Albert Rossi Reviews Destiny Betrayed 2nd Edition

[Jim DiEugenio]

Welcome Albert.

And off that first post, we hope you stick around awhile.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I'm a newcomer to Deep Politics Forum. Thank you for allowing me to post.

Albert - welcome. It is our pleasure.

Your review of Destiny Betrayed and your first post here are most insightful.

As for what led to JFK's death, his own "three strikes, you're out" reaction to Seven Days in May impresses me as particularly apt in terms of the Cuban situation: 1. Bay of Pigs; 2. Missile Crisis; 3. Back-Channel. But we can factor in any number of subsequent "Bay of Pigs" in other areas during the course of his final year in office, like the finalization of the Vietnam withdrawal plans, the Test Ban Treaty, etc., as contributory; as Douglass himself states, there is an embarrassment of choices. Why JFK was elected could also be explained by the fact that he did not always reveal his deeper convictions publicly, and appeared to embrace the Cold War rhetoric of the era (from which, however, it would be hasty to generalize about his intentions), so to some extent, at least, I think those who may have thought they could control him (since he was young and inexperienced in their eyes) did not really grasp whom they were dealing with. But that's just my take on it.

Books and films are different but complementary too.

I wrote about the Kennedy/Khruschev episode in Stone's Untold History documentary series in post #3 onwards in the DPF thread here.

Stone decided to use Seven Days In May and the "three strikes" quote as both a frame and as resonant shorthand to suggest the true nature of the public slaughter of JFK.

The narrative then cuts away from Dallas to the writing out of history of Nikita Khruschev and the largely unknown story of Vasili Arkhipov.

The juxtaposition of these contemporary events is, in my judgement, powerful and compelling.

When the documentary returns to America, it draws attention to the "promise of JFK's last year", cut down by the "Medusa", the Unspeakable, the Grotesque.

The Grotesque which is an invisible presence in our history books.

[Albert Doyle]

these two books, however, are paragons of thoughtful and meticulous analysis (not to mention powerful indictments of our recent past which speak directly to our present) -- precisely what historical explanation should always strive to be even if historical certainty can never be attained in any objective sense.

I think the American people have enough evidence to act. We clearly need a refurbishing of government. As the Garrison case proves we have a force in this country that has subverted democracy to its interests. The government itself is guilty of high crimes against the state and the people. America was never meant to be 'guided' by a coven of military fascist fixers making sure things went according to their dictates.

As for what led to JFK's death, his own "three strikes, you're out" reaction to Seven Days in May impresses me as particularly apt in terms of the Cuban situation: 1. Bay of Pigs; 2. Missile Crisis; 3. Back-Channel. But we can factor in any number of subsequent "Bay of Pigs" in other areas during the course of his final year in office, like the finalization of the Vietnam withdrawal plans, the Test Ban Treaty, etc., as contributory; as Douglass himself states, there is an embarrassment of choices.

I think the March 31 1963 intervention in the JMWAVE station to prevent the Cuban exiles from spoiling Kennedy's Missile Crisis agreement was important because it convinced the exiles that Kennedy really was working against them. This caused players at the mechanic level to work with the CIA facilitators in an operation to assassinate JFK and probably was the final input to start the real Dallas machinery going.

[Albert Rossi]

I think the March 31 1963 intervention in the JMWAVE station to prevent the Cuban exiles from spoiling Kennedy's Missile Crisis agreement was important because it convinced the exiles that Kennedy really was working against them. This caused players at the mechanic level to work with the CIA facilitators in an operation to assassinate JFK and probably was the final input to start the real Dallas machinery going.

Thank you for reminding of this. Clamping down on the raids against Russian ships, etc., certainly was a part of it, and may have well been "the last straw" as you say.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Jim an attempted thought re whether or not "change" happened from "Cold Warrior" stance.

Isn't this ambivalence what the whole JFK Assassination is about?

I mean its one thing for for you and I or Noam&Bill O'Reilly to say What we would do "were we president". That said, I am noticing a distinct dearth of Campaign Contributions to the Draft Heidenheimer movement from either General Dynamics or Huffington's Reconsidered Post-Divorce Suitureself.

You have succinctly shown just how strongly JFK differed from nearly every other Pol in DC re the question of whether 3rd world nationalist movements should be viewed as part or as distinct from the Cold War. You supplement Douglass with more examples and make the point about JFK during the 1950's more clearly than does Douglass; but he does mention some examples of this divergence from the 1950's McCarthyist norm.

What accounts for the difference, I think, is that in discussing politicians x,y,and z, views on the Cold War, we often fail to blend in the variable of to what extent the President actually controlled the National Security State. FDR was famous for juggling inter-deparmental end-runners because he became increasingly aware of how many steroids WWII was feeding the military branches and also how much each branch's self-interest was becoming detrimental to wider goals.

By the time of the Kennedy Presidency, The MICC had grown even stronger, and its ability to end-run the president via media sinews was much greater. So in stating that JFK was definitely not a "Cold Warrior" by the standards of Washington during the 1950's, it might not be a contradiction to also state that ANYONE elected to the presidency in the year 1960 would, of necessity, have to be a Cold Warrior to some extent. I don't think that this maneuvering of perception need be deemed "opportunism" either.

Is it opportunism to try to arrive in a position whereby one could restore the power of elected officials to stop a downhill toboggan if that official believed it were headed toward thin and tragic ice? Not in my view. It was democracy operating in a unique historical moment, and not a mellow one.

The missile gap rhetoric of JFK and other Cold War boiler plate need not be skirted. It is part of the historical moment. That said, it has been pointed out how the "Pay any price" part of the Inaugural address is often quoted from out of context to give the speech a more bellicose tone than was actually in the original.

The turning Douglass describes may well have been a turning from the posture ANY man elected in the Cold War context of 1960 needed to take in order to gain nominal control of the National Security State. Early experiences in the White House, Most notably Congo and Bay of Pigs, confirmed JFK's real views which were remarkably unique re the Cold War. The older views of JFK were confirmed by these experiences and now began to shine from the Executive Branch. That was dangerous for ourruling elites in a way that one dissident Senator was not.

The ambivalence between the older, more essentially Kennedy views and SOME of the Cold War garb he wore upon entering the White House is the same difference between the real power of the President v. the power of the national security state. Then there was grey area between real power and paper, flow chart power. That grey area has cleared up with the assassination, but it was never publicly acknowledged. For to do so would delegitimate a nations entire vocabulary for political power, the checks and balances scheme our rulers drum into every skull from NY to California. It would represent the most profound legitimation crisis imaginable.

If we recognize that parallel it is bad news for today's bipartisan merchants of political deception. The worst news possible. That is why the biggest lies are peddled to those readers who are the most likely dissidents.

[Jim DiEugenio]

From what I read, the whole missile gap thing was based upon wrong information given to him by Symington.

Once in office, he realized this was wrong. And when Dulles tried to get him to go for a first strike, we know what happened.

I don't quite understand what the rest of your post means.

Because in every major situation I have examined, Kennedy was always up against it. That is, opposed to the Pentagon and CIA. You can see that just in the speed with which his policies were reversed by LBJ. Which I am at pains to demonstrate in my book. I mean, a really great example being Indonesia. And we know who wanted in there in the worst way.

Look, you can always pick some parts of some speech which appear kind of martial in tone. But as John Newman points out, what is important is what JFK was doing.


​And it is pretty obvious the MIC did not like it.

[Phil Dragoo]

Nathaniel

I sense in your writing you see John F. Kennedy as experiencing a transformation from Cold Warrior to peace.

I just don't.

And believe me, I went to New York in '64 under an organizer named Dick Allen so that YAF could draft Goldwater.

I am continually seeing the world from John Kennedy's point of view--with a lot of help from Donald Gibson, and Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, and a host of others.

His grudging support of the Bay of Pigs invasion was predicated on no overt support. The very operation was a whisper of the final product under Eisenhower; I've posited it was a trap, lighting up Kennedy as a target. Surely he felt conned, swindled, lied to--

His reaction there was measured and in no way bellicose as befits the stereotypical Cold Warrior.

In a year and a half his thirteen days were an emergency brake on the LeMay Stone Age Syndrome.

We see in Lodge the defiance borne of foreknowledge.

In Bundy's authorship of NSAM 273 with its "recriminations" is the visage of the fruition of the Dulles-Hunt writing partnership.

Craft of Intelligence along with a basket to catch your head.

Noam Chomsky should be struck by lightning.

That Wall in Washington with its dark inexorable presence, it is the headstone for the Kennedy Pax Americana not with arms but with a helping hand.

That is a discussion we should have had in that campaign.

Let America choose and hammer out the details.

Now we have every kind of intelligence as a lightning bolt in the talons of the warbird Ike warned us of

The beast slouches toward Syria--from the West and from the East

This god of war demands more sacrifice and tribute

Here in the fifthieth year

[Jim DiEugenio]

I'll never forget the first time I talked to John Newman.

This was before I read his book, which had just come out.

He said, "It was over in 1961." I didn't understand what he meant by that until after I then read his book.

What he meant was that every single time they tried to get him to send in combat troops, he would not do it. This was culminated with the November debate, in which he is the only guy to speak out against commiting troops.

IMO, you cannot understand why he did that so obstinately unless you know about Edmund Gullion in 1951.

If you do know about that meeting, then the light goes on in your head as to why he is so different than everyone else. Especially Johnson.

I mean, LBJ was actually working with the Pentagon to try and get Ngo Dinh Diem to ask for combat troops in 1961. And then he was getting the real reports through Burris about how bad the war was going in 1962 and 63.

So when he takes over, he sends McNamara over to find out the true facts--which he knows about already! And knowing McNamara understands where he is coming from, he gives him the real picture.

And its upon that which LBJ puts together NSAM 288, which begins battle plans for the war over Vietnam. Just three months after Kennedy is dead. So, as I say in my book, what JFK would not do in three years, LBJ did in three months.

Johnson was a Cold Warrior, not JFK. Johnson bought the snake oil about the Domino Theory, not JFK.

There is a real battle going on with the MSM not just about the assassination, but about who JFK was. Bill O'Reilly's book is bad on both counts.

I mean, Rob Lowe as Kennedy?

[Tracy Riddle]

Going through public school and college in the 70s and 80s, all I ever learned about JFK was that he was a Cold War hawk who stood up to the Russians during the Missile Crisis, plus the Berlin speech, the Bay of Pigs, and the moon race. That was it. Oh, and LBJ was just following Kennedy's Vietnam policy.

Only through my own research did I learn how distorted and inaccurate that picture was. In fact, I'd say Americans don't learn any real history about any of their Presidents. They learn a lot of myths, legends and stereotypes. And many are totally happy listening to the Right-wing myth machine (our Founding Fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation, etc).

[Albert Rossi]

Going through public school and college in the 70s and 80s, all I ever learned about JFK was that he was a Cold War hawk who stood up to the Russians during the Missile Crisis, plus the Berlin speech, the Bay of Pigs, and the moon race. That was it. Oh, and LBJ was just following Kennedy's Vietnam policy.

Tracy, I can concur with all that you say. What saddens me most about this is that academic intellectuals on the left, not just the right, have put their rubber stamp on this view.

Only through my own research did I learn how distorted and inaccurate that picture was. In fact, I'd say Americans don't learn any real history about any of their Presidents. They learn a lot of myths, legends and stereotypes. And many are totally happy listening to the Right-wing myth machine (our Founding Fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation, etc).

I think these myths are so ingrained -- from school, the media, family, and in many cases religious organizations -- that it is almost impossible to shake them. I also wonder why most Americans are so passive, even when they (we) learn something about the power structure that should outrage them (us). It has been my own experience -- and this is more an impression than anything else -- that Europeans will take to the streets for much less than what we swallow here daily.

I receive mail from numerous "progressive" organizations, and while I try to participate as I can, I am sometimes put off by their childlike ingenuousness about what they have done and can accomplish. I suppose you have to be, or you wouldn't do anything. But sometimes I feel like grabbing them, shaking them, and saying, "don't you realize you will never be anything but a minority in the US?" I agree with JimD that if the possibility of a broad consensus on the left ever existed in this country, it was done away with between 1963 and 1968.

P.S. Editing my comment. I just read your Eric Norden post. I've hung my head in shame often enough over this trahison des clercs among my "liberal" academic peers. I have also ruined several friendships among them precisely over the JFK assassination.

P.P.S. Thanks for the considerable effort you undertook for that long posting on the other thread about the MIC. The impact of seeing all of that culled and ordered into a compressed chronology is formidable.