Albert Rossi Reviews Destiny Betrayed 2nd Edition

[Don Jeffries]

Regardless of what the Chomksys and other establishment "leftists" would have you believe, JFK WAS different. Looking back over the history of this country, Kennedy was the only President we've ever had who resisted the call to war, who rejected pressures to send American troops into battle somewhere. That gives him a tremendous distinction historically, although no mainstream historian would acknowledge it. Think about it; JFK was the only "peace" President this country has ever had.

From Madison in 1812, to Polk in 1846, to Lincoln in 1861, to McKinley in 1898, to Wilson in 1917, to Roosevelt in 1941, to Truman in 1950, and all Presidents since JFK, none of our executive leaders have EVER turned down the chance to send American troops into conflict. Whether we consider some or all of those wars/conflicts justified, the reality is only Kennedy resisted the overtures to war, and he did it more than once during his 1000 days in office. This was illustrated dramatically in the film Virtual JFK.

Tarnishing the legacy of the Kennedys has become a cottage industry for the msm and the court historians. Defaming his character serves to diminish the significance of his death. I'm glad both Jims have done such great work in clearing up all the willful distortions in the historical record.

[Albert Rossi]

Regardless of what the Chomksys and other establishment "leftists" would have you believe, JFK WAS different. Looking back over the history of this country, Kennedy was the only President we've ever had who resisted the call to war, who rejected pressures to send American troops into battle somewhere. That gives him a tremendous distinction historically, although no mainstream historian would acknowledge it. Think about it; JFK was the only "peace" President this country has ever had.

From Madison in 1812, to Polk in 1846, to Lincoln in 1861, to McKinley in 1898, to Wilson in 1917, to Roosevelt in 1941, to Truman in 1950, and all Presidents since JFK, none of our executive leaders have EVER turned down the chance to send American troops into conflict. Whether we consider some or all of those wars/conflicts justified, the reality is only Kennedy resisted the overtures to war, and he did it more than once during his 1000 days in office. This was illustrated dramatically in the film Virtual JFK.

Tarnishing the legacy of the Kennedys has become a cottage industry for the msm and the court historians. Defaming his character serves to diminish the significance of his death. I'm glad both Jims have done such great work in clearing up all the willful distortions in the historical record.

Amen to all of this!

[David Guyatt]

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.

Relevant here is Prof. Antony Sutton's book "America's Secret Establishment" and particularly the chapter entitled "How the Order Controls Education".

The process of active thoughtlessness begins in schools and is reinforced thereafter by the media.

Al, I agree that some Europeans take to the streets. The French are particularly to be admired in this regard (but the State's CRS is also particularly formidable too, because of the regularly revolting masses).

The Greeks and Turks are currently at the barricades too.

But I ashamed to say that we Brits - with a few exceptions - are as passive as can be.

Ps, the link I placed above is to a free pdf of Tony's book.

[Albert Doyle]

Tarnishing the legacy of the Kennedys has become a cottage industry for the msm and the court historians. Defaming his character serves to diminish the significance of his death. I'm glad both Jims have done such great work in clearing up all the willful distortions in the historical record.

Of course this doesn't necessarily exclude them being successful at doing it. When all you need to be a loyal citizen now is cheering "USA - USA!" in the streets, and while O'Reilly's filthy disinformation work 'Killing Kennedy' enjoys a surge of rave reviews based on shallow-minded impulse, DiEugenio's noble effort amounts to a fart in a windstorm. Chomsky was good for something. His title 'Manufactured Consent' pretty much describes how the media and government have teamed up to create an illusion machine that the people respond to. We now have a new form of American superman that pecks at the right pellet distributor for immediate reward. This process has created a democracy-sterile void know as the Unspeakable that has managed to zone-off Dealey Plaza on the 50th with its beam of Saron and evil eye which praises Kennedy while killing him and looks for life forms daring enter the zone. Kennedy held in perverse effigy by those who murdered him.

[Tracy Riddle]

I think Eisenhower was also highly resistant to sending in US troops (except for Lebanon in 1958), but unfortunately he overcompensated in the other direction by building enough nukes to blow up the planet. Due to his age and health, I think Ike had minimal ability to stand up to the military-industrial complex.

[Tracy Riddle]

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.

Most of the "progressive" blogosphere is entirely concerned with the partisan puppet show. They'll spend all day talking about the latest outrageous statement by Rush Limbaugh or Michele Bachman instead of focusing on the vast unelected government that actually runs the country. Even back in the 60s, many "liberals" apparently didn't want to see the enormous power wielded by people like Dulles, Hoover, LeMay and others. It upsets their tidy little world view.

A few months ago, Chris Matthews got into an argument with Cynthia Tucker when she brought up the CIA plots to kill Castro. There was no mention of the Mafia at all, but Chris didn't even want to admit that the CIA had tried to kill Castro. "Oh, I think they were trying to make his beard fall out, but they weren't trying to kill him." Now, if they'll lie about established history, documented by Congressional committees, what won't they lie about to preserve their world view?

[Tracy Riddle]

There's a recent hidden-camera interview with O'Reilly in this clip (starting around 6:00) where he basically admits that he still believes in a conspiracy:

[Cliff Varnell]

I think Eisenhower was also highly resistant to sending in US troops (except for Lebanon in 1958), but unfortunately he overcompensated in the other direction by building enough nukes to blow up the planet.

Didn't Ike inherit the massive US military build-up from Truman and his Sec of Def Robert Lovett?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Nathaniel

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

Phil, that would be a wrong description of my view.

I simply do not see as much a divergence between the overall view of JFK provided in Unspeakable and Destiny Betrayed as Jim does.

I think the difference that IS there can be explained in terms of the conflict between the powers of the President on paper and the realities of dealing with the National Security State at the moment (1961-63) when de jure power of the president over this new war bureaucracy was being tested to a degree that never happened before or after. Because after the the President knew better than to contest the CIA's power... most of the time.

[Jim DiEugenio]

You know, looking at that early clip, that has to be one of the best reports ever on the JFK case on national TV.

At least I don't ever recall something like that by anyone else.

I mean even today, that is pretty good.

Boy, even with softballs, Bugliosi look silly.