Valuable.
http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html
A Motive For Murder: Kennedy's Foreign Policy
Alan Dale speaks with author and historian Jim DiEugenio about one of the most discussed, yet least understood areas of John F. Kennedy's presidency.
Please invest the necessary time.
Thanks for putting this up Alan.
It's at Lancer also.
Sometimes, we get so enamored with the details of the case, and with dead end disinfo, that we miss the big picture.
This is what I tried to do with this interview. Hard to believe no one else could do this in a half century.
But the people who could do it, like RFK, actually could not.
Neither could Edmund Gullion, who, for my money was the key figure in this whole story. If JFK had never met him, he probably would not have been assassinated. Gullion is disgracefully neglected by so many people its sickening. He was never even mentioned in a JFK book until Jim Douglass did so.
In my talk in Washington I said the cover up about JFK's death has long been exposed. The real cover up, and the deeper and more institutionalized one, is about who JFK was. In this talk I could only go so far. In Washington I talked about his Middle East Policy, especially concerning the Shah of Iran. JFK wanted to explore bringing back Mossadegh. The Shah knew how serious he was about this. He started some reforms in 1963 to dissuade JFK and RFK. But as James Bill writes in his book The Eagle and the Lion, LBJ reversed this policy due to his relationship with Nelson Rockefeller. It was further reversed by Nixon and Kissinger, and then Kissinger and Brezinski under Ford and Carter.
Carter did not want to let the Shah into the USA. So David Rockefeller hired John McCloy to reverse that policy. McCloy, one by one, picked off each of Carter's advisors, Vance, Warnke etc. Finally, when he was cornered, Carter looked at them and said, "OK you guys, just answer me one question: What are you going to tell me to do when they invade our embassy and take our employees hostage?"
In other words, McCloy not only covered up JFK's death. He not only was the point man on the Brazil coup in 1964. He later helped reverse Kennedy's Middle East policy. For this Iranian revolution provoked the currents of Moslem fundamentalism which Kennedy had warned about back in 1957. in his great Algeria speech. And then, LBJ, RMN and Ford all started to tilt toward Israel in the Palestinian conflict. And also toward Saudi Arabia. Two more reversals of JFK. We are so enamored with Vietnam and Cuba, most of us did not even know about Kennedy's visionary Middle East policy. Which began back in the fifties. He was that insightful.
When anyone asks, "Why should we study the JFK case, what does it have to do with today's world?" My answer is: Everything. But the media and hacks like Dallek and Reeves cover it up.
The last two Presidents who weren't surrendering US foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel were Kennedy and Eisenhower. Eisenhower's actions during the Suez Crisis would probably get him impeached by the GOP today.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:In my talk in Washington I said the cover up about JFK's death has long been exposed. The real cover up, and the deeper and more institutionalized one, is about who JFK was.
You can hear the second cover-up in action in Bob Dornan's lies and off-topic scare-mongering in riposte to Jim Garrison on the Steve Allen Show, 1970 (sound clip below):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZfsbpa2kI
If you read Mosley's book on the Dulles family you will see that FOster Dulles did what he did to England on the Suez crisis for two reasons:
First, they did not get approval from Ike in advance
Second, he wanted to teach the Brits once and for all who was in charge of the West.
England got the message.
Kennedy's foreign policy in the area was much more visionary, progressive, and well grounded in fact and history.
One point of comparison is Egypt. Dulles tried to marginalize Nasser because he recognized China and would not join CENTO.
Kennedy actually admired Nasser for that, and also his attempt at being a pan Arabist leader. So unlike Dulles, who favored Saudi Arabia and its monarchy over Nasser and his socialism, Kennedy actually backed Nasser in his importation of troops into Yemen in that civil war where Nasser directly challenged the Saudi Arabian monarchy for leadership of the Arab world.
I would be willing to wager very few people even knew about that, even here. This is what I mean about he cover up about who Kennedy was.
Now, that was very important. Why? Because after the explosion of Moslem radicalism in 1979 in Iran, Saudi Arabia became one of the not so secret funders of terrorism in the Middle East. But since we had cozied up to her, we really couldn't call them on it.
So right there, in one paragraph, there are two reversals of JFK's Middle East policy. Which has led to the mess we have there today.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Now, that was very important. Why? Because after the explosion of Moslem radicalism in 1979 in Iran, Saudi Arabia became one of the not so secret funders of terrorism in the Middle East. But since we had cozied up to her, we really couldn't call them on it.
It pays to have a gigantic oil supply we depend on. The only people flying after 911 were the Bin Ladens.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:When anyone asks, "Why should we study the JFK case, what does it have to do with today's world?" My answer is: Everything. But the media and hacks like Dallek and Reeves cover it up.
Indeed. I tried last year, and I have tried again this year, to get a UK national newspaper to accept a piece about the state of the case today, and crucially, why it still matters. They don't even reply. Yet last year the same newspaper was content to carry a piece about the "ten strangest JFK conspiracy theories".
It was fairly close to a shutout at the 50th.
But there was one good documentary called JFK: A President Betrayed.
It is now on Amazon instant and DVD. Its worth buying.
I will be reviewing it soon.
Looking forward to your review, Jim.
Could not agree more with your assessment. Definitely worth seeking out. Plenty of interesting and insightful recollections and analysis by about a dozen historians. There may be some revelations for those who are not deeply immersed. Superb documentary film making; undoubtedly a labor of love for director Cory Taylor whose previous works include 2009's The Power of The Powerless and 1998's Avalanche: The White Death for which he won a Prime Time Emmy for Sound Editing.
This film focuses on the familiar Cold War crises of a young president increasingly at odds with his military/intelligence professionals. Some of the most compelling parts of the film are contemporary interviews with the men who served as Nikita Khrushchev's and President Kennedy's translators during the Vienna summit of June 4, 1961, Viktor Sukhodrev (Khrushchev) and Alexander Akalovsky (JFK). Candid recollections from the daughters of Norman Cousins who accompanied their father to meet Khrushchev, and commentary from Khrushchev's son are also new.
The filmmakers have chosen to make no stated inference about the circumstances of President Kennedy's assassination. I believe JFK: A President Betrayed will be a valuable resource to anyone, especially those whose lives began after his death, for assessing the context and meaning of his presidency and his life.
I listened to the Jim D interview, then scrolled down the page and listened to the first Josiah Thomson interview.
Interesting that he still believes in Zapruder film authenticity even though he discusses Homer McMahon and NPIC. His position (Alan, please correct me if I'm wrong, I was listening while working) is that the guy from Life magazine walked out of Zapruder's office with the original film, and what the Secret Service et al got were poor copies. If I remember correctly JT uses this to explain why McMahon's account had no inter-sprocket images.