020 was still identifying Lee Harvey Oswald as "the assassin" of John Kennedy:

QUOTE

“He came back, sat down and repeated three times the words: ‘Es una mala noticia.’ (‘This is bad news.’)” They tuned into a Miami radio station as the reports trickled out of Dallas. Mr. Daniel paraphrased them: “Kennedy wounded in the head; pursuit of the assassin; murder of a policeman; finally the fatal announcement: President Kennedy is dead.”

Both knew instantly that rapprochement had died with the president. “Then Fidel stood up,” Mr. Daniel related, “and said to me: ‘Everything is changed. Everything is going to change.’”

In the swirl of investigations and conspiracy theories that followed the assassination — many of them linking the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, to Castro — Kennedy’s offer became a footnote to history, and Mr. Daniel moved on to other crises in a career that touched major conflicts of an era: the French-Algerian war, Israeli-Palestinian clashes, Indochina, the Cold War and, more recently, terrorism.

 

UNQUOTE

I agree with your skepticism about Daniel and Castro. Castro, after all, opened his prisons and mental institutions to add to the flow of the Mariel boat lift. He also urged a Soviet nuclear first strike on the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even Khrushchev thought he was unstable.