Kennedy Family Secrets ?

[Charles Drago]

[Do members of the forum, other than J. Raymond feel that I cannot post my beliefs that the Kennedy's were not Gods? Is it sacrilege ?

Charlie Black

Not me, man.

Post away.

As must those whose instincts are sufficiently well developed that they appreciate your "argument" that the Kennedys did it to themselves as being a manifestation of one of the earliest and most nefarious, ongoing components of the cover-up.

By all means continue, sir. As John Kennedy reminded us, none of us are "Gods." We are all mortal.

Charles

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Reminds me of a photo I recently linked to showing Bobby visiting Air Commandos for the Panama Canal Zone at Eglin Air Force Base. I wondered when I saw that picture what in the hell visiting Air Commandos at Eglin had to do with being Attorney General.

The Kennedy brothers and sisters were an integral part of JFK's success as a political campaigner. The family resemblance was so unmistakable that JFK could almost make it seem that he was in several different places at the same time, shaking a multitude of hands and smiling at several different multitudes simultaneously.

Besides his responsibilities as AG, Robert Kennedy was always viewed as the President's alter ego. No agency or department of the Federal Government is off-limits to the Attorney-General, but maybe on this occasion RFK was simply doing a favor for his President, who also happened to be his brother.

I have four brothers.

Edited April 5, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Hello friends, I think some of you need to tone down the level of debate a wee bit. Charlie has every right to voice an opinion regarding percieved character flaws of JFK, and RFK(although rest assured I do not share that opinion) And discussion of individual Members mental health is at best unwise. Thanks, Steve.

[Charles Drago]

Another reason to value as well as understand the motivations behind RFK's involvement in areas of government other than the Justice Department may be discerned in our appreciation of the president's appreciation of the forces aligned against him.

In terms of the Pentagon: With 31-Knot Burke and Curtis the Barbarian among the Joint Chiefs, Little Tommy Power at SAC, and Burris the Brain whispering in Lyndon's elephantine ear, how could President Kennedy NOT realize that he was in the military's crosshairs?

Enter his brother -- who could be trusted as no other.

And still it was not enough.

Charles

Edited April 5, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Charles Black]

Hello Charles

I certainly wont argue the summation which you mentioned of "some" of the forces aligned against him....but I still strongly question ( even out of his feeling of some "needed security"), the complete absence of protocol involved in Robert's "introduction" into some of these areas. This, IMHO, was a bad move, but Robert's agressiveness in areas where it is acknowledged that he didn't belong, was politically, professionally, and militarially insulting, to some very political, professional and military individuals. This is where I feel that major mistakes were made that at least "hastened" JFK's demise.

I feel that there was becoming a quick history of what appeared to be, the administrations total disdain of protocol, and the forced establishment of JFK's personal wishes.

Whether JFK's wishes or will, were in the overall best interests of the United States, is something that others much brighter than me, should judge.

Democracies are by their very nature much slower to react and much less efficient in some areas than are dictatorships. However, if we are to have democracy, some of these "slow rules and protocols" cannot at times be set aside by the chief executive or anyone else.

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

Hello Stephen

I would first like to thank you for your support of my having the right to post whatever my personal beliefs are in this matter. I will further thank you for mentioning that you feel that my "mental stability" should not be attacked on this forum.

However, since you are a moderator, how does one know if a person is expressing the opinion as a moderator, or whether one is merely entering the discussion as an individual? I know of nothing that has been established so that members might differentiate between the two, and I feel that there should be a procedure for such a differentiation. I really don't know if I, at the moment, am speaking to a person or an "entity".

The reason that I mention this is that in your most recent post on this thread, you stated something that I found confusing.

That point, is that it is your personal opinion that you did not agree with my ideas. I certainly take no offence to this, as you certainly are in the majority, and I have grown quite accustomed to my position.

However I think, although I am not certain due to the very recent addition of this moderating element, that as a "moderator", one is not allowed to express their "personal views" regarding the topic......which you of course did. So my question is a simple one. Was your last post in this thread,

meant to be the posting of a "moderator" or a "member" ?

No harm done, but I feel that this matter should be clarified.

CharlieBlack

[Charles Drago]

Hello Charles

I certainly wont argue the summation which you mentioned of "some" of the forces aligned against him....but I still strongly question ( even out of his feeling of some "needed security"), the complete absence of protocol involved in Robert's "introduction" into some of these areas. This, IMHO, was a bad move, but Robert's agressiveness in areas where it is acknowledged that he didn't belong, was politically, professionally, and militarially insulting, to some very political, professional and military individuals. This is where I feel that major mistakes were made that at least "hastened" JFK's demise.

I feel that there was becoming a quick history of what appeared to be, the administrations total disdain of protocol, and the forced establishment of JFK's personal wishes.

Whether JFK's wishes or will, were in the overall best interests of the United States, is something that others much brighter than me, should judge.

Democracies are by their very nature much slower to react and much less efficient in some areas than are dictatorships. However, if we are to have democracy, some of these "slow rules and protocols" cannot at times be set aside by the chief executive or anyone else.

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Charlie,

Your baseline argument is made all the more vexing -- let alone disappointing -- by the cogency and accuracy of many of the points you would present in support thereof.

I exclude from this description the sentiments offered in your final paragraph above. Indeed, we could not be in more profound disagreement, for the "rules and protocols" you would hold sacrosanct are in many instances improvements over earlier carved-in-stone versions set aside by bold, visionary leaders.

An example of revolutionary behavior from Watergate: Barry Goldwater and a delegation of GOP powerbrokers convene a private meeting with RMN, and then proceed to convince the Trickster to abdicate -- in effect setting aside the protocols of the elders of Ervin.

Should Barry have been whacked for his perfidy?

My point: The "revolution v. evolution" either/or argument is wrongheaded when applied to the democratic process. BOTH approaches have their place, depending upon time and circumstance. And yes, you can try to make the counterargument that, under such terms, the removals of the Kennedy brothers might easily be contextualized as revolutionary democratic acts.

But it won't work, because murder won't pass muster.

When you cite the outside-the-envelope behaviors of the Kennedys within the context of a discussion of the likely motivations of their assassins, you inevitably lead your readers to the conclusion that, as Spiro Agnew said of the Kent State Guardsmen/Executioners, while you don't condone the actions, you can sympathize with those who took them.

"Play by the rules or face the firing squad." In a nutshell, this seems to be your message to the democratically elected leaders of America (which excludes the current criminal regime, of course).

"Don't cry for Jack and Bobby, because they were asking for it, and they got it." In a nutshell, this seems to be your message to us all.

Charles

[Charles Black]

Hello Charles

Sorry, but you in no way interpreted correctly the content of my message.

Not only in politics, but in Education, Corporate Business, the Military or any highly structured large establishment, the same basics apply. I am not stating that any "honorable man" MUST abide by these basics and protocol. I am saying only that if he doesn't, he may become the hero of the masses, but for only a short period of time. Disenfranchisement is one of the lesser evils that can follow "temporary" independence.

I am an anti-establishmentarian. I am a rebel. BUT I have been willing to "pay the price" to be so. My price was not as high as that paid by many....or I may have been much less heroic.

I never said that Jack and Bobby "were asking for it". I am saying that Nothing is Free.

In the end, the system will win: in London, Washinton or Las Vegas.

I am also not implying that what they were fighting for was not right and honorable. But one should be smart enough "not to enter a gunfight armed only with a knife."

One must know and understand that there are always "limitations"....placed on everyone and every thing. The higher the glory, the higher the price!

Charlie Black

[Charles Drago]

[i am also not implying that what they were fighting for was not right and honorable. But one should be smart enough "not to enter a gunfight armed only with a knife."

Charlie Black

Charlie,

I'm afraid that you've found the perfect cliche to describe what the Kennedys did to themselves.

They brought knives to a gunfight.

Beyond this point, we must agree to disagree. I believe our argument is more semantical than anything else. At least I HOPE it is.

Recall the Turkish proverb: The speaker of truth is driven from a dozen villages. (rough translation)

Charles

Edited April 6, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Charles Black]

Yes Charles Drago

We at least are in agrement wirh the contents of your last post. I shall mark this on my calendar!

Charlie Black

[Dawn Meredith]

I feel that JFK committed suicide while being cheered on by the ever faithful but very limited Bobby !

Charlie Black

This gem is up there with Tim Gratz's claim that the assassination may have been a good thing for America. Maybe it is just another way of saying the same thing.

Agreed. This Kennedy bashing is getting really old.

Dawn

[Charles Black]

Dawn Meredith

It seems that you began taking exception to everything that I post since I had somewhat of a running gun battle with your friend Ashton Gray.

Although you certainly have the right to expess whatever you wish regarding your personal views,

It seems ridiculous of accusing me of "Kennedy bashing" if I post anything other than flattery of the Kennedys.

Although I greatly admired Jack Kennedy personally,

that is not to say that I have admired a great deal of Kennedy family behavior neither before nor since the assassination.This lack of admiration also applies to his brother Robert, both before and after, and the attitude of the entire Kennedy family of "silence" since the assassination. I feel this has introduced an unnecessary stumbling block in the extensive investigation by researchers, and possibly has provided irreparable harm.

It is my opinion, and I feel the opinion of the majority, that when a person ascends to great public prominence,as a result of their own desire and efforts, they are felt to belong to much more than their immediate family, and have voluntarily and knowingly accepted that they are under constant scrutiny.

There have been many Kennedy family members which have risen to prominence as a direct result of JFK's election to the Presidency, however there have been virtually none that have been willing to share with the nation, which has lifted them to this prominence, an iota of assistance, in an area that has greatly divided and changed this country.

Please do not tell me of the terrible losses this family has endured....so has mine and many others.

And please do not tell me that a family which has some very sordid events in its past, should be immune to criticism, because of the rise of one of its members to lofty political prominence.

If you are not willing to accept, that regardless of the assistance which they volunteered to this nation, that they made some mistakes", is both ridiculous and childish. It is as prudent and necessary, to point out their shortcomings, possibly moreso than their acconplishments, when attempting to study the causes of their demise.

I feel that the good that John Kennedy accomplished has often been credited to him on this and other forums and discussions. A discussion of possible

mistakes, should not be considered "bashing" as it is nothing more than a discussion of history.

If this so terribly offends you, what prevents you and possibly others to start a forum on which

Kennedy criticism is forbidden...sort of like a fan club.....you might also start one for Elvis.

I find your attacks and attempted belittlement

to be immature to the point of nausea.

Remember, if the kitchen gets too hot, you are not required to enter it !

Charlie Black

[Dawn Meredith]

Dawn Meredith

It seems that you began taking exception to everything that I post since I had somewhat of a running gun battle with your friend Ashton Gray.

Although you certainly have the right to expess whatever you wish regarding your personal views,

It seems ridiculous of accusing me of "Kennedy bashing" if I post anything other than flattery of the Kennedys.

Although I greatly admired Jack Kennedy personally,

that is not to say that I have admired a great deal of Kennedy family behavior neither before nor since the assassination.This lack of admiration also applies to his brother Robert, both before and after, and the attitude of the entire Kennedy family of "silence" since the assassination. I feel this has introduced an unnecessary stumbling block in the extensive investigation by researchers, and possibly has provided irreparable harm.

It is my opinion, and I feel the opinion of the majority, that when a person ascends to great public prominence,as a result of their own desire and efforts, they are felt to belong to much more than their immediate family, and have voluntarily and knowingly accepted that they are under constant scrutiny.

There have been many Kennedy family members which have risen to prominence as a direct result of JFK's election to the Presidency, however there have been virtually none that have been willing to share with the nation, which has lifted them to this prominence, an iota of assistance, in an area that has greatly divided and changed this country.

Please do not tell me of the terrible losses this family has endured....so has mine and many others.

And please do not tell me that a family which has some very sordid events in its past, should be immune to criticism, because of the rise of one of its members to lofty political prominence.

If you are not willing to accept, that regardless of the assistance which they volunteered to this nation, that they made some mistakes", is both ridiculous and childish. It is as prudent and necessary, to point out their shortcomings, possibly moreso than their acconplishments, when attempting to study the causes of their demise.

I feel that the good that John Kennedy accomplished has often been credited to him on this and other forums and discussions. A discussion of possible

mistakes, should not be considered "bashing" as it is nothing more than a discussion of history.

If this so terribly offends you, what prevents you and possibly others to start a forum on which

Kennedy criticism is forbidden...sort of like a fan club.....you might also start one for Elvis.

I find your attacks and attempted belittlement

to be immature to the point of nausea.

Remember, if the kitchen gets too hot, you are not required to enter it !

Charlie Black

My point of view has zero to do with any friendships I may have. Your blaming the victim comment, that was taken issue with by Ray Carroll, was absurd.

But you go on...trash the Kennedys while claiming to have such respect for them. A rather convoluted position. I noted that in response to Raymond's posting of Jim DiEugenio's excellent article your only response was that you don't care for DiEugenio. Did you bother to read this piece?

No matter, you may have the last word. This is your thread and you can rehash so called "secrets" all you wish. "Too hot"? Hardly.

Dawn

[Peter McGuire]

[i am also not implying that what they were fighting for was not right and honorable. But one should be smart enough "not to enter a gunfight armed only with a knife."

Charlie Black

Charlie,

They brought knives to a gunfight.

Charles

There seem to be three issues that either cause these kind of discussions or , in the alternative , the issues are ignored.

1) The Israeli factor.

2) The obvious Secret Service complicity.

3) Sorting out where Kennedy bashing is possibly actually looking at why Kennedy was someone who could be killed, as opposed to a figure who in the alternative, other methods could be used to accomplish the neccessary purpose.

[Charles Black]

Dawn Meredith

As you and the entire forum know, your last post was a "non response" to anything that I had mentiond other than that regarding Ashton Gray.

And if anyone cares to re-read J. Raymond Caroll's

posts to me, they will further understand my criticism of both your and his position.

If anything, your last post strengthens my previously posted positions regarding yourself and J. Raymond Carrol. They are immature !

Charlie Black