Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Noam Chomsky Needs an Intervention
#11
A point that gets lost in the discussions around the March-April 1968
period: Why Johnson abdicated: from my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THE KILLERS
OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT:


My journey back to my original understanding of the Kennedy assassination coverup began in earnest in the early 1970s. Studying the Vietnam War as it unfolded and with the help of the revealing Pentagon Papers made me fully aware of how pervasive the level of deceitfulness involved in the assassination was in our governmental system. But it was the Watergate scandal that served as the decisive catalyst for my reexamination of postwar American history. This demonstrable conspiracy -- one of those rare political conspiracies everyone accepted as such -- and the many other crimes surrounding the Nixon presidency gave me a fresh awareness of the role of what Peter Dale Scott has since described as "deep politics" in American history. Scott, who has written perceptively on Watergate as well as the Kennedy assassination, is one of the writers who has drawn connections between those two events, which the mainstream media have regarded as distinct, even though some of the same high-level and lower-level players were involved. Scott writes in Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, "In each case an incumbent President was removed from office, after a build-up of suspicion and resentment inside his administration because of his announced plans and/or negotiations for disengagement from Vietnam."

In fact, as I was beginning to recognize at the time of Nixon's resignation in 1974, three presidents in a row -- Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon -- had been removed from office. It was becoming hard not to notice how the political system had changed with the Coup of '63 and the coverup that followed. The calamitous turn in the Vietnam War when the Vietcong mounted the Tet Offensive in January 1968 led to President Johnson's forced withdrawal from that year's presidential race at the behest of his senior advisers, "The Wise Men." That group was largely drawn from the leadership of the eastern establishment and including Clark Clifford, Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge, Douglas Dillon, and George Ball. Their decisive meeting with Johnson came on March 25, six days before he stunned the nation by announcing at the end of a televised speech about Vietnam, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."


Henry Brandon, the chief American correspondent of the Sunday Times of London, reports in his autobiography, Special Relationships: A Foreign Correspondent's Memoirs from Roosevelt to Reagan (1988), about a conversation he had with President Johnson in 1968, after that decision was made: "LBJ, aware by then of his public repudiation, seemed to drag a burden of anguish in his wake when he spoke his own epitaph during a flight to visit President Truman in Independence, Missouri, aboard Air Force One: The only difference between Kennedy's assassination and mine is that mine was a live one, which makes it all a little more torturing.'" (Johnson visited Truman in Independence on May 3 and October 11 of that year.) Former Secretary of State Acheson summed up the March decision by the Wise Men by saying that "we can no longer do the job we set out to do [in Vietnam] in the time we have left, and we must begin to take steps to disengage." Carl Oglesby in The Yankee and Cowboy War interprets what he calls Johnson's forced "abdication" as a Yankee power play by the Wise Men to "break off [from the Cowboys] a war believed to be unwinnable except through an internal police state, both sides fighting for control of the levers of military and state-police power through control of the presidency. Johnson's Ides of March was a less bloody Dallas, but it was a Dallas just the same: it came of a concerted effort of conspirators to install a new national policy by clandestine means. Its main difference from Dallas is that it finally did not succeed."

Reply
#12
But Joe, in keeping with your historical parallels, it did not succeed because Nixon pulled the first October Surprise on Johnson.

And the Democrats chose not to call RMN on it either before or after the election.
Reply
#13
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:But Joe, in keeping with your historical parallels, it did not succeed because Nixon pulled the first October Surprise on Johnson.

And the Democrats chose not to call RMN on it either before or after the election.

****

It did succeed in getting rid of Johnson but not in ending the war.
Nixon of course expanded the war after promising otherwise.

I covered a speech in 1972 at the University of Wisconsin (Madison) by William Sullivan,
Kissinger's deputy at the time and later the US ambassador to Iran.
Someone asked him why we were still in Vietnam. He said we were
there to get control of the oil in the South China Sea. I printed that
in my article for The Wisconsin State Journal, and the AP picked it up, and it caused a stir, though
what caused an even bigger stir was Sullivan revealing that the peace
talks about the war would be soon underway.

Sullivan and his people tried to claim
the speech was off the record, but I produced a letter from the
group sponsoring it inviting my newspaper to cover it. Ironically, the only book on Vietnam I've read
that mentions the oil in the South China Sea as a major motive
for the Vietnam War is Chomsky's otherwise reprehensible hit
job on JFK and Oliver Stone.

As we know, natural resources
are often the causes of war. That's why we are still in Afghanistan,
to control the minerals and the opium. We are not there to "win,"
especially since Afghanistan is a place that can't be conquered
in any traditional sense (the last one to do so was Alexander the Great).
To borrow a line from THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, we are
fighting that longest war in our history "to loot the place six ways from sundown."
The New York Times a few years ago actually ran an article admitting
we are there for the minerals. It reads like a shopping list
for the military-industrial complex: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world...erals.html
Reply
#14
Well, there's another irony for you.

In more than one source, I have read that Sullivan was a member of the secret committee that LBJ put together in 1964 to begin planning for his expansion of the Vietnam War.

Did Kissinger hold him over for that reason? And is that how he knew about the oil?
Reply
#15
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Well, there's another irony for you.

In more than one source, I have read that Sullivan was a member of the secret committee that LBJ put together in 1964 to begin planning for his expansion of the Vietnam War.

Did Kissinger hold him over for that reason? And is that how he knew about the oil?

***

Good questions. He had a long history in Southeast Asia and was LBJ's ambassador to Laos.

William H. Sullivan's name comes up less often in deep politics discussions than the FBI's William C. Sullivan, who made Penn Jones's list after
supposedly being mistaken for a deer during hunting season. William H. died quietly a day before his ninety-first birthday and
is best known for being ambassador to Iran during the hostage crisis there.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Deceptions and Disguises of Noam Chomsky Jim DiEugenio 7 9,845 29-06-2017, 05:24 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Jim DiEugenio Reviews Poulgrain's Incubus of Intervention Jim DiEugenio 12 8,297 22-07-2016, 08:09 PM
Last Post: Paul Rigby
  Chomsky, Cuba and JFK Ivan De Mey 2 3,235 10-11-2014, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Ivan De Mey
  Noam chomsky, john foster dulles and conrad adenauer vs jfk and khrushchev: Whose side are us """""l Nathaniel Heidenheimer 2 7,981 05-01-2014, 11:39 PM
Last Post: Nathaniel Heidenheimer
  NOAM'S INCREDIBLE 11/22 ARTICLE ON TRUTHOUT. Few articles are so transparent in their purpose..DON'T Nathaniel Heidenheimer 22 9,196 22-12-2013, 09:56 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Chomsky from the Irwin Knoll, Moyer's Truthout with the SS badge: Ground Zero of Left-Gatekeeping. Nathaniel Heidenheimer 0 1,896 22-11-2013, 06:21 PM
Last Post: Nathaniel Heidenheimer
  Noam Chomsky is a fool Jim DiEugenio 30 13,921 16-11-2012, 06:37 PM
Last Post: Charles Drago
  New Chomsky Sewage on JFK and Missile Crisis: Demands response... Nathaniel Heidenheimer 7 5,055 26-10-2012, 09:45 PM
Last Post: Nathaniel Heidenheimer
  Noam Chomsky and his Acolyte Exposed Jim DiEugenio 9 6,589 20-02-2011, 01:00 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Chatham House Chomsky Paul Rigby 8 9,289 08-09-2009, 06:30 PM
Last Post: Paul Rigby

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)