Oh well, he'd already seen it and does not believe it. Made some comment about MSNBC being biased like Fox. He is a past TX Bar president who recently friended me on fb after I posted some stuff in a TX lawyers page on fb. Steve Fischer is his name. I can't even get him to read a review of JFKU. The levels people will go to remain in denial. Of course he does not believe our media is controlled. The media has been the biggest obstacle from the start. If you control the media you control the truth, especially when it's all lies. But I expect a bit more from lawyers, to do a bit of research. Alas, they just don't give a fuck. Most of them. Drew, who I know in real life from practicing here, is that rare exception.
Off to CPS court in San Marcos. 10:30 docket. Love that this judge staggers her docket so we all don't have to get there at 9 and wait til 4 for our case to be heard. I had three yesterday and was out by noon, just one today.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:WOW. Talk about timing. I was just having an argument with an attorney about the JFK assassination, via IM on facebook. He's a lone nutter. Says Warren was a good man, therefore no conspiracy. And if there was why aren't I published. I was going to tell him about Viet Nam and the proof of that after court but lo and behold I come here and Rachel is saying it. I am really shocked that she admits the JFK was ending Viet Nam. But there it is. A first I do believe.
Dawn
As I posted before, some LNers have expressed this view in decades past (William Manchester's 1988 edition of Death of a President): "…genuine detente with the Russians had begun…Kennedy had inherited a small US commitment to South Vietnam, but after much waffling he realized that it was failing, and he was cutting American losses….His withdrawal operation, which had already begun at the time of his death, would have ended this country's Vietnam commitment in 1965 with the evacuation, as he had put it to me, of the last helicopter pilot.' After his funeral Johnson countermanded these orders."
12-06-2015, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2015, 06:37 PM by Gordon Gray.)
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Fine, whatever. I just thought it was unusual to hear corporate media pundits discuss the idea that Vietnam policy really did change because of JFK's death.
Wanting them to admit to a conspiracy is too much to expect. Alec Baldwin was about to start a new show on MSNBC, and then he wrote an article about conspiracies... http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/amer...-been-lied
...and that was the end of his show. They claimed it was because he yelled at a reporter. Hell, that was nothing new. Everyone knows that Baldwin hates the paparazzi.
Great article by Baldwin. And of course a voice like his can't be allowed near the MSM. But his last remark makes me wonder. "The intelligence community believes that most Americans don't want to know how the sausage is made. But I can handle it. I think most Americans, a pretty tough bunch, can handle it, too." I definitely believe we could handle it now. We have become sufficiently cynical as a nation about our government to not be surprised by the other shoe dropping. But what about in 1963? I have always wondered if knowing the truth about the establishment's involvement in the JFK assassination could have been processed by the country at that time. Think of the chaos had the Warren report read more like the Oliver stone movie. And this at the height of the Cold War and MAD.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Fine, whatever. I just thought it was unusual to hear corporate media pundits discuss the idea that Vietnam policy really did change because of JFK's death.
Wanting them to admit to a conspiracy is too much to expect. Alec Baldwin was about to start a new show on MSNBC, and then he wrote an article about conspiracies... http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/amer...-been-lied
...and that was the end of his show. They claimed it was because he yelled at a reporter. Hell, that was nothing new. Everyone knows that Baldwin hates the paparazzi.
Great article by Baldwin. And of course a voice like his can't be allowed near the MSM. But his last remark makes me wonder. "The intelligence community believes that most Americans don't want to know how the sausage is made. But I can handle it. I think most Americans, a pretty tough bunch, can handle it, too." I definitely believe we could handle it now. We have become sufficiently cynical as a nation about our government to not be surprised by the other shoe dropping. But what about in 1963? I have always wondered if knowing the truth about the establishment's involvement in the JFK assassination could have been processed by the country at that time. Think of the chaos had the Warren report read more the Oliver stone movie. And this at the height of the Cold War and MAD.
As I've said before, most Americans believe there was a conspiracy, but what kind of conspiracy do they believe in? I bet it's only 30-40% who think that elements high up in the government were responsible. Same is true of MLK, RFK and other events since then. In short, I still don't think most Americans can process the truth very well.
Its incredible how slow the MSM is on this stuff. Goldstein's book was an important contribution to the literature because he was working with a co author, Mac Bundy, who was in the White House.
The book was published in 2008. And the excellent Frank Rich broke the story about the doves in Obama's White House passing it around in 2009.
I mentioned it the night of the Jim Douglass, Lisa Pease, Oliver Stone talk.
But IMO, this issue has been decided, and to talk about this is really kind of a diversion. Why?
Because if Rachel was a real scholar, she would be talking about how Johnson and Nixon changed JFK's Middle East policy!! That is the real story. And its a direct analog not an indirect one.
Kennedy was not beholden to Israel, and was much more even handed with the moderate Arabs. Like Nasser and Sadat.
He was also against Saudi Arabia, and backed Nasser's importation of troops into Yemen to block Saudi expansionism. He also asked for a position paper on Iran to see if it was possible to get rid of the Shah and bring back Mossadegh. He worried that the extreme monarchies could lead to a fundamentalist revolution in the Middle East. And he brought this up back in 1957!! In his great Algeria speech. These policies were all reversed upon his death.
And guess what? He was right. Where did the explosion of fundamentalism happen? In Iran in 1979.
And who caused it? John McCloy. Mr. cover up on the JFK case. How did McCloy aid the rise of Moslem fundamentalism? By pimping for the real Chairman, David Rockefeller.
Rockefeller hired McCloy to lobby the Carter administration to let the Shah into the USA. After hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of work, McCloy didn't change Carter's position; but he did change his advisors' positions. At a big meeting, Carter stood alone. He then caved. But before he did, he turned and said, "Alright. But I wonder what you guys are going to advise me to do when they storm our embassy and take our employees hostage."
LBJ, RMN and McCloy completely reversed Kennedy's very wise and fair policy in the Middle East. And McCloy directly aided the fundamentalist explosion, which gave us Ronald Reagan.
If Rachel was not a dilettante, this is what she should be addressing. In books by Rakove and Muelhenbeck. But that will take another seven years I guess. I'll probably be dead by then.
I would argue that for the last 35-40 years, certain elements in the US and Israel have been deliberately targeting secular regimes that were not friendly to the West and encouraging the growth of Islamic radicalism. The Israelis in particular have adopted this divide-and-conquer idea. They covertly supported Hamas to weaken the secular PLO.
Instead of having modernizing governments in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Libya (and Palestine), countries that would become powerful and represent a military/economic threat to Israel and American interests, it's better to have weak, divided states where the people are busy killing each other. The US also uses it as a good excuse to "intervene to restore order."
What Afghanistan and Iraqi universities were like in the 1970s:
Jim: Great post. To me Rachel is the typical liberal. For all her education she has no interest in historical truth. She believes the MSM bullshit on these matters and digs no deeper. I have been dealing with higher educated people on these issues for all of my 30 years as a lawyer. They just do not want to know. Joe Six pack is easily convinced of the truth about JFK. But for those entrenched in the establishment there is a blinder. Perhaps Marty Schotz best described this ailment. People like this use circular logic. I just went through it with a high powered lawyer here in TX. Blind on purpose and nothing I said could change his mind. The few times I have gotten an attorney to even look at a video or read a book it only "took" for a few days then they went back to not caring. Plus Rachel would lose her job if she were to speak the truth on MSM. She likes her job. I sent her an email once but got no reply. Remember when we all tried to reach Peter Jennings on the 40th and how that accomplished nothing. People like this are the reason highly educated people refuse to believe in conspiracy. They do not grasp or accept that the media would be involved in the cover up. It' s just too great a leap for them. I could not get this lawyer to even read an Amazon review of JFKU. He agreed only to read one from the f'ing NYT. So I gave up and ended the conversation. (He had made a bunch of anti conspiracy comments on my fb page when I posed as my status a question to my fb JFK assassination friends how and when they each decided it was a conspiracy. So he just interjected his ignorant opinion against several posters. Finally I sent him RFK jr's view of this book and he did not reply.
Dawn
Its people like Jennings, and Maddow, and Rather, and Brokaw who have allowed the cover up to endure for so long. About both the assassination and who JFK was. In Brokaw's special for the 50th he had that clown Richard Reeves try to deny that JFK was withdrawing from Vietnam. BTW, Brokaw used the same consultant that Jennings did ten years earlier, Mr. Handy Man, Gus Russo. Need to cover up the JFK case? Give Gus a call. Or--Mr. Single Bullet Fact-- Dale Myers.
BTW, those are nice photos Tracy. This is what JFK was pushing for: the moderate secularists in the area would channel democracy and progress into the lower classes. Avoiding the extremes of monarchy and Islamic fundamentalism.
When Kennedy was murdered, Nasser went into a month long depression and demanded his funeral be shown on national TV four times. Sadat was the first person at the embassy to sign his condolences. Ben Bella of Algeria declared a week of mourning.
In 1964, mobs in Egypt and Indonesia assaulted US owned libraries. Three years later, after LBJ reversed so many of Kennedy's policies in the region in favor of Israel, Egypt broke relations with the USA.
Except for Carter, its been pretty much downhill there ever since.
Love to see Rachel interview, not Goldstein about Vietnam, but Robert Rakove of Stanford about Kennedy and the Middle East.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:I would argue that for the last 35-40 years, certain elements in the US and Israel have been deliberately targeting secular regimes that were not friendly to the West ...
Including in their own countries. The promotion and protection of religious extremist wing nuts in both are leading everyone to a nihilistic future. Like some shared madness but with nuclear bombs.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Its incredible how slow the MSM is on this stuff. Goldstein's book was an important contribution to the literature because he was working with a co author, Mac Bundy, who was in the White House.
The book was published in 2008. And the excellent Frank Rich broke the story about the doves in Obama's White House passing it around in 2009.
I mentioned it the night of the Jim Douglass, Lisa Pease, Oliver Stone talk.
But IMO, this issue has been decided, and to talk about this is really kind of a diversion. Why?
Because if Rachel was a real scholar, she would be talking about how Johnson and Nixon changed JFK's Middle East policy!! That is the real story. And its a direct analog not an indirect one.
Kennedy was not beholden to Israel, and was much more even handed with the moderate Arabs. Like Nasser and Sadat.
He was also against Saudi Arabia, and backed Nasser's importation of troops into Yemen to block Saudi expansionism. He also asked for a position paper on Iran to see if it was possible to get rid of the Shah and bring back Mossadegh. He worried that the extreme monarchies could lead to a fundamentalist revolution in the Middle East. And he brought this up back in 1957!! In his great Algeria speech. These policies were all reversed upon his death.
And guess what? He was right. Where did the explosion of fundamentalism happen? In Iran in 1979.
And who caused it? John McCloy. Mr. cover up on the JFK case. How did McCloy aid the rise of Moslem fundamentalism? By pimping for the real Chairman, David Rockefeller.
Rockefeller hired McCloy to lobby the Carter administration to let the Shah into the USA. After hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of work, McCloy didn't change Carter's position; but he did change his advisors' positions. At a big meeting, Carter stood alone. He then caved. But before he did, he turned and said, "Alright. But I wonder what you guys are going to advise me to do when they storm our embassy and take our employees hostage."
LBJ, RMN and McCloy completely reversed Kennedy's very wise and fair policy in the Middle East. And McCloy directly aided the fundamentalist explosion, which gave us Ronald Reagan.
If Rachel was not a dilettante, this is what she should be addressing. In books by Rakove and Muelhenbeck. But that will take another seven years I guess. I'll probably be dead by then.
Is this a reference to Komer's 1962 memo? Interesting, because it doesn't read as though ousting the Shah was considered viable, or even desired. It seems to make the case that strengthening the Shah and the relationship with the Shah was the way to go. (albeit not a great option either, but the best option at the time). The above comments read as though Kennedy wanted the Shah gone. Of course I may be misreading things. Thanks
