Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
06-08-2013, 04:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2013, 06:01 AM by Jim DiEugenio.)
http://www.ctka.net/2013/Newman_Sept_Action_Alert.html
How can you have a conference on Vietnam in 1963 without John Newman?
Its like having a Camp David Accords Conference without Jimmy Carter.
Please let them know the heresy of this.
Especially since they have idiots there like Reeves leading a panel.
Posts: 17,304
Threads: 3,464
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:http://www.ctka.net/2013/Newman_Sept_Action_Alert.html
How can you have a conference on Vietnam in 1963 without John Newman?
Its like having a Camp David Accords Conference without Jimmy Carter.
Please let them know the heresy of this.
Especially since they have idiots there like Reeves leading a panel.
Very strange.....Is this an oversight? Ignorance in the case of the organizers? Perception management? Censorship? Revisionism? Who are the organizers? Has any one spoken to John Newman? Maybe he has been asked and cannot attend? Definitely would be much better for having him there.
"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.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
I talked to John.
He was not even aware of the event.
Posts: 1,473
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
August 6, 2013
Dr. Steve Maxner
Vietnam Center
Box 41045
Lubbock, Texas 79409-1045
Dear Dr. Maxner
Jim DiEugenio advises your September 26-28 conference on US involvement in Vietnam in 1963 will proceed with out Dr. John Newman.
As President Kennedy had enacted National Security Action Memorandum 263 withdrawing our advisors with all US personnel out of country end of 1965 and as Newman is singularly responsible for presenting this information, excluding him from a discussion of that issue is revisionist.
Tonkin Gulf and that Kabuki would never have occurred had Kennedy not been killed. That he would have withdrawn is not arguableonly by deniers a la Chomsky et al.
No Camelotian, my poli sci department head Dr. George F. Lipsky a State Department veteran was a domino theorist in my 1965-9 undergraduate period, but all that was of the Eisenhower-LBJ-Nixon schoolKennedy would have none of it, being the post-colonial supporter of nationalism and self-determination, qualities which led to his removal.
Excluding Newman is a needless lingering in the shadow of all the old apologists.
Sincerely
Phil Dragoo
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Thanks Phil.
I am going to try and talk to this guy on the phone.
Posts: 445
Threads: 114
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Jim also send him a copy of your CTKA articles and or BOR podcasts (if you can get into Lens 2012 stash) on Halberstam. It is the key historiographical thing on the topic now, and, IMO has a trap door that might really be expanded upon: Why was Halberstams wack view so pressed upon the public? What purpose did it serve IN TERMS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTYS LATER RIGHTWARD EVOLUTION. And also Why are so many SO called "Left?ists" (not really left IMO) doing propagating this outdated Halbergrandstanding bs into young minds STILL!
