13-02-2011, 12:46 AM
Lifton provides a brilliant refutation of DiEugenio's false sequence of events,
which reveals that, while he often writes with great authority, more often than
not (I am coming to believe), his words cannot be taken at face value. I now
believe his research is agenda-driven and not evidence-based, which is a shame.
But it has long been apparent to me that he had an anti-Lifton/anti-Horne bias,
where his dismissal of the exceptional work of Phil Nelson complements my own
experience in studying his reasons for dismissing evidence of CIA presence at the
Ambassador. He seems to me to be providing cover for the CIA and for Lyndon.
#126 User is offline David Lifton
Posted 07 February 2011 - 02:48 PM
View Post Michael Hogan, on 07 February 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:
View Post David Lifton, on 06 February 2011 - 10:11 PM, said:
Anyway, its news to me that you possess (and have listed) "seven pieces of evidence" that prove that Hyman Raskin "had to be lying." I don't know why Raskin would do any such thing. Please do provide an internet link, or an abbreviated list. I'd like to know the basis for these beliefs.
http://educationforu...ndpost&p=217564
To Jim DiEugenio:
Having carefully studied the question of how LBJ came to be offered the Vice Presidential nomination--something I have studied in great detail, and over the course of many years-- I was interested in why you made the statement that Hyman Raskin was not just in error, but a liar.
What was the basis for this statement? I asked.
Mr. Hogan published a link to a post of yours, which the moderators had moved. I clicked on the link, and up came the following. . .
QUOTE
Anyone who did any research on the Democratic Convention should have known Raskin was a liar. The idea that Kennedy would tell him that LBJ was not a serious contender is ludicrous on its face. Consider:
1. He was at the top of Sorenson's list.
2. Graham and Alsop were pushing him.
3. Kennedy and Sorenson knew LBJ offered the best ticket balance, and they would need Texas because the Solid South was now splitting.
4. JFK called him the day after he won the nomination.
5. JFK met with him in person right after to see if he would accept.
6. RFK was sent to his suite to offer him the nomination.
7. JFK himself then offered him the nod.
No other candidate got this much attention from as many people in the Kennedy camp. Raskin is a pathetic liar. And Hersh , who likes liars, gladly accepted his fabrications for his fabricated book.
UNQUOTE
Re your seven "reasons", the first two statements are factual("He was at the top of Sorenson's list" and "Graham and Alsop were pushing him"). Your third statement is quite arguable.
But all that is besides the point.
Your last four statements completely misstate the facts, and constitute an atrocious misrepresentation of the record. And by "the record" I am referring to the accounts of Arthur Schlesinger, Evelyn Lincoln (as stated in TWO books that she wrote, "My Twelve Years," as well as "Kennedy and Johnson" and Clark Clifford, who was Symington's campaign manager, and close confidant).
FYI:
Kennedy had indicated to Stuart Symington personally that he was his number one choice, several days before. On Wednesday, July 13, in the afternoon, he spoke with Clark Clifford and told him his final decision: Symington was his choice. Symington and Clifford met with Symington's family on Wednesday nightthe family debated itand Symington agreed. He would accept. All of this is spelled out in Clifford's book, in news articles published years later by Symington's son, and by an authorized biography of Symington by James Olson, published in 2003.
There's no question but that on Wednesday night, July 13, 1960, the offer had been made. Symington was Kennedy's choice. (Johnson was out of the picture. Indeed, just the day before, LBJ had --in effect--accused Kennedy's father of being a Nazi sympathizer. . . and you think that JFK was about to offer him the Vice Presidential nomination? What are you smoking? may I ask).
Then, AFTER the balloting, Kennedy went to a private party at his "hideway." Present was Evelyn Lincoln, some of the Irish mafia, and a few others. Evelyn Lincoln played the piano and they were all singing "When Irish Eyes are Smiling." (This is all set forth in Lincoln's books).
At that same party, Senator Kennedyhaving won the nomination on the first ballot, despite all the mean stuff thrown at him by LBJsaid "Well, we really stuck it to Lyndon," quote, unquote.
Does that sound like someone who was going to offer LBJ the Vice Presidential nomination? Oh pleez.
BUT then, something happened. . .and the question is: What was that "something"?
For what happened next, you have to probe further, and do some in depth research.
JFK then went to Chasen's restaurant, in West Hollywood. To quote Wikipedia, "Chasen's was a restaurant in West Hollywood, California that was hangout for entertainment luminaries. Located at 9039 Beverly Boulevard near Beverly Hills, it was the site of the Academy Awards part for many years. . etc. etc.
I'm typing this post about a 2 minute drive from where Chasen's used to be--and everytime I go to the Ralph's supermarket across the street, I think of what I now have learned happened there some 40 plus years ago.
Shortly after midnight, Kennedy went to Chasen's. Also at Chasen's was Ben Bradlee, with his wife. Kennedy pulled up a chair at Bradley's table.
And then, something happened. I'm just going to tell you the beginning of the story, because I don't have "the end". But here's what I know from information coming from files at the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. Someone approached Kennedy and tapped him on the shoulder. Somebody else wanted to speak with him, out in the parking lot. He went out to the parking lot. It was an important member of congress. That person was carrying a message from Sam RayburnRayburn wanted to talk with him.
And so that's how it began.
Sometime between about 1:30 AM, a sequence of events was triggered. Kennedy called Rayburn, and then, we can pick up the trail with the vivid accounts published in Evelyn Lincoln's two books. The call to Clark Clifford early Thursday morning saying that everything had changed; saying that he was oh so sorry, but something unprecedented had happened, and he (JFK) was going to have to withdraw the offer. The intense conversations with RFK. . and then, finally, the decision to go down to speak to Lyndon himself, to give him what Kennedy was led to believe was a pro-forma "right of first refusal". To JFK's utter surprise, LBJ "accepted".
JFK was stunned. He returned to his suite. He and Bobby were closeted, for an hour or more. What to do? Read Evelyn Lincoln's two accounts. Its all there.
Bobby was sent down to try to abort the whole thing.
No dice. Rayburn exploded at him in rage. I have information from one witness in which Rayburn is screaming and cursing, calling RFK a "son-of-a-bitch" for trying to talk Lyndon off the ticket. Basically telling him: Do you understand who the hell you're talking to? I'm the Speaker of the House!
Meanwhile, Kennedy, at the luncheon, takes Raskin aside and explained what happenedthat he is being blackmailed by Rayburn and Johnson, and that his hand was forced. He does not tell Raskin the details. He tells Salinger its best that the details not be known. I think I have ascertained the details, and its not what most folks think.
Now just consider the way YOU have described this sequence:
QUOTING YOUR OWN POST:
4. JFK called him the day after he won the nomination.
5. JFK met with him in person right after to see if he would accept.
6. RFK was sent to his suite to offer him the nomination.
7. JFK himself then offered him the nod.
UNQUOTE
What you have written above is a total and complete and outrageous misrepresentation of the record.
And then, you compound matters by calling a perfectly honorable manHyman Raskin, someone who is in fact a primary source, and who has provided us with a gift to historya liar.
And, of course, Sy Hersh is a liar. Indeed, Jim, it seems that everyone who disagrees with your gestalt is a liar (or worse).
If you're going to teach American history, perhaps you can start by understanding what primary sources are, having some respect for them, and sticking to the recordand NOT creating a version which simply suits your fancy (or your fantasy, as the case may be here).
DSL
2/7/11; 5:30 AM
Los Angeles, CA
which reveals that, while he often writes with great authority, more often than
not (I am coming to believe), his words cannot be taken at face value. I now
believe his research is agenda-driven and not evidence-based, which is a shame.
But it has long been apparent to me that he had an anti-Lifton/anti-Horne bias,
where his dismissal of the exceptional work of Phil Nelson complements my own
experience in studying his reasons for dismissing evidence of CIA presence at the
Ambassador. He seems to me to be providing cover for the CIA and for Lyndon.
#126 User is offline David Lifton
Posted 07 February 2011 - 02:48 PM
View Post Michael Hogan, on 07 February 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:
View Post David Lifton, on 06 February 2011 - 10:11 PM, said:
Anyway, its news to me that you possess (and have listed) "seven pieces of evidence" that prove that Hyman Raskin "had to be lying." I don't know why Raskin would do any such thing. Please do provide an internet link, or an abbreviated list. I'd like to know the basis for these beliefs.
http://educationforu...ndpost&p=217564
To Jim DiEugenio:
Having carefully studied the question of how LBJ came to be offered the Vice Presidential nomination--something I have studied in great detail, and over the course of many years-- I was interested in why you made the statement that Hyman Raskin was not just in error, but a liar.
What was the basis for this statement? I asked.
Mr. Hogan published a link to a post of yours, which the moderators had moved. I clicked on the link, and up came the following. . .
QUOTE
Anyone who did any research on the Democratic Convention should have known Raskin was a liar. The idea that Kennedy would tell him that LBJ was not a serious contender is ludicrous on its face. Consider:
1. He was at the top of Sorenson's list.
2. Graham and Alsop were pushing him.
3. Kennedy and Sorenson knew LBJ offered the best ticket balance, and they would need Texas because the Solid South was now splitting.
4. JFK called him the day after he won the nomination.
5. JFK met with him in person right after to see if he would accept.
6. RFK was sent to his suite to offer him the nomination.
7. JFK himself then offered him the nod.
No other candidate got this much attention from as many people in the Kennedy camp. Raskin is a pathetic liar. And Hersh , who likes liars, gladly accepted his fabrications for his fabricated book.
UNQUOTE
Re your seven "reasons", the first two statements are factual("He was at the top of Sorenson's list" and "Graham and Alsop were pushing him"). Your third statement is quite arguable.
But all that is besides the point.
Your last four statements completely misstate the facts, and constitute an atrocious misrepresentation of the record. And by "the record" I am referring to the accounts of Arthur Schlesinger, Evelyn Lincoln (as stated in TWO books that she wrote, "My Twelve Years," as well as "Kennedy and Johnson" and Clark Clifford, who was Symington's campaign manager, and close confidant).
FYI:
Kennedy had indicated to Stuart Symington personally that he was his number one choice, several days before. On Wednesday, July 13, in the afternoon, he spoke with Clark Clifford and told him his final decision: Symington was his choice. Symington and Clifford met with Symington's family on Wednesday nightthe family debated itand Symington agreed. He would accept. All of this is spelled out in Clifford's book, in news articles published years later by Symington's son, and by an authorized biography of Symington by James Olson, published in 2003.
There's no question but that on Wednesday night, July 13, 1960, the offer had been made. Symington was Kennedy's choice. (Johnson was out of the picture. Indeed, just the day before, LBJ had --in effect--accused Kennedy's father of being a Nazi sympathizer. . . and you think that JFK was about to offer him the Vice Presidential nomination? What are you smoking? may I ask).
Then, AFTER the balloting, Kennedy went to a private party at his "hideway." Present was Evelyn Lincoln, some of the Irish mafia, and a few others. Evelyn Lincoln played the piano and they were all singing "When Irish Eyes are Smiling." (This is all set forth in Lincoln's books).
At that same party, Senator Kennedyhaving won the nomination on the first ballot, despite all the mean stuff thrown at him by LBJsaid "Well, we really stuck it to Lyndon," quote, unquote.
Does that sound like someone who was going to offer LBJ the Vice Presidential nomination? Oh pleez.
BUT then, something happened. . .and the question is: What was that "something"?
For what happened next, you have to probe further, and do some in depth research.
JFK then went to Chasen's restaurant, in West Hollywood. To quote Wikipedia, "Chasen's was a restaurant in West Hollywood, California that was hangout for entertainment luminaries. Located at 9039 Beverly Boulevard near Beverly Hills, it was the site of the Academy Awards part for many years. . etc. etc.
I'm typing this post about a 2 minute drive from where Chasen's used to be--and everytime I go to the Ralph's supermarket across the street, I think of what I now have learned happened there some 40 plus years ago.
Shortly after midnight, Kennedy went to Chasen's. Also at Chasen's was Ben Bradlee, with his wife. Kennedy pulled up a chair at Bradley's table.
And then, something happened. I'm just going to tell you the beginning of the story, because I don't have "the end". But here's what I know from information coming from files at the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. Someone approached Kennedy and tapped him on the shoulder. Somebody else wanted to speak with him, out in the parking lot. He went out to the parking lot. It was an important member of congress. That person was carrying a message from Sam RayburnRayburn wanted to talk with him.
And so that's how it began.
Sometime between about 1:30 AM, a sequence of events was triggered. Kennedy called Rayburn, and then, we can pick up the trail with the vivid accounts published in Evelyn Lincoln's two books. The call to Clark Clifford early Thursday morning saying that everything had changed; saying that he was oh so sorry, but something unprecedented had happened, and he (JFK) was going to have to withdraw the offer. The intense conversations with RFK. . and then, finally, the decision to go down to speak to Lyndon himself, to give him what Kennedy was led to believe was a pro-forma "right of first refusal". To JFK's utter surprise, LBJ "accepted".
JFK was stunned. He returned to his suite. He and Bobby were closeted, for an hour or more. What to do? Read Evelyn Lincoln's two accounts. Its all there.
Bobby was sent down to try to abort the whole thing.
No dice. Rayburn exploded at him in rage. I have information from one witness in which Rayburn is screaming and cursing, calling RFK a "son-of-a-bitch" for trying to talk Lyndon off the ticket. Basically telling him: Do you understand who the hell you're talking to? I'm the Speaker of the House!
Meanwhile, Kennedy, at the luncheon, takes Raskin aside and explained what happenedthat he is being blackmailed by Rayburn and Johnson, and that his hand was forced. He does not tell Raskin the details. He tells Salinger its best that the details not be known. I think I have ascertained the details, and its not what most folks think.
Now just consider the way YOU have described this sequence:
QUOTING YOUR OWN POST:
4. JFK called him the day after he won the nomination.
5. JFK met with him in person right after to see if he would accept.
6. RFK was sent to his suite to offer him the nomination.
7. JFK himself then offered him the nod.
UNQUOTE
What you have written above is a total and complete and outrageous misrepresentation of the record.
And then, you compound matters by calling a perfectly honorable manHyman Raskin, someone who is in fact a primary source, and who has provided us with a gift to historya liar.
And, of course, Sy Hersh is a liar. Indeed, Jim, it seems that everyone who disagrees with your gestalt is a liar (or worse).
If you're going to teach American history, perhaps you can start by understanding what primary sources are, having some respect for them, and sticking to the recordand NOT creating a version which simply suits your fancy (or your fantasy, as the case may be here).
DSL
2/7/11; 5:30 AM
Los Angeles, CA