Jim DiEugenio Wrote:I submit it is because of men like Dulles doing the bidding of those who find it profitable that the status quo be maintained, or the economic battlefield be prepared for its exploitation.
That gets it Phil.
What Kennedy was learning about back there in 1951, is the post WW 2 imperial empire that the US was complicit in. And IMO, the Dulles brothers were part of it even at that early date through their law firm Sullivan and Cromwell. (But let me add: Kennedy became so clear eyed about this that he even criticized his own party as being part of it.)
And this is why his speeches were so studded with implicit references to John Foster Dulles.
Its a little known fact that Kennedy's father tried to get Allen Dulles fired when he was on the forerunner of the FIAB with Lovett and David Bruce.
Let me add another anecdote that shows how the colonial peoples understood what had happened, even though Americans did not at the time. When Mahoney's father showed the WR to Kwame Nkrumah of GHana, an ally of Lumumba who Kennedy backed, Nkrumah opened it up, looked at the page listing the commissioners, and found Allen Dulles' name. He pointed at it, and said, "Whitewash". He then gave the book back.
That is this case in a nutshell.
I love that last one.
I just read some very good posts that have been recently added to this thread. FWIW, thank all of you very much.
:thumbsup:
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:The "spiritual journey" was completed by the time he was president.
And herein lies your problem, Jim.
By definition, spiritual journeys have no terminus other than enlightenment.
In other words, they are all but endless.
John Kennedy died in a state of transition.
As shall we all.
John Kennedy's ten year "journey" was completed in 1961.
The things that followed were tactical obstacles he had to learn to overcome while in office.
And by the way, I never call this a "spiritual journey". I only used it because of precedent.
To me its simply a self-education Kennedy made. And the reason its something unusual is that Kennedy didn't have to do it. But for some reason he did.
In my view the key to understanding why he did it is in a conversation he had with Nehru. Nehru was trying to tell him about what the British Raj had done in India. Kennedy stopped him and said words to the effect that he knew about British imperialism even longer and more sterile than the one in India. He was, of course referring to his ancestral home of Ireland. This is why I think Kennedy decided to break away from the rehearsed briefings he was going to get in Saigon in 1951. He understood the pernicious influence of imperialism from England's 800 year rule in Ireland.
Q. Are we examining a spiritual journey or intellectual growth/maturation?
A. Yes.
You can't grasp the "reason" why JFK did what he "didn't have to do" because of your over-reliance on reason as the primary motivator of human behavior.
You will never -- repeat, never -- grasp the totality of JFK's life if you insist upon denying half of it.
Douglass 68:
Khrushchev was trying to pass on to his Cuban comrade the paradoxical enlightenment for peace that he and Kennedy had received together from the brink of total war. While trying not to sound overly positive about a capitalist leader, Khrushchev also couldn't help but reveal the extraordinary hope he felt because of what he and Kennedy had managed to resolve. As Sergei Khrushchev put it, "Father tried to persuade Castro that the U.S. president would keep his word and that Cuba was guaranteed six years of peaceful development, which was how long Father thought Kennedy would be in the White House. Six years! Almost an eternity!"
This is the reason he was killed, the reason he was loathed and despisedand feared.
He began with a perception of self-determination vs. colonialism, rejecting the arguments for war of the Rockefellers expressed through use of the military-intelligence establishment.
He ended at the threshold to an East-West dialog so dangerous to the power on both sides, that both leaders were removed.
JFK's starting point was beyond the political schematic of the times, in a way as threatening as Galileo.
Now, when he was boarding a boat to prove the spherical nature of the earth by transiting it while chatting with Chairman Khrushchev at the rail, shots rang out.
If all men begin at A, he had proceeded to B before taking the oath, and was at C when assassinated.
Had he evolved before his tenure?
Yes.
Had he evolved during his tenure?
Yes.
May we simply subpoena David Rockefeller and have it out.
"Have you gone mad?"
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:I submit it is because of men like Dulles doing the bidding of those who find it profitable that the status quo be maintained, or the economic battlefield be prepared for its exploitation.
That gets it Phil.
What Kennedy was learning about back there in 1951, is the post WW 2 imperial empire that the US was complicit in. And IMO, the Dulles brothers were part of it even at that early date through their law firm Sullivan and Cromwell. (But let me add: Kennedy became so clear eyed about this that he even criticized his own party as being part of it.)
And this is why his speeches were so studded with implicit references to John Foster Dulles.
Its a little known fact that Kennedy's father tried to get Allen Dulles fired when he was on the forerunner of the FIAB with Lovett and David Bruce.
Let me add another anecdote that shows how the colonial peoples understood what had happened, even though Americans did not at the time. When Mahoney's father showed the WR to Kwame Nkrumah of GHana, an ally of Lumumba who Kennedy backed, Nkrumah opened it up, looked at the page listing the commissioners, and found Allen Dulles' name. He pointed at it, and said, "Whitewash". He then gave the book back.
That is this case in a nutshell.
I love that last one.
Wholly absent from the "nutshell" are the larger spiritual and historical contexts of the crime.
Your love is blind, Seamus.
The destruction of Bugliosi was a masterpiece. So much so that the usual knuckleheads avoid Bugliosi's Bungle as if it didn't exist.
However Mary's Mosaic should be approached a little more carefully and not with the reference and source wrecking ball. Mary's Mosaic should have the engineers come in and more delicately disassemble it to see if there's something in there Janney's clumsy technique may have obscured. It is possible Mary Meyer's murder was a coincidence and Angleton was caught trying to confiscate her diary because of the unexpected suddenness of her death. But I'd still be curious what Angleton was worried would be in her diary. History teaches not to accept the cover story too quickly with persons of this background.
Albert:
And therein lies the problem for people who do not know the MM imbroglio well.
If there was anything in the so called "diary", then why did Angleton not get it into the press through any of his many assets?
He did not. And he had 23 years to do so.
This is a question that was in my original 1997 essay. Which Janney has read, but he never answers.
As per "engineers", this is precisely what Jannney does not do. He does not measure the water solubility of the witnesses at the time of their testimony. Or the relationships between the witness and the scribes. And that is important here. And its something I will point out.
As per Angleton being at Mary's that night. Cicely, his wife, was friends with Mary. They had an engagement that evening.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:If there was anything in the so called "diary", then why did Angleton not get it into the press through any of his many assets?
Maybe he did. Through Leary. Never underestimate the diabolical subtle capabilities of those CIA bastards.
Albert:
That is just nonsense.
There is no indication that happened. Let alone evidence or proof.
When you read my Part 2 of the review, you will see that the best indications are that there was no such thing as that in the actual sketchbook--and it was a sketchbook not a diary.
This is why Angleton then activated Truitt, and in his poor mental state, got him to start the JFK discreditation part of the story.
But ask yourself this: If there was such a diary, forensically bulletproof, and it said anything like what Janney is peddling, you can can bet your last penny, Angleton would have gotten it into the press.
That never came close to happening.