Remembering Teddy and smearing Jack

[Mark Stapleton]

I always thought globalresearch.ca was a good site with good articles from independent contributors and usually it is. There's a short article on the site from September 1 by Danny Schechter with the intriguing and long-winded title of "Mourning with the Kennedys: A teachable moment. Another fallen leader, A new challenge: who will pick up his sword?"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=14960


Schechter, who describes himself as a 'news dissector'--nice work if you can get it--says:


I remember Jack's equivocations on the War of that time and eventual decision to escalate what was to become a national tragedy.......


Reading this leaves me wondering if the author's intention was to insert into the narrative this falsehood that JFK bore the major responsibility for Vietnam. Then there's this about Teddy:


He appealed to the best in the voters, talked about real issues, embraced labor and causes that sometimes made his constituents nervous. He cared about immigrants, the disabled, the sick. He wanted them to care too, even when they gave him a pass. They were still proud to walk in his footprints and believe in his promises. The country didn’t know him as well as they did. Perhaps, thanks to television, they do now, although, truth be told, not everyone felt that Kennedy did as much as he could given his identification with the Club that is the Senate and the Party that has moved to the center and right.


Nice eulogy although towards the end he casts a shadow by implying that he didn't do enough because of his identification with the Senate and the Party that has 'moved to the centre and right'. Teddy's fault?


I'm not sure what the purpose of Mr. Schechter's article was but I'm highly suspicious.

[Peter Presland]

Mark

I don't pretend any authority on either JFK or TK in comparison to others here. But on the general 'Global Research' point, I too have found stuff that makes me wonder about the author's real motives.

I can't think of particular examples right now but there have certainly been several over the past 2-3 years. Frankly it hasn't dented my respect for Chussodovsky or the site though. In fact I finally became a subscriber about 6 months ago. They put such a lot of stuff up that, for a tight-budget operation, the editorial function must be a major problem. On balance I personally think they do a damn good job.

[Ed Jewett]

I agree about "global research" -- on the whole, good site... and I suspect that sometimes they allow, agree to, or purchase some stuff as "bulk" fiber for our diet and then evaluate it as they go. I don't have an opinion on the 'news dissector' but I have often had similar questions, doubts or concerns about a source, a writer, or an outlet, and have often thought that the combined review and opinion of a large group of astute and savvy folk (such as we have here) might better collectively create the card file or wiki to which one could refer for others' insight about sources, authors, etc.

We here might consider constructing a mind map, a wiki, or a three-dimensional +/- accuracy/coherence cube with "tags" that constructs and updates a large picture of sources. It is similar to the list of books and web sites that is already here but perhaps more specific in terms of lesser authors and writers.

Maybe a database would work too... I'll see if I can scrape up a free copy of PROmis.

[Peter Presland]

..... Maybe a database would work too... I'll see if I can scrape up a free copy of PROmis.

Bloody Hell Ed !!!!

I was NOT expecting the punch line and I'm still wiping away the tears

Damn good job I did't have a mouthful of coffee that time. :eek:

[Dawn Meredith]

I always thought globalresearch.ca was a good site with good articles from independent contributors and usually it is. There's a short article on the site from September 1 by Danny Schechter with the intriguing and long-winded title of "Mourning with the Kennedys: A teachable moment. Another fallen leader, A new challenge: who will pick up his sword?"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=14960


Schechter, who describes himself as a 'news dissector'--nice work if you can get it--says:


I remember Jack's equivocations on the War of that time and eventual decision to escalate what was to become a national tragedy.......


Reading this leaves me wondering if the author's intention was to insert into the narrative this falsehood that JFK bore the major responsibility for Vietnam. Then there's this about Teddy:


He appealed to the best in the voters, talked about real issues, embraced labor and causes that sometimes made his constituents nervous. He cared about immigrants, the disabled, the sick. He wanted them to care too, even when they gave him a pass. They were still proud to walk in his footprints and believe in his promises. The country didn’t know him as well as they did. Perhaps, thanks to television, they do now, although, truth be told, not everyone felt that Kennedy did as much as he could given his identification with the Club that is the Senate and the Party that has moved to the center and right.


Nice eulogy although towards the end he casts a shadow by implying that he didn't do enough because of his identification with the Senate and the Party that has 'moved to the centre and right'. Teddy's fault?


I'm not sure what the purpose of Mr. Schechter's article was but I'm highly suspicious.

I find Danny Schecter's comment about JFk and the war rather surprising. He was around doing the news on the local radio station in Boston during the AIB days and sometimes hung with thim. Guess he never bothered to find out JFk's real view on the war. And how it got him killed.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Two observations:

First, whilst Global Research has a particular perspective on events, a place in the political spectrum - think of the analysis of authors such as Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Michel Chossudovsky - I view the site as primarily performing a publishing or library function. In other words, it will publish certain authors even if it doesn't agree with every word they say.

I approve of that because I loathe the kind of "on-message" nonsense that insists that "you're either with us or against us" on every single thing.

Indeed, several months ago, I put a person with US military intelligence credentials in touch with them, because he had a very interesting story to tell and MSM suddenly weren't returning his calls. Global Research published his story. I won't identify the article here, as it wouldn't be fair to those involved. But I approve of Prof Chossudovsky's actions here.

Secondly, whilst it's important to ensure that the historical record with regard to the Kennedys is absolutely correct, they should be no more immune from criticism than the House of Saxe-Coburg (sorry, Windsor).

[Charles Drago]

I met Danny at Jim Fetzer's first Minnesota JFK conference. We later got together in Manhattan to talk business and break bread. On those occasions I found him to be a most honorable, talented, and righteously committed man.

My opinion has not changed.

Like Jan, I welcome and even encourage honest, informed critical analyses of the Kennedy brothers' public lives, regardless of the conclusions they may present. See JFK and the Unspeakable for insight into the sometimes harsh criticism leveled against President Kennedy by Thomas Merton.

Beyond all that they accomplished in their political careers, I venerate John, Robert, and Edward Kennedy for their respective spiritual maturations.

James Douglass, I believe, shares this point of view.

[Mark Stapleton]

I met Danny at Jim Fetzer's first Minnesota JFK conference. We later got together in Manhattan to talk business and break bread. On those occasions I found him to be a most honorable, talented, and righteously committed man.

My opinion has not changed.

Fine, Charles. I don't doubt your personal judgement.

But I'm still curious to know what was JFK's "eventual decision to escalate what was to become a national tragedy".

At best sloppy, at worst deliberately misleading.

[Albert Doyle]

I can't understand how the Kennedy's could continue on in politics. What message are they sending towards their dead family members?

[Don Jeffries]

The establishment Left (along with the establishment Right, of course) never liked the Kennedys. I go into this in depth in Hidden History. William Kunstler had awful things to say about the Kennedy brothers. So did Malcolm X. As Jim DiEugenio pointed out in a recent Black Op Radio appearance, JFK has even been unfairly maligned for his posture on Civil Rights. His Civil Rights speech in June, 1963 was both courageous and electric.

It isn't just Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn who have attempted to distort JFK's Vietnam policies, and ignored the significance of NSAM 263. The Kennedys were, and remain, a threat to the powers that be.