07-10-2015, 04:16 AM
Creating strawmen?
I am reciting facts. Facts which directly impeach Janney's book and the previous work of Damore. Janney used a series of unreliable sources--including Damore-- in order to patch together a tale that he was obsessed with. I mean Albert, are we supposed to swallow Gregory Douglass/Walter Storch also? Douglass is a professional forger. Yet Janney had no problem using him as a source. Another straw man Albert?
Janney needed a motive to put together his whole Mitchell/skin ointment fantasy. And he bought into Leary: MM as a muse to peace. But once he fell for that, it boxed him in. He could not tell the truth about who Kennedy actually was. Because it would make the whole Leary story dubious--which, of course, it is. (Its actually bullshit if you ask me.)
So he then used a series of hack writers--including Seymour Hersh--to draw a portrait of Kennedy that would make John McAdams smile: the empty, shallow, playboy in Washington who was a Democratic Cold Warrior; a Stu Symington, Henry Jackson type. A man who had no real compass of his own and needed MM to somehow alert him to who he really was and keep him to that goal.
Except for this: none of the above is anywhere near what the facts really are.
Kennedy began his transformation back in 1951 when he met Edmund Gullion in Saigon, as is documented in Richard Mahoney's book, JFK:Ordeal in Africa. It was that meeting, where Gullion told him that France would never win in Vietnam, that began to turn Kennedy into a much more creative, imaginative, and visionary foreign policy expert. From then on, JFK was the most extreme Democratic spokesman on American foreign policy in the Third World and on how the USA should meet the challenges of the Cold War. I and others have documented all of this in more than one venue. Janney ignored it all since he needed a reason for MM to be so valuable to JFK. Janney also then doubled down on this by writing that MM was really the first WC critic--forget Salandria. And she was going to blow the whole conspiracy wide open.
Except, there was another big problem: There was no evidence for this either.
So what did Janney do? He made assumption after assumption, saying that MM must have read this and must have read that etc etc etc And oh my aching back. Sooner or later some of us just get tired of this kind of presumption addiction. Especially in this day and age. We have the ARRB and facts and evidence. And some of us use them. Instead of something as whimsical and bereft of evidence as Janney and Damore.
IMO, Janney and his book are a sideshow at best, a diversion at worst. Only Jim Fetzer could set up a conference with Janney and Hankey and Nelson.
If I had been there I would have taped it for pure comedic value.
I am reciting facts. Facts which directly impeach Janney's book and the previous work of Damore. Janney used a series of unreliable sources--including Damore-- in order to patch together a tale that he was obsessed with. I mean Albert, are we supposed to swallow Gregory Douglass/Walter Storch also? Douglass is a professional forger. Yet Janney had no problem using him as a source. Another straw man Albert?
Janney needed a motive to put together his whole Mitchell/skin ointment fantasy. And he bought into Leary: MM as a muse to peace. But once he fell for that, it boxed him in. He could not tell the truth about who Kennedy actually was. Because it would make the whole Leary story dubious--which, of course, it is. (Its actually bullshit if you ask me.)
So he then used a series of hack writers--including Seymour Hersh--to draw a portrait of Kennedy that would make John McAdams smile: the empty, shallow, playboy in Washington who was a Democratic Cold Warrior; a Stu Symington, Henry Jackson type. A man who had no real compass of his own and needed MM to somehow alert him to who he really was and keep him to that goal.
Except for this: none of the above is anywhere near what the facts really are.
Kennedy began his transformation back in 1951 when he met Edmund Gullion in Saigon, as is documented in Richard Mahoney's book, JFK:Ordeal in Africa. It was that meeting, where Gullion told him that France would never win in Vietnam, that began to turn Kennedy into a much more creative, imaginative, and visionary foreign policy expert. From then on, JFK was the most extreme Democratic spokesman on American foreign policy in the Third World and on how the USA should meet the challenges of the Cold War. I and others have documented all of this in more than one venue. Janney ignored it all since he needed a reason for MM to be so valuable to JFK. Janney also then doubled down on this by writing that MM was really the first WC critic--forget Salandria. And she was going to blow the whole conspiracy wide open.
Except, there was another big problem: There was no evidence for this either.
So what did Janney do? He made assumption after assumption, saying that MM must have read this and must have read that etc etc etc And oh my aching back. Sooner or later some of us just get tired of this kind of presumption addiction. Especially in this day and age. We have the ARRB and facts and evidence. And some of us use them. Instead of something as whimsical and bereft of evidence as Janney and Damore.
IMO, Janney and his book are a sideshow at best, a diversion at worst. Only Jim Fetzer could set up a conference with Janney and Hankey and Nelson.
If I had been there I would have taped it for pure comedic value.