15-01-2014, 07:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 15-01-2014, 07:25 AM by Marc Ellis.)
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Harriman is impossible to classify as "right wing" or "left wing." He is an elite chameleon figure who could go either way. He was a Democrat, and actually considered to be from the "liberal" wing of the party. Originally a hardliner on the Soviets, he later became friendlier towards them. On Vietnam he appears at different times to be both a hawk and a dove.
He was one of the so-called Wise Men (there's a very good book by that title):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wise_Men_(book)
I basically agree w/Tracy Riddle's description of him.
Harriman was truly a limousine Liberal. He was born into the Harriman railroad fortune.
He was a Republican turned Democrat. He was wishywashy on a lot of issues.
I don't know why Vietnam would have been so important to him that he would personally order
Diem whacked. So I am skeptical about his role in the DIEM assassination.
But I certainly could be proven wrong. It doesn't make sense based on what I know.
He was ambassador to the Soviet Union during WWII. What was his tenure like?
He doesn't seem to be an uber-hawk in that video clip.
JFK seemed to trust him very much - perhaps wrongly.
His widow was appointed Ambassador to France by Clinton.
Personally, I don't think he was a member of the cabal against JFK.
Tracy Riddle's Douglass quote is something I'll want to dig into further.
JFK gave Harriman virtually carte Blanche on Vietnam. But why would Harriman
do that? What was in it for him? Was he heavily invested in Brown & Root?
Like I said, I could be proven wrong. But something doesn't add up here.
it would be very helpful to compare the two telegraphs, side-by-side.
That would answer the question.