HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Since November 22, 1963.....

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:28 PM

Since November 22, 1963...



With each day, fewer remain who remember what the world was like then.

116 replies, 10213 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 116 replies Author Time Post
Reply Since November 22, 1963... (Original post)
Octafish Nov 2014 OP
Autumn Nov 2014 #1
Octafish Nov 2014 #4
longship Nov 2014 #11
man4allcats Nov 2014 #58
nationalize the fed Nov 2014 #19
Dr Hobbitstein Nov 2014 #87
Octafish Nov 2014 #116
LongTomH Nov 2014 #81
Horse with no Name Nov 2014 #2
Octafish Nov 2014 #9
Horse with no Name Nov 2014 #12
ReRe Nov 2014 #38
7wo7rees Nov 2014 #48
hifiguy Nov 2014 #111
ReRe Nov 2014 #114
niyad Nov 2014 #69
Rex Nov 2014 #3
ollie4 Nov 2014 #36
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #42
Octafish Nov 2014 #62
LongTomH Nov 2014 #85
Lars39 Nov 2014 #5
zeemike Nov 2014 #32
Octafish Nov 2014 #65
robertpaulsen Nov 2014 #6
Octafish Nov 2014 #66
robertpaulsen Nov 2014 #91
grasswire Nov 2014 #101
OnlinePoker Nov 2014 #74
robertpaulsen Nov 2014 #90
Octafish Nov 2014 #93
scarletwoman Nov 2014 #7
Frustratedlady Nov 2014 #8
Octafish Nov 2014 #67
love_katz Nov 2014 #71
Frustratedlady Nov 2014 #82
YoungDemCA Nov 2014 #10
jtuck004 Nov 2014 #17
YoungDemCA Nov 2014 #22
jtuck004 Nov 2014 #25
YoungDemCA Nov 2014 #27
jtuck004 Nov 2014 #31
zeemike Nov 2014 #35
ReRe Nov 2014 #41
Hekate Nov 2014 #55
prairierose Nov 2014 #83
frogmarch Nov 2014 #86
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #46
olddots Nov 2014 #75
jwirr Nov 2014 #80
pinboy3niner Nov 2014 #20
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #47
Hekate Nov 2014 #49
Dont call me Shirley Nov 2014 #23
elleng Nov 2014 #28
hifiguy Nov 2014 #112
Dont call me Shirley Nov 2014 #113
johnnyreb Nov 2014 #30
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #43
sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #77
Octafish Nov 2014 #94
blue neen Nov 2014 #13
Octafish Nov 2014 #95
Cleita Nov 2014 #14
Overseas Nov 2014 #39
WillyT Nov 2014 #15
Martin Eden Nov 2014 #16
Dont call me Shirley Nov 2014 #18
RedCappedBandit Nov 2014 #21
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #45
Wella Nov 2014 #84
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #97
Octafish Nov 2014 #98
Hekate Nov 2014 #50
pinboy3niner Nov 2014 #53
RedCappedBandit Nov 2014 #99
burrowowl Nov 2014 #103
Octafish Nov 2014 #96
Carolina Nov 2014 #24
elleng Nov 2014 #26
Brigid Nov 2014 #29
Initech Nov 2014 #33
craigmatic Nov 2014 #34
Hekate Nov 2014 #51
craigmatic Nov 2014 #63
cpwm17 Nov 2014 #68
Hekate Nov 2014 #72
RufusTFirefly Nov 2014 #78
craigmatic Nov 2014 #79
Octafish Nov 2014 #105
craigmatic Nov 2014 #107
Octafish Nov 2014 #108
SleeplessinSoCal Nov 2014 #37
Hekate Nov 2014 #52
pinboy3niner Nov 2014 #56
Hekate Nov 2014 #57
SleeplessinSoCal Nov 2014 #59
Octafish Nov 2014 #109
SleeplessinSoCal Nov 2014 #115
nikto Nov 2014 #40
Octafish Nov 2014 #110
Mr.Bill Nov 2014 #44
SleeplessinSoCal Nov 2014 #60
NBachers Nov 2014 #54
Paper Roses Nov 2014 #61
Zorra Nov 2014 #64
bobthedrummer Nov 2014 #70
HockeyMom Nov 2014 #73
shenmue Nov 2014 #76
heaven05 Nov 2014 #88
ColesCountyDem Nov 2014 #89
old man 76 Nov 2014 #92
Orrex Nov 2014 #100
Octafish Nov 2014 #104
mainstreetonce Nov 2014 #102
GreatGazoo Nov 2014 #106

Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:33 PM

1. So long ago and yet such a vivid memory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:38 PM

4. It was a time when we could do anything we dared imagine.



Democrats led us to places previously considered impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:58 PM

11. Apollo 8. Rounded the moon to see Earthrise.

It happened in December, 1968, over five years after JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

The funny thing... If Apollo 8 had landed on the moon, there would not have been an Earthrise. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth. That's why we see only one side of the moon. If you stand on the moon on the Earth side, the Earth would be forever in the same spot in the sky. There would never, ever be an Earthrise. The only way to see an Earthrise from the moon is if one was orbiting the moon.

A great, and inspirational photograph. I wish the Apollo 8 astronauts hadn't messed it all up by quoting Genesis in the Bible. They should have quoted Newton, or Galileo, or my favorite, fucking Archimedes (? BCE - 212 BCE): "Give me a place to stand and I will raise the world." Now that quote would inspire well beyond Iron Age legend.

Nevertheless, I remember that day like it was today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:25 AM

58. Oswald did it? I don't think so.

I'm pretty sure Poppy Bush was responsible for that murder. And Oswald was just what he claimed to be - a patsy.

Family Of Secrets by Russ Baker

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:27 PM

19. +1

1960: To the Moon in a decade!

2014: Who needs bombing now? Russia? Syria? Let's bomb them all! The ones "we" can't bomb, "we" overthrow

It's *incredibly* sad and depressing, Just as soon as I can get a job in another country (or can afford it) I'm probably done with the US. It's a different country now. America was an Idea, not a place and the once great country can be rebuilt, if not here, maybe somewhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 05:59 PM

87. You forgot

1961: Kennedy sends US troops to Vietnam.
1964: Johnson escalates US involvement in Vietnam.

We aren't much different now than we were then. But it's easy to view the past with rose-tinted glasses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 28, 2014, 01:41 PM

116. 'We have more will than wallet.' -- George Herbert Walker Bush, inaugural address

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:23 PM

81. And we did it in less than a decade and under budget.

That was the last time that the big aerospace companies allowed that to happen.

Guess why we haven't been back?

Around 1980, I was hearing from people working for Rockwell International in Tulsa, that, we could go to the moon again, but: "It would take twice as long and cost twice as much!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:34 PM

2. I remember

but it is so different

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:55 PM

9. The American Dream was alive and well.

Remarks Intended for Delivery to the Texas Democratic State Committee in the Municipal Auditorium in Austin, November 22, 1963

President John F. Kennedy
November 22, 1963

One hundred and eighteen years ago last March, President John Tyler signed the Joint Resolution of Congress providing statehood for Texas. And 118 years ago this month, President James Polk declared that Texas was a part of the Union. Both Tyler and Polk were Democratic Presidents. And from that day to this, Texas and the Democratic Party have been linked in an indestructible alliance--an alliance for the promotion of prosperity, growth, and greatness for Texas and for America.

Next year that alliance will sweep this State and Nation.

The historic bonds which link Texas and the Democratic Party are no temporary union of convenience. They are deeply embedded in the history and purpose of this State and party. For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future. Never satisfied with today, we have always staked our fortunes on tomorrow. That is the kind of State which Texas has always been--that is the kind of vision and vitality which Texans have always possessed--and that is the reason why Texas will always be basically Democratic.

For 118 years, Texas and the Democratic Party have contributed to each other's success. This State's rise to prosperity and wealth came primarily from the policies and programs of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. Those policies were shaped and enacted with the help of such men as the late Sam Rayburn and a host of other key Congressmen--by the former Texas Congressman and Senator who serves now as my strong right arm, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson--by your present United States Senator, Ralph Yarborough--and by an overwhelming proportion of Democratic leadership at the State and county level, led by your distinguished Governor, John Connally.

It was the policies and programs of the Democratic Party which helped bring income to your farmers, industries to your cities, employment to your workers, and the promotion and preservation of your natural resources. No one who remembers the days of 5-cent cotton and 30-cent oil will forget the ties between the success of this State and the success of our party.

Three years ago this fall I toured this State with Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, and Ralph Yarborough as your party's candidate for President. We pledged to increase America's strength against its enemies, its prestige among its friends, and the opportunities it offered to its citizens. Those pledges have been fulfilled. The words spoken in Texas have been transformed into action in Washington, and we have America moving again.

Here in Austin, I pledged in 1960 to restore world confidence in the vitality and energy of American society. That pledge has been fulfilled. We have won the respect of allies and adversaries alike through our determined stand on behalf of freedom around the world, from West Berlin to Southeast Asia--through our resistance to Communist intervention in the Congo and Communist missiles in Cuba--and through our initiative in obtaining the nuclear test ban treaty which can stop the pollution of our atmosphere and start us on the path to peace. In San José and Mexico City, in Bonn and West Berlin, in Rome and County Cork, I saw and heard and felt a new appreciation for an America on the move--an America which has shown that it cares about the needy of its own and other lands, an America which has shown that freedom is the way to the future, an America which is known to be first in the effort for peace as well as preparedness.

In Amarillo, I pledged in 1960 that the businessmen of this State and Nation--particularly the small businessman who is the backbone of our economy--would move ahead as our economy moved ahead. That pledge has been fulfilled. Business profits--having risen 43 percent in 2 years--now stand at a record high; and businessmen all over America are grateful for liberalized depreciation for the investment tax credit, and for our programs to increase their markets at home as well as abroad. We have proposed a massive tax reduction, with particular benefits for small business. We have stepped up the activities of the Small Business Administration, making available in the last 3 years almost $50 million to more than 1,000 Texas firms, and doubling their opportunity to share in Federal procurement contracts. Our party believes that what's good for the American people is good for American business, and the last 3 years have proven the validity of that proposition.

In Grand Prairie, I pledged in 1960 that this country would no longer tolerate the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized nation in the world. That pledge has been and is being fulfilled. In less than 3 years our national output will shortly have risen by a record $100 billion--industrial production is Up 22 percent, personal income is up 16 percent. And the Wall Street Journal pointed out a short time ago that the United States now leads most of Western Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits. Here in Texas--where 3 years ago at the very time I was speaking, real per capita personal income was actually declining as the industrial recession spread to this State--more than 200,000 new jobs have been created, unemployment has declined, and personal income rose last year to an all time high. This growth must go on. Those not sharing in this prosperity must be helped. And that is why we have an accelerated public works program, an area redevelopment program, and a manpower training program, to keep this and other States moving ahead. And that is why we need a tax cut of $11 billion, as an assurance of future growth and insurance against an early recession. No period of economic recovery in the peacetime history of this Nation has been characterized by both the length and strength of our present expansion--and we intend to keep it going.

In Dallas, I pledged in 1960 to step up the development of both our natural and our human resources. That pledge has been fulfilled. The policy of "no new starts" has been reversed. The Canadian River project will provide water for 11 Texas cities. The San Angelo project will irrigate some 10,000 acres. We have launched 10 new watershed projects in Texas, completed 7 others, and laid plans for 6 more. A new national park, a new wildlife preserve, and other navigation, reclamation, and natural resource projects are all under way in this State. At the same time we have sought to develop the human resources of Texas and all the Nation, granting loans to 17,500 Texas college students, making more than $17 million available to 249 school districts, and expanding or providing rural library service to 600,000 Texas readers. And if this Congress passes, as now seems likely, pending bills to build college classrooms, increase student loans, build medical schools, provide more community libraries, and assist in the creation of graduate centers, then this Congress will have done more for the cause of education than has been done by any Congress in modern history. Civilization, it was once said, is a race between education and catastrophe--and we intend to win that race for education.

In Wichita Falls, I pledged in 1960 to increase farm income and reduce the burden of farm surpluses. That pledge has been fulfilled. Net farm income today is almost a billion dollars higher than in 1960. In Texas, net income per farm consistently averaged below the $4,000 mark under the Benson regime; it is now well above it. And we have raised this income while reducing grain surpluses by one billion bushels. We have, at the same time, tackled the problem of the entire rural economy, extending more than twice as much credit to Texas farmers under the Farmers Home Administration, and making more than 100 million dollars in REA loans. We have not solved all the problems of American agriculture, but we have offered hope and a helping hand in place of Mr. Benson's indifference.

In San Antonio, I pledged in 1960 that a new administration would strive to secure for every American his full constitutional rights. That pledge has been and is being fulfilled. We have not yet secured the objectives desired or the legislation required. But we have, in the last 3 years, by working through voluntary leadership as well as legal action, opened more new doors to members of minority groups--doors to transportation, voting, education, employment, and places of public accommodation--than had been opened in any 3-year or 30-year period in this century. There is no noncontroversial way to fulfill our constitutional pledge to establish justice and promote domestic tranquillity, but we intend to fulfill those obligations because they are right.

In Houston, I pledged in 1960 that we would set before the American people the unfinished business of our society. That pledge has been fulfilled. We have undertaken the first full-scale revision of our tax laws in 10 years. We have launched a bold new attack on mental illness, emphasizing treatment in the patient's own home community instead of some vast custodial institution. We have initiated a full-scale attack on mental retardation, emphasizing prevention instead of abandonment. We have revised our public welfare programs, emphasizing family rehabilitation instead of humiliation. And we have proposed a comprehensive realignment of our national transportation policy, emphasizing equal competition instead of regulation. Our agenda is still long, but this country is moving again.

In El Paso, I pledged in 1960 that we would give the highest and earliest priority to the reestablishment of good relations with the people of Latin America. We are working to fulfill that pledge. An area long neglected has not solved all its problems. The Communist foothold which had already been established has not yet been eliminated. But the trend of Communist expansion has been reversed. The name of Fidel Castro is no longer feared or cheered by substantial numbers in every country. And contrary to the prevailing predictions of 3 years ago, not another inch of Latin American territory has fallen prey to Communist control. Meanwhile, the work of reform and reconciliation goes on. I can testify from my trips to Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, and Costa Rica that American officials are no longer booed and spat upon south of the border. Historic fences and friendships are being maintained. Latin America, once the forgotten stepchild of our aid programs, now receives more economic assistance per capita than any other area of the world. In short, the United States is once more identified with the needs and aspirations of the people to the south, and we intend to meet those needs and aspirations.

In Texarkana, I pledged in 1960 that our country would no longer engage in a lagging space effort. That pledge has been fulfilled. We are not yet first in every field of space endeavor, but we have regained worldwide respect for our scientists, our industry, our education, and our free initiative.

In the last 3 years, we have increased our annual space effort to a greater level than the combined total of all space activities undertaken in the 1950's. We have launched into earth orbit more than 4 times as many space vehicles as had been launched in the previous 3 years. We have focused our wide-ranging efforts around a landing on the moon in this decade. We have put valuable weather and communications satellites into actual operation. We will fire this December the most powerful rocket ever developed anywhere in the world. And we have made it clear to all that the United States of America has no intention of finishing second in outer space. Texas will play a major role in this effort. The Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston will be the cornerstone of our lunar landing project, with a billion dollars already allocated to that center this year. Even though space is an infant industry, more than 3,000 people are already employed in space activities here in Texas, more than $100 million of space contracts are now being worked on in this State, and more than 50 space-related firms have announced the opening of Texas offices. This is still a daring and dangerous frontier; and there are those who would prefer to turn back or to take a more timid stance. But Texans have stood their ground on embattled frontiers before, and I know you will help us see this battle through.

In Fort Worth, I pledged in 1960 to build a national defense which was second to none--a position I said, which is not "first, but," not "first, if," not "first, when," but first--period. That pledge has been fulfilled. In the past 3 years we have increased our defense budget by over 20 percent; increased the program for acquisition of Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by 60 percent; added 5 combat ready divisions and 5 tactical fighter wings to our Armed Forces; increased our strategic airlift capabilities by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces by 600 percent. We can truly say today, with pride in our voices and peace in our hearts, that the defensive forces of the United States are, without a doubt, the most powerful and resourceful forces anywhere in the world.

Finally, I said in Lubbock in 1960, as I said in every other speech in this State, that if Lyndon Johnson and I were elected, we would get this country moving again. That pledge has been fulfilled. In nearly every field of national activity, this country is moving again--and Texas is moving with it. From public works to public health, wherever Government programs operate, the past 3 years have seen a new burst of action and progress--in Texas and all over America. We have stepped up the fight against crime and slums and poverty in our cities, against the pollution of our streams, against unemployment in our industry, and against waste in the Federal Government. We have built hospitals and clinics and nursing homes. We have launched a broad new attack on mental illness and mental retardation. We have initiated the training of more physicians and dentists. We have provided 4 times as much housing for our elderly citizens, and we have increased benefits for those on social security.

Almost everywhere we look, the story is the same. In Latin America, in Africa, in Asia, in the councils of the world and in the jungles of far-off nations, there is now renewed confidence in our country and our convictions.

For this country is moving and it must not stop. It cannot stop. For this is a time for courage and a time for challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither the fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed. And our duty as a party is not to our party alone, but to the Nation, and, indeed., to all mankind. Our duty is not merely the preservation of political power but the preservation of peace and freedom.

So let us not be petty when our cause is so great. Let us not quarrel amongst ourselves when our Nation's future is at stake. Let us stand together with renewed confidence in our cause--united in our heritage of the past and our hopes for the future--and determined that this land we love shall lead all mankind into new frontiers of peace and abundance.

SOURCE: JFK Presidential Library

We who remember know how different this world could be if JFK and his successors were able to continue using the powers of government -- from public education to public works -- to build a more prosperous nation for ALL. Because we knew that kind of nation is why we continue to try to make this a better one. It's the Good Fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:01 PM

12. I live in Sam Rayburn country and I am perplexed...to say the least...that it is very conservative

It just doesn't make sense considering all that Sam did for the area, the state, and the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:34 PM

38. You are the jewel of DU, Octafish.

Thank you so much for inserting this intended speech by JFK on the last day of his life.

I remember. I was a young teenager at that time. A pall fell over our HS after the announcement was made over the intercom, basketball game was canceled, and we all ran home from school to watch Walter Cronkite. The nation wept for days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #38)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:24 PM

48. Ditto. Octafish, you are the best. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 25, 2014, 06:20 PM

111. I concur 100%

 

Octafish is irreplaceable. I have learned so much from him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #111)

Tue Nov 25, 2014, 10:47 PM

114. Octafish is a him?



Hifiguy, you're pretty special yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:51 PM

69. thank you for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:37 PM

3. They day the music died.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:17 PM

36. The day the music died....

 

The Day the Music Died, dubbed so by a lyric in the Don McLean song "American Pie", is a reference to the deaths of rock and roll musicians Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson, in a plane crash near Clear Lake, Iowa, on February 3, 1959. Pilot Roger Peterson was also killed.(wikipedia{)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ollie4 (Reply #36)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:40 PM

42. Well now, that's one way of interpreting McLean's magnum opus. But one could say that

 

the lines "And the three men I admired most\The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost\They all caught the last train\For the coast" is a reference to JFK, MLK, Jr. and RFK.

That allegorical ambiguity is one reason why McLean's song still has such power, along with the assonance in "Bye" and "Pie". Just a thought from an erstwhile amateur poet and pro-am songwriter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 10:23 AM

62. America was touched by the lowest demons in our nature, setting us on a different course.

On Nov. 22, 1963, the national security state demonstrated who runs the nation and it isn't "We the People." Realpolitik (Might Makes Right) beat out Idealism (New Frontier), leading to the present day's "Money Trumps Peace" mentality.

Because President Kennedy was working to keep the peace by going around the warmongers -- at the Bay of Pigs, in refusing to launch World War III, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in Vietnam and Southeast Asia -- key figures in the national security state evidently found the President himself to represent threat to national security. Therefore, to protect America, they did what they saw as the "patriotic" thing.

It's clear from the attempts on JFK's life in the weeks leading up to Dallas -- in Chicago and Miami -- that the FBI and Secret Service were not doing what they should to protect the President's life. Some in CIA and the Pentagon all they could to tie Lee Harvey Oswald to the communists, even fabricating evidence the guy was Castro and Krushchev's stooge, a story repeated to the present day.

James Douglass detailed the above in "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." Interestingly, all of the above also can be found in the DU, DU2 and DU3 archives, as well, posted by DUers who give a damn.

It seems to me that today's Wall Street on the Potomac Set, having no real global enemies or domestic challengers, would act murderously to protect their privileged positions and bank accounts from a clear and present danger. Otherwise, they wouldn't talk about wars without end, let alone defunding public education, with a straight face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #62)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 05:03 PM

85. JFK resisted a 'first strike' at least twice:

During the Berlin Crisis and later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The military never forgave him for that.

I have read that there have been forces in the Pentagon and MIC that have advocated for, at least a first strike capability, since the invention of the atomic bomb. In this historical context, both the MIRVed ICBMs and the Strategic Defense Initiative at least look like attempts to built a first strike capability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:39 PM

5. And that's one way they've been able to advance their sick agenda.

Those who remember are wearing out physically. Give us another few years, another generation, and too much is forgotten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lars39 (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:04 PM

32. That brings to mind an INSOC slogan.

"He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past"

The right wing is in control of the present...to a large degree, and they will seek complete control.
Then that generation will learn that Reagan was a saint and Ayn Rand a profit...and JFK was killed by a communist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lars39 (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:13 AM

65. ''If it wasn't on tee vee, it didn't happen.''

From the motorcade that day it's clear presidential security wasn't paramount.



This was in Dallas on the way to Dealey Plaza. The people I've shown these photos to were surprised they had not seen them before.



If not us Democrats telling this story, it will be left to Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh and their paymasters to tell it.

Thank you for grokking, Lars39.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:45 PM

6. ...this country has seen the corruption of our liberties by the MIC become the norm.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

-President Eisenhower, January 17, 1961

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robertpaulsen (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:27 AM

66. Look who gets ahead these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #66)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:32 PM

91. Scary. The prospect of Jeb in 2016 is nauseating.

I know most people think there's no way America could put another Bush in the WH. But look at MSM. They're working overtime to try to paint that PNAC warmonger as a "moderate." It could happen; we need to work overtime to stop it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #66)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:51 PM

101. that photo makes me want to ralph

Drunk? High? Or just high on their ill-gotten and undeserved power and wealth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robertpaulsen (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:56 PM

74. But he did nothing to curb it during his presidency

I'd give his message more credence if he had said it at the beginning of his 8 years in office and done something about it instead of waiting until his last speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #74)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:29 PM

90. Sadly, I agree. The CIA overthrow of Mossadegh happened on Ike's watch.

He had an opportunity in the wake of that trashing of democracy to rein them in. Instead we saw the same damn thing happen to Arbenz in Guatemala the following year.

With Ike, it was just words. But with JFK, NSAM 55 and 57 are the proof he really was trying before they murdered him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robertpaulsen (Reply #90)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 10:05 AM

93. ...and Cuba. Ike was president when Dulles hired the Mafia to kill Castro -- 1960.

If things had gone according to plan, Nixon would've been president during the Bay of Pigs and would've sent in the Marines, along with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, making Allen Dulles and Meyer Lansky and all their rich and corrupt friends very, very happy.



AUG 1960: Richard Bissell meets with Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, and discusses with him ways to eliminate or assassinate Fidel Castro. Edwards proposes that the job be done by assassins hand-picked by the American underworld, specifically syndicate interests who have been driven out of their Havana gambling casinos by the Castro regime. Bissell gives Edwards the go-ahead to proceed. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursues a series of plots to poison or shot Castro. The CIA’s own internal report on these efforts states that these plots "were viewed by at least some of the participants as being merely one aspect of the over-all active effort to overthrow the regime that culminated in the Bay of Pigs." (CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3, 14)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/chron.html



Details on the actual sit-down:



Ever wonder about the sanity of America's leaders? Take a close look at perhaps the most bizarre plot in U.S. intelligence history

By Bryan Smith
Chicago Magazine
November 2007
(page 4 of 6)

EXCERPT...

By September 1960, the project was proceeding apace. Roselli would report directly to Maheu. The first step was a meeting in New York. There, at the Plaza Hotel, Maheu introduced Roselli to O'Connell. The agent wanted to cover up the participation of the CIA, so he pretended to be a man named Jim Olds who represented a group of wealthy industrialists eager to get rid of Castro so they could get back in business.

"We may know some people," Roselli said. Several weeks later, they all met at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami. For years, the luxurious facility had served as the unofficial headquarters for Mafioso leaders seeking a base close to their gambling interests in Cuba. Now, it would be the staging area for the assassination plots.

At a meeting in one of the suites, Roselli introduced Maheu to two men: Sam Gold and a man Roselli referred to as Joe, who could serve as a courier to Cuba. By this time, Roselli was on to O'Connell. "I'm not kidding," Roselli told the agent one day. "I know who you work for. But I'm not going to ask you to confirm it."

Roselli may have figured out that he was dealing with the CIA, but neither Maheu nor O'Connell realized the rank of mobsters with whom they were dealing. That changed when Maheu picked up a copy of the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade, which carried an article laying out the FBI's ten most wanted criminals. Leading the list was Sam Giancana, a.k.a. "Mooney," a.k.a. "Momo," a.k.a. "Sam the Cigar," a Chicago godfather who was one of the most feared dons in the country—and the man who called himself Sam Gold. "Joe" was also on the list. His real name, however, was Santos Trafficante—the outfit's Florida and Cuba chieftain.

Maheu alerted O'Connell. "My God, look what we're involved with," Maheu said. O'Connell told his superiors. Questioned later before the 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (later nicknamed the Church Committee after its chairman, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho), O'Connell was asked whether there had ever been any discussion about asking two men on the FBI's most wanted list to carry out a hit on a foreign leader.

"Not with me there wasn't," O'Connell answered.

"And obviously no one said stop—and you went ahead."

"Yes."

"Did it bother you at all?"

"No," O'Connell answered, "it didn't."


CONTINUED...

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2007/How-the-CIA-Enlisted-the-Chicago-Mob-to-Put-a-Hit-on-Castro/index.php?cparticle=4&siarticle=3



Yet, the Mighty Wurlitzer plays the false tune that Kennedy was the guy who wanted Castro dead.



Spies: Ex-CIA Agent In Raleigh Says Castro Knew About JFK Assassination Ahead Of Time

Former CIA agent and author Brian Latell in Raleigh

By The Raleigh Telegram

RALEIGH – A noted former Central Intelligence Agency officer, author, and scholar who is intimately knowledgeable about Cuba and Fidel Castro, says he believes there is evidence that Castro’s government knew about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 ahead of time.

SNIP...

Robert Kennedy, as the Attorney General of the United States, was in charge of the operation, said Latell. Despite the United States’ best efforts, the operation was nonetheless penetrated by Cuban intelligence agents, said Latell.

Latell said there were two serious assassination attempts by the United States against Castro that even used members of the mafia to help, but both of them were obviously unsuccessful.

He also said that there was a plot by the United States to have Castro jabbed with a pen containing a syringe filled with a very effective poison. Latell said that he believes the experienced assassin who worked for Castro who originally agreed to the plan may have been a double agent. After meeting with a personal representative of Robert Kennedy in Paris, the man knew that the plan to assassinate Castro came from the highest levels of the government, including John F. and Robert Kennedy.

The plan was never carried out, as the man later defected to the United States, but with so many double agents working for Castro also pledging allegiance to the CIA, Latell said it was likely that the information got back to Havana that the Kennedy brothers endorsed that plot with the pen.

CONTINUED...

http://raleightelegram.com/201209123311



Which to an amateur detective interested in justice would seem like a lead worth pursuing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:47 PM

7. I was 14 in 1963. I'd like to think I still have a few years left.

There have been many changes since I was 14 - and some have actually been good changes, it must be said. Civil rights, women's rights, LGBT rights - not finished, not won once and for all, but certainly moved a good distance forward from where they were in 1963.

Yes, I remember how the world was back then, and have done my best to pass on my memories to my children. That's how memories are passed on, from one generation to the next.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:54 PM

8. I was watching an old Christmas movie the other night...

and the announcement of the Kennedy shooting popped up. I was amazed that the tears started rolling from the familiar sounds of that period of time. The long days and nights glued to the TV for further news...those days when the world stood still and we all were so devastated.

I was truly surprised that after all these years, I couldn't stop the tears. What a profound and horrible event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frustratedlady (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:55 AM

67. It is remarkable, the moments when it strikes. For me, HBO's ''Nixon by Nixon''...

Using the crook's own White House tapes made clear that evil men now run the show. If you get the chance, please give the documentary a viewing. It is absolutely chilling to hear Nixon say he's OK with murder.

http://www.hbo.com/#/schedule/detail/Nixon+By+Nixon:+In+His+Own+Words/556679

For those new to the subject, background:

Nixon approved hiring a Secret Service man who said he'd 'kill on command' to guard Ted Kennedy. You can hear Nixon and Haldeman discuss it, about 40 minutes into the HBO documentary "Nixon by Nixon." While I had read the part of the transcript available years ago, and wrote about it on DU, almost no one I know has heard anything about it.



Ted Kennedy survived Richard Nixon's Plots

By Don Fulsom

In September 1972, Nixon’s continued political fear, personal loathing, and jealously of Kennedy led him to plant a spy in Kennedy’s Secret Service detail.

The mole Nixon selected for the Kennedy camp was already being groomed. He was a former agent from his Nixon’s vice presidential detail, Robert Newbrand—a man so loyal he once pledged he would do anything—even kill—for Nixon.

The President was most interested in learning about the Sen. Kennedy’s sex life. He wanted, more than anything, stated Haldeman in The Ends of Power, to “catch (Kennedy) in the sack with one of his babes.”

In a recently transcribed tape of a September 8, 1972 talk among the President and aides Bob Haldeman and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon asks whether Secret Service chief James Rowley would appoint Newbrand to head Kennedy’s detail:

Haldeman: He's to assign Newbrand.

President Nixon: Does he understand that he's to do that?

Butterfield: He's effectively already done it. And we have a full force assigned, 40 men.

Haldeman: I told them to put a big detail on him (unclear).

President Nixon: A big detail is correct. One that can cover him around the clock, every place he goes. (Laughter obscures mixed voices.)

President Nixon: Right. No, that's really true. He has got to have the same coverage that we give the others, because we're concerned about security and we will not assume the responsibility unless we're with him all the time.

Haldeman: And Amanda Burden (one of Kennedy’s alleged girlfriends) can't be trusted. (Unclear.) You never know what she might do. (Unclear.)

Haldeman then assures the President that Newbrand “will do anything that I tell him to … He really will. And he has come to me twice and absolutely, sincerely said, "With what you've done for me and what the President's done for me, I just want you to know, if you want someone killed, if you want anything else done, any way, any direction …"

President Nixon: The thing that I (unclear) is this: We just might get lucky and catch this son-of-a-bitch and ruin him for '76.

Haldeman: That's right.

President Nixon: He doesn't know what he's really getting into. We're going to cover him, and we are not going to take "no" for an answer. He can't say "no." The Kennedys are arrogant as hell with these Secret Service. He says, "Fine," and (Newbrand) should pick the detail, too.


Toward the end of this conversation, Nixon exclaims that Newbrand’s spying “(is) going to be fun,” and Haldeman responds: “Newbrand will just love it.”

Nixon also had a surveillance tip for Haldeman for his spy-to-be: “I want you to tell Newbrand if you will that (unclear) because he's a Catholic, sort of play it, he was for Jack Kennedy all the time. Play up to Kennedy, that "I'm a great admirer of Jack Kennedy." He's a member of the Holy Name Society. He wears a St. Christopher (unclear).” Haldeman laughs heartily at the President’s curious advice.

Despite the enthusiasm of Nixon and Haldeman, Newbrand apparently never produced anything of great value. When this particular round of Nixon’s spying on Kennedy was uncovered in 1997, The Washington Post quoted Butterfield as saying periodic reports on Kennedy's activities were delivered to Haldeman, but that Butterfield did not think any potentially damaging information was ever dug up.

SOURCE:

http://surftofind.com/tedkennedy



Why does that news from Dallas affect us so, 51 years later, Frustratedlady? We who remember those days know how different the present age would be.

I believe: For one, money would not trump peace. For two, justice and prosperity would be for all, not just the well-off. For three, We the People would be know what our government is doing, not the other way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #67)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:30 PM

71. What ReRe said:

You ARE the JEWEL of DU.

Thank you for all of your posts.

PLEASE, please, please...keep on posting.

I was dumbfounded to see someone on this board make posts where they tried to pass off Tricky Dicky as a liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unfrigging believeable!

I too, remember those times, and continue to abhor all that has come after.

Those of us who DO remember what we were trying to accomplish back then need to keep on speaking out.

My deepest kudos and respect to you, Octafish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #67)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:27 PM

82. Some day, the truth will surely come out.

I won't be alive to hear it, but it will come out. Maybe after Poppa is gone? I have never believed any of the reports/theories and never will.

Too many people have been too protected for too long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:57 PM

10. It's distressing to see progressives living in/obsessing over the past

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:22 PM

17. Why? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:30 PM

22. The clue might be in the word "progressive"

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:36 PM

25. Since we are discussing people who need clues, perhaps you should spend a few moments

 

reflecting on when Progressives provided opportunity for people to stay out from under the heels of the many bastards around them. Today we have more people in poverty than there were in 1960, over 10 million added during this administration alone, families with children who will likely live the rest of their lives in poverty. And that accomplishment is hardly even mentioned, as if they are invisible.

Some of us look back to when governing was for the benefit of the people, not something run by neo-liberals and traitors to the country for the benefit of the banksters and corporations that donate to their political parties.

Clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:43 PM

27. Your history is flawed...

 

when governing was for the benefit of the people


Which people?

And comparing Obama in a negative light to past Democratic Presidents (who lest we forget, were all white men, and in the 20th century, all of whom more or less consistently had strong Democratic Congresses to pass their agendas-except, of course, for Bill Clinton, but he's hardly considered a liberal hero) is just stupid at best, reactionary at worst.

Actually, look up "reactionary" in the dictionary.

"An extremely conservative person or position that not only resists change but seeks to return to the “good old days” of an earlier social order.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reactionary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:01 PM

31. WHy don't you look up "hungry", which is what the children of the people who have been put and left

 

in poverty by these policies are?

Feel free to look up - you seem to think that's important - Stress Test by Timothy McVei.. I mean Geithner (I get my killers mixed up) - ex treasury secretary. Read the plan we are currently under, how they decided to make the banks wealthy on the backs of these hungry kids.

And while you are looking things up , look up his interview with Jon Stewart,. Stewart said "The perception is that you went to hell and back for the banks, but not for the people". So "Killer" tried to start spinning, whereupon the voters in the audience laughed in his deserving face for the spin he tried to place on this tragedy.

If you believe I am reactionary for what I said - GOOD.

The people who make excuses for today are nothing but the old white men - and women - from prior days who profited on the backs of others.

You won't have anything else I want to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:16 PM

35. I am old enough to have lived that history.

I was 20 years old in 1963 and in the military stationed in Texas...I know what went on.

And things have drastically changed sense then...some for the better but as a whole this is a much meaner and narcissistic society we live in now...and full of violence that would have shocked people way back then.

You being young have no idea because this is all you know, and history is just a few, very few facts in a book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #35)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:40 PM

41. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:52 AM

55. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:52 PM

83. + 1

thanks for saying that...I remember.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 05:05 PM

86. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:03 PM

46. Hey, my friend, please do not confuse 'nostalgia' with 'reactionary.' I can assure you that

 

jtuck004 is no 'reactionary' as you have defined it, although he may well be nostalgic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:21 PM

75. thanks for the lecture

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:19 PM

80. Maybe just maybe we learn from the past that life does not have to suck like it does today. That

there are ways to improve on what we have and lessons on what can go wrong.

The mysteries regarding JFK's death is one of those things we do not understand. Who did it is to search for our enemies that may still be with us now but we do not have the proof.

Where do you come up with ideas to fix this mess? Have you forgotten that we have been in situations like this before? The Great Depression? I am a FDR Democrat and I thoroughly believe that we can and should believe learn for that era.

Dwell on the past - no we study the present as much as we do the past. They cannot be separated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:27 PM

20. As touchstones go, Camelot still beats 9/11. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:04 PM

47. Just for the poetry, if nothing else. :) - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:08 AM

49. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:30 PM

23. It's Remembering the past, not obsessing about the past.

The problems of the past create the present.
The problems of the present create the future.
In order to improve your future you must fix the problems from the past.
For the problems from the past become the future.
If the problems from the past are reflected upon in the present and repaired
The future will change for the better.

It is remembering, so we can fix our present and our future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:44 PM

28. Thank you Dont...Shirley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 25, 2014, 06:29 PM

112. 'twas ever thus

 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

More Santayana

"Injustice in this world is not something comparative; the wrong is deep, clear, and absolute in each private fate."

"Fashion is something barbarous, for it produces innovation without reason and imitation without benefit."

"The Bible is literature, not dogma."

"Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge."

"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests."

"There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #112)

Tue Nov 25, 2014, 10:42 PM

113. Thank you, hifiguy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:50 PM

30. It's one sentence! Or are you referring to his posts in the: PAST!

Ha! I couldn't resist. Here have a song from the er... past;

lessons of history.mp3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:42 PM

43. WTF? Historians round the world are shaking their fists at you! :) - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:34 PM

77. It's even more distressing to see 'progressives' forget what their party is supposed to be about.

But not all that surprising, since it's been a long time since the Dem Party lost its way and lurched to the Right on so many very important issues.

Why would any Dem not WANT to be reminded of what the party used to be about, Civil Rights, Social Safety nets for all Americans, a future envisioned where the country didn't spend all its resources on WARS and where the Environment MATTERED?

People are NOT 'obsessing' over the PAST, they are focusing on what has not been ACCOMPLISHED all these years later.

Tell you what, when the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal checklist has even half the list checked off, then it will be time to move to the rest of the list.

But going backwards, where Corporations rule the parties, see what FDR had to say about that eg, we clearly have a whole lot of UNFINISHED work to do.

Btw, are you in the habit of 'moving forward' from personal projects that were interrupted for whatever reason, projects that seriously affect you future, just because you set those goals a few years ago?

I'm for sticking to goals until they are accomplished. I'm definitely against taking one step forward and two backwards, because that is a recipe for failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 10:10 AM

94. History, if you don't know, repeats. For instance, ''Hairpin Turns''...


Sarajevo, June 28, 1914


Prague, May 29, 1942


Dallas, November 22,1963

People who know the history are better able to recognize such connections that do so much to change the course of, uh, progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:12 PM

13. I remember what the world was like then.

It was great if you were a white man---otherwise, it really sucked. We've made progress, but not nearly enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blue neen (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 10:16 AM

95. Equality was important to President Kennedy. Ask Abraham Bolden...

Secret Service didn't like African Americans in 1963. So, President Kennedy, personally, integrated the White House detail.

Former U.S. Secret Service Agent Abraham BOLDEN was the first African American Secret Service agent to serve in the White House, personally appointed and literally hand-picked by President John F. Kennedy to the White House detail. Agent Abraham Bolden reported overt racism by his fellow agents and outright hostility toward the "n------loving president," quoting fellow Secret Service agents on the JFK detail.

In addition to enduring all manner of personal indignities, he was concerned at the lack of professionalism in those assigned to protect the president and reported his concerns. He was told, "OK. Thanks" by his superiors. When the problems weren't addressed, Bolden requested transfer back to the Secret Service office in Chicago.



Abraham Bolden speaks at JFK Lancer.



The story of a man who told the truth:



After 45 Years, a Civil Rights Hero Waits for Justice

Thom Hartmann
June 12, 2009 11:52 AM

A great miscarriage of justice has kept most Americas from learning about a Civil Rights pioneer who worked with President John F. Kennedy. But there is finally a way for citizens to not only right that wrong, but bring closure to the most tragic chapter of American presidential history.

After an outstanding career in law enforcement, Abraham Bolden was appointed by JFK to be the first African American presidential Secret Service agent, where he served with distinction. He was part of the Secret Service effort that prevented JFK's assassination in Chicago, three weeks before Dallas. But Bolden was framed by the Mafia and arrested on the very day he went to Washington to tell the Warren Commission staff about the Chicago attempt against JFK.

Bolden was sentenced to six years in prison, despite glaring problems with his prosecution. His arrest resulted from accusations by two criminals Bolden had sent to prison. In Bolden's first trial, an apparently biased judge told the jury that Bolden was guilty, even before they began their deliberations. Though granted a new trial because of that, the same problematic judge was assigned to oversee Bolden's second trial, which resulted in his conviction. Later, the main witness against Bolden admitted committing perjury against him. A key member of the prosecution even took the fifth when asked about the perjury. Yet Bolden's appeals were denied, and he had to serve hard time in prison, and today is considered a convicted felon.

After the release of four million pages of JFK assassination files in the 1990s, it became clear that Bolden -- and the official secrecy surrounding the Chicago attempt against JFK -- were due to National Security concerns about Cuba, that were unknown to Bolden, the press, Congress, and the public not just in 1963, but for the next four decades.

SNIP...

Abraham Bolden paid a heavy price for trying to tell the truth about events involving the man he was sworn to protect -- JFK -- that became mired in National Security concerns. Bolden still lives in Chicago, and has never given up trying to clear his name.

Will Abraham Bolden live to finally see the justice so long denied to him?

CONTINUED...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/after-45-years-a-civil-ri_b_213834.html



After the assassination, he went to Washington on his own dime and reported what he saw to the Warren Commission. For his trouble -- and despite an exemplary record as a Brinks detective, Illinois State Trooper, and Secret Service agent -- Bolden was framed by the government using a paid informant's admitted perjury and spent a long time in prison. The government also drugged him and put him into psychiatric hospitals.His real crime was telling the truth.

Americans know the Truth: the country hasn't been the same since Nov. 22, 1963. President Kennedy kept the nation out of Vietnam and started toward the moon. Imagine what the New Frontier could have become for us today? Certainly would not be a time where "money trumps peace."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:19 PM

14. Yep.

A couple of generations now don't know we once had free or affordable college education, minimum wage you could actually live on, overtime for more than 40 hours work a week, no homeless because the disabled and mentally ill had access to help and so much more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:38 PM

39. K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:20 PM

15. The Day That Shall "ACTUALLY" Live In Infamy...

 




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:21 PM

16. Sung to the tune of American Pie ...

... the day the future died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:23 PM

18. I was three. I still remember how upset I was. My mother had the old B & W tv on, I was watching

when the announcement was made. I remember the horror on everyone's faces.

My father hated the Kennedys with a passion.

I'm so glad I turned out to be a Kennedy loving liberal!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:29 PM

21. I wasn't alive then.

Seems to me these fond memories are at least partially the result of rose colored glasses from what understanding I do have of American history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:57 PM

45. I don't want to piss in people's nostalgia Cheerios unduly, but JFK and RFK continued to

 

try to assassinate Castro, even after the catastrophe of the Bay of Pigs.

And, speaking of assassinations, there is that tiny little matter of the freres Diem of Vietnam, the senior of whom was deposed in a U.S.-sponsored coup and then extra-judicially executed some three weeks before that fateful November day in Dallas.

I've often wondered whether one of these two men might have had motive to retaliate. I think the word for it is 'blowback.' (In Diem's case, he would have learned of American desires to see him deposed from his brother's intelligence networks. Those American efforts had been going on throughout the summer of 1963.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 05:00 PM

84. People do forget that.

 

They also forget that Kennedy would be considered a Cold War Hawk by today's standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wella (Reply #84)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:09 PM

97. JFK entered office as a 'Cold War hawk' (he even ran to Nixon's

 

right in 1960 with all the B.S. about a 'missile gap' to the U.S.' disadvantage). But I believe he grew and grew mightily once in office. Having the spooks and war pigs lie to him about Cuban popular support for the overthrow of Castro helped to take the scales off his eyes. And then, having to do secret back-channel negotiations with Khrushchev during the Missile Crisis because those same spooks and war pigs wanted to trigger World War III by attacking Cuba 'per-emptively' probably helped move JFK's evolution along even further.

Had he turned into a Beatnik? No. Did he show signs of moving towards enlightenment? Hell to the yes.

We shall never know what 1964 and a second term might have brought, more's the pity. And that's part of what makes it all so fucking sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:23 PM

98. That is a misconception repeated over the years.

Eisenhower was president when Dulles hired the Mafia to kill Castro -- 1960. If things had gone according to plan, Nixon would've been president during the Bay of Pigs and would've sent in the Marines, along with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, making Allen Dulles and Meyer Lansky and all their rich and corrupt friends very, very happy.



AUG 1960: Richard Bissell meets with Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, and discusses with him ways to eliminate or assassinate Fidel Castro. Edwards proposes that the job be done by assassins hand-picked by the American underworld, specifically syndicate interests who have been driven out of their Havana gambling casinos by the Castro regime. Bissell gives Edwards the go-ahead to proceed. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursues a series of plots to poison or shot Castro. The CIA’s own internal report on these efforts states that these plots "were viewed by at least some of the participants as being merely one aspect of the over-all active effort to overthrow the regime that culminated in the Bay of Pigs." (CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3, 14)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/chron.html



Details on the actual sit-down:



Ever wonder about the sanity of America's leaders? Take a close look at perhaps the most bizarre plot in U.S. intelligence history

By Bryan Smith
Chicago Magazine
November 2007
(page 4 of 6)

EXCERPT...

By September 1960, the project was proceeding apace. Roselli would report directly to Maheu. The first step was a meeting in New York. There, at the Plaza Hotel, Maheu introduced Roselli to O'Connell. The agent wanted to cover up the participation of the CIA, so he pretended to be a man named Jim Olds who represented a group of wealthy industrialists eager to get rid of Castro so they could get back in business.

"We may know some people," Roselli said. Several weeks later, they all met at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami. For years, the luxurious facility had served as the unofficial headquarters for Mafioso leaders seeking a base close to their gambling interests in Cuba. Now, it would be the staging area for the assassination plots.

At a meeting in one of the suites, Roselli introduced Maheu to two men: Sam Gold and a man Roselli referred to as Joe, who could serve as a courier to Cuba. By this time, Roselli was on to O'Connell. "I'm not kidding," Roselli told the agent one day. "I know who you work for. But I'm not going to ask you to confirm it."

Roselli may have figured out that he was dealing with the CIA, but neither Maheu nor O'Connell realized the rank of mobsters with whom they were dealing. That changed when Maheu picked up a copy of the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade, which carried an article laying out the FBI's ten most wanted criminals. Leading the list was Sam Giancana, a.k.a. "Mooney," a.k.a. "Momo," a.k.a. "Sam the Cigar," a Chicago godfather who was one of the most feared dons in the country—and the man who called himself Sam Gold. "Joe" was also on the list. His real name, however, was Santos Trafficante—the outfit's Florida and Cuba chieftain.

Maheu alerted O'Connell. "My God, look what we're involved with," Maheu said. O'Connell told his superiors. Questioned later before the 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (later nicknamed the Church Committee after its chairman, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho), O'Connell was asked whether there had ever been any discussion about asking two men on the FBI's most wanted list to carry out a hit on a foreign leader.

"Not with me there wasn't," O'Connell answered.

"And obviously no one said stop—and you went ahead."

"Yes."

"Did it bother you at all?"

"No," O'Connell answered, "it didn't."


CONTINUED...

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2007/How-the-CIA-Enlisted-the-Chicago-Mob-to-Put-a-Hit-on-Castro/index.php?cparticle=4&siarticle=3



Yet, the Mighty Wurlitzer plays the false tune that Kennedy was the guy who wanted Castro dead.



Spies: Ex-CIA Agent In Raleigh Says Castro Knew About JFK Assassination Ahead Of Time

Former CIA agent and author Brian Latell in Raleigh

By The Raleigh Telegram

RALEIGH – A noted former Central Intelligence Agency officer, author, and scholar who is intimately knowledgeable about Cuba and Fidel Castro, says he believes there is evidence that Castro’s government knew about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 ahead of time.

SNIP...

Robert Kennedy, as the Attorney General of the United States, was in charge of the operation, said Latell. Despite the United States’ best efforts, the operation was nonetheless penetrated by Cuban intelligence agents, said Latell.

Latell said there were two serious assassination attempts by the United States against Castro that even used members of the mafia to help, but both of them were obviously unsuccessful.

He also said that there was a plot by the United States to have Castro jabbed with a pen containing a syringe filled with a very effective poison. Latell said that he believes the experienced assassin who worked for Castro who originally agreed to the plan may have been a double agent. After meeting with a personal representative of Robert Kennedy in Paris, the man knew that the plan to assassinate Castro came from the highest levels of the government, including John F. and Robert Kennedy.

The plan was never carried out, as the man later defected to the United States, but with so many double agents working for Castro also pledging allegiance to the CIA, Latell said it was likely that the information got back to Havana that the Kennedy brothers endorsed that plot with the pen.

CONTINUED...

http://raleightelegram.com/201209123311



Which to an amateur detective interested in justice would seem like a lead worth pursuing.

Kennedy ordered a rapproachment with Castro. Others in government worked against him.



The National Security Archive at George Washington University has the story:



Kennedy Sought Dialogue with Cuba

INITIATIVE WITH CASTRO ABORTED BY ASSASSINATION,
DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SHOW

Oval Office Tape Reveals Strategy to hold clandestine Meeting in Havana; Documents record role of ABC News correspondent Lisa Howard as secret intermediary in Rapprochement effort


Washington D.C. - On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the eve of the broadcast of a new documentary film on Kennedy and Castro, the National Security Archive today posted an audio tape of the President and his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, discussing the possibility of a secret meeting in Havana with Castro. The tape, dated only seventeen days before Kennedy was shot in Dallas, records a briefing from Bundy on Castro's invitation to a U.S. official at the United Nations, William Attwood, to come to Havana for secret talks on improving relations with Washington. The tape captures President Kennedy's approval if official U.S. involvement could be plausibly denied.

The possibility of a meeting in Havana evolved from a shift in the President's thinking on the possibility of what declassified White House records called "an accommodation with Castro" in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Proposals from Bundy's office in the spring of 1963 called for pursuing "the sweet approach…enticing Castro over to us," as a potentially more successful policy than CIA covert efforts to overthrow his regime. Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in (the prospect for negotiations)." Castro, too, appeared interested. In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations.

The untold story of the Kennedy-Castro effort to seek an accommodation is the subject of a new documentary film, KENNEDY AND CASTRO: THE SECRET HISTORY, broadcast on the Discovery/Times cable channel on November 25 at 8pm. The documentary film, which focuses on Ms. Howard's role as a secret intermediary in the effort toward dialogue, was based on an article -- "JFK and Castro: The Secret Quest for Accommodation" -- written by Archive Senior Analyst Peter Kornbluh in the magazine, Cigar Aficionado. Kornbluh served as consulting producer and provided key declassified documents that are highlighted in the film. "The documents show that JFK clearly wanted to change the framework of hostile U.S. relations with Cuba," according to Kornbluh. "His assassination, at the very moment this initiative was coming to fruition, leaves a major 'what if' in the ensuing history of the U.S. conflict with Cuba."

CONTINUED with links, resources...




This is a story I don't see mentioned very often online, rarely in print, and never on television. I believe it's a good thing for Democrats to know, as well as all people who are interested in making peace and building a better world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:34 AM

50. JFK's assassination heralded the start of a string of murders of our best and brightest....

There was Before and After.

What you perceive as rose colored glasses are really a mist of tears in the hearts of those of us who were young then, with a young president. He made us believe in the possibilities of our future, from civil rights to outer space to the Peace Corps. He was a human being with human flaws, like the ones murdered after him -- they were not some collection of plaster saints, but men who strove toward a mighty dream and made mistakes along the way. Heroes are not saints.

Like 9-11, the murders of our heroes (JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, and others) were a wound in our national generational psyche. Unlike 9-11, we didn't throw away our Constitutional rights with both hands in the name of some illusory security, but got up and continued the fight for Civil Rights, women's rights, pro-peace, anti-Bush-Cheney, and all the rest, right up until the struggle to get the first African-American elected President.

On this day, we who were young then look back and remember being young, with our hopes and dreams before us and a dashing young president pointing the way, and we grieve for what was lost.

Yet our work is not done and never will be; though at some point we will tire and die, and by the gods your generation is going to have to do the job. Are you up to it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #50)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:46 AM

53. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:39 PM

99. Thank you for such a well thought out response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:45 PM

103. I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:01 PM

96. What Cicero said.

"Not to know what took place before you were born is to remain forever a child."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:32 PM

24. So true! I was 10

and lived in Washington... I will never forget that weekend or the world and world of possibilities at that time.

Over my lifetime, I have collected books, magazines, news clippings, CDs, etc on JFK; and last year was a bonanza as I bought all the memorabilia of the man and the time on the 50th anniversary. I point this out because my grown son (one of those who never knew that era) has asked why I am so fixated on JFK. I have explained to him that those 1,000 days of the JFK presidency represented a special time in history. Everything changed after he was killed... sadly, the warmongers and imperialists won. I also tell him that when my generation passes on, the living history of JFK and that special time will be relegated to dry history texts. And they are not the same...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:40 PM

26. Been thinking about this today, Octafish,

more than other years for some reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:49 PM

29. I turned five earlier that year.

I think I remember coming home from kindergarten and my mother was talking about it.Anybody younger than that is too young to remember. 56 years. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:05 PM

33. The day America jumped the shark.

Nothing has been the same since, and it's been all downhill since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:15 PM

34. Those weren't really great times for minorities and I really don't see it as

 

really that big of a loss. Sure JFK was likable and gave great speeches but actually changed very little. It's sad he got killed like he did but there's nothing stopping us from achieving now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:37 AM

51. Marvellously ignorant statement

"Sure JFK was likable and gave great speeches" -- sounds like a RW talking point about Obama, as I am sure you are aware.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:04 AM

63. No I've read Dallek's book and seen all the documentaries but I'm not impressed by JFK.

 

He didn't seem to care about the poor or expanding government to help people. Kennedy was all about fighting the Cold War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #63)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:11 PM

68. JFK appears to be way overrated

 

He was young and handsome, but you are right about his fighting the Cold War. He contributed to our involvement in Vietnam, and his VP choice made the situation far worse.

He appeared to be another self entitled elitists that declare for themselves the right to tell people on the other side of the world how they should live their lives.

A lot of dreamers have fabricated his life, and also his death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #63)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:31 PM

72. Probably it would help understanding if you had actually been there. The Cold War was not one-sided

I'm sure you at least know that much. The USSR was extremely aggressive -- there's a reason Putin raises my hackles.

JFK instituted the Peace Corps, which was not trivial. Started the space program. Encouraged rigorous exercise in schools (healthy body, healthy mind). Used competition with the USSR as a foil to get our public schools up to snuff, in all subject areas but especially in math and science -- there's good reason why people my age are absolutely stunned at the destruction of our public school system.

JFK had only 3 years in office, less than one term. He had a personality that engaged and inspired, but he had less than one term. Whatever he might have been, might have accomplished, we will never truly know. But his two younger brothers lived long enough to give us some idea, though RFK's life was also cut short in the wave of political assassinations that plagued us.

Being dismissive of what he was able to accomplish in that short time is a pose to cover ignorance of the times he lived in, among other things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #63)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:05 PM

78. And FDR ran as a budget balancer. Smart people learn, grow, and change.

For FDR, I think his own paralysis and the growing hardship of the Depression had a profound effect on his worldview.

For JFK, the death of his newborn son and the fact that with the Cuban Missile Crisis we came close to incinerating millions of innocent children snapped him out of a suicidal Cold War mentality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #78)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:11 PM

79. Maybe you're right but it all comes back to ideology with JFK for me or rather his lack of one.

 

Sure he had peace corps and thought up medicaid but he didn't cut the deals necessary to get it done. That's why when it comes to domestic policy I prefer LBJ who we as a party still treat as a pariah over Vietnam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #79)

Mon Nov 24, 2014, 10:00 AM

105. LBJ had to lie America into War on Vietnam

The Gulf of Tonkin "incident" led to the introduction of combat troops a few weeks later, something JFK said he would never do -- send draftees in to fight another nation's civil war.

John M. Newman, in ''JFK and Vietnam,'' documented and chronicles the story. The Pentagon and CIA gave LBJ, as veep, a more accurate picture of what was happening in Vietnam than they provided JFK, as president.

Why? JFK said he would not get into a land war in Southeast Asia and he certainly was not going to place US draftees in the middle of Vietnam's civil war; Johnson did.



Vietnam Withdrawal Plans

The 1990s saw the gaps in the declassified record on Vietnam filled in—with spring 1963 plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. An initial 1000 man pullout (of the approximately 17,000 stationed in Vietnam at that time) was initiated in October 1963, though it was diluted and rendered meaningless in the aftermath of Kennedy's death. The longer-range plans called for complete withdrawal of U. S. forces and a "Vietnamization" of the war, scheduled to happen largely after the 1964 elections.

The debate over whether withdrawal plans were underway in 1963 is now settled. What remains contentious is the "what if" scenario. What would Kennedy have done if he lived, given the worsening situation in Vietnam after the coup which resulted in the assassination of Vietnamese President Diem?

At the core of the debate is this question: Did President Kennedy really believe the rosy picture of the war effort being conveyed by his military advisors. Or was he onto the game, and instead couching his withdrawal plans in the language of optimism being fed to the White House?

The landmark book JFK and Vietnam asserted the latter, that Kennedy knew he was being deceived and played a deception game of his own, using the military's own rosy analysis as a justification for withdrawal. Newman's analysis, with its dark implications regarding JFK's murder, has been attacked from both mainstream sources and even those on the left. No less than Noam Chomsky devoted an entire book to disputing the thesis.

But declassifications since Newman's 1992 book have only served to buttress the thesis that the Vietnam withdrawal, kept under wraps to avoid a pre-election attack from the right, was Kennedy's plan regardless of the war's success. New releases have also brought into focus the chilling visions of the militarists of that era—four Presidents were advised to use nuclear weapons in Indochina. A recent book by David Kaiser, American Tragedy, shows a military hell bent on war in Asia.

CONTINUED with very important IMFO links:

http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm



Funny in a police state sort of way how little of this gets mentioned in Corporate McPravda or LACKademia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #105)

Mon Nov 24, 2014, 11:06 AM

107. Once JFK allowed the Vietnamese military to kill Ngo and his brother we owned Vietnam.

 

There was no stable government after that and the situation only got worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #107)

Mon Nov 24, 2014, 11:53 AM

108. Except JFK did not order assassination, despite what E Howard Hunt and CIA want us to believe.

On his deathbed, E Howard Hunt blamed LBJ and called himself a "benchwarmer," on-call only if needed. What Hunt did not bring up:

While working for President Nixon, Hunt worked to blame the assassination of South Vietnamese president Diem on Kennedy by planting phony State Department cables in a White House safe when Nixon was president.



Hunt was a professional disinformationist.

Here may be what Hunt and CIA don't want brought up:

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam



A bit of history from the last weeks of President Kennedy's life,
courtesy of The Education Forum by DUer John Simkin :



'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam


Richard Starnes
The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.

Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.

In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.

This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy.

It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.

Others Critical, Too

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.

("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)

CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."

Few Know CIA Strength

Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks.

Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines.

A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it.

"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, " one official - presumably a non-spook - said.

"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.

Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.

The Nhu-Richardson relationship is a subject of lively speculation. The CIA continues to pay the special forces which conducted brutal raids on Buddhist temples last Aug. 21, altho in fairness it should be pointed out that the CIA is paying these goons for the war against communist guerillas, not Buddhist bonzes (priests).

Hand Over Millions

Nevertheless, on the first of every month, the CIA dutifully hands over a quarter million American dollars to pay these special forces.

Whatever else it buys, it doesn't buy any solid information on what the special forces are up to. The Aug. 21 raids caught top U.S. officials here and in Washington flat-footed.

Nhu ordered the special forces to crush the Buddhist priests, but the CIA wasn't let in on the secret. (Some CIA button men now say they warned their superiors what was coming up, but in any event the warning of harsh repression was never passed to top officials here or in Washington.)

Consequently, Washington reacted unsurely to the crisis. Top officials here and at home were outraged at the news the CIA was paying the temple raiders, but the CIA continued the payments.

It may not be a direct subsidy for a religious war against the country's Buddhist majority, but it comes close to that.

And for every State Department aide here who will tell you, "Dammit, the CIA is supposed to gather information, not make policy, but policy-making is what they're doing here," there are military officers who scream over the way the spooks dabble in military operations.

A Typical Example

For example, highly trained trail watchers are an important part of the effort to end Viet Cong infiltration from across the Laos and Cambodia borders. But if the trailer watchers spot incoming Viet Congs, they report it to the CIA in Saigon, and in the fullness of time, the spooks may tell the military.

One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer.

Unquestionably Mr. McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor both got an earful from people who are beginning to fear the CIA is becoming a Third Force co-equal with President Diem's regime and the U.S. Government - and answerable to neither.

There is naturally the highest interest here as to whether Mr. McNamara will persuade Mr. Kennedy something ought to be done about it.

SOURCE:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7534&mode=threaded



ADDENDUM from Education Forum writer:



“The most important consequence of the Cold War remains the least discussed. How and why American democracy died lies beyond the scope of this introductory essay. It is enough to note that the CIA revolt against the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy – the single event which did more than any other to hasten its end – was, quite contrary to over forty years of censorship and deceit, both publicly anticipated and publicly opposed.

No American journalist worked more bravely to thwart the anticipated revolt than Scripps-Howard’s Richard Starnes. His ‘reward’ was effectively to become a non-person, not just in the work of mainstream fellow-journalists and historians, but also that of nominally oppositional Kennedy assassination writers. It could have been worse: John J. McCone, Director of Central Intelligence, sought his instant dismissal; while others within the agency doubtless had more drastic punishment in mind, almost certainly of the kind meted out to CBS’ George Polk fifteen years earlier.

This time, shrewder agency minds prevailed. Senator Dodd was given a speech to read by the CIA denouncing Starnes in everything but name. William F. Buckley, Jr., suddenly occupied an adjacent column. In short, Starnes was allowed to live, even as his Scripps-Howard career was put under overt and intense CIA scrutiny - and quietly, systematically, withered on the Mockingbird vine.”

From “Light on a Dry Shadow,” the preface to ‘Arrogant’ CIA: The Selected Scripps-Howard Journalism of Richard T. Starnes, 1960-1965 (provisionally scheduled for self-publication in November 2006).

As far as I am aware, the remarkable example (above) of what Claud Cockburn called “preventative journalism” has never appeared in its entirety anywhere on the internet. Instead, readers have had to make do with the next-day riposte of the NYT’s Arthur Krock. The latter, it should be noted, was a veteran CIA-mouthpiece and messenger boy.

Dick Starnes was 85 on July 4, 2006. He remains, in bucolic retirement, a wonderfully fluent and witty writer; and as good a friend as any Englishman could wish for.

I dedicate the despatch’s web debut to Judy Mann, in affectionate remembrance.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7534



Kennedy's approach to the problems of Vietnam and southeast Asia was very different from Eisenhower, as well as from Johnson and Nixon. His successors had no problem pulling the trigger, bringing in the ground troups to fight, and getting the nation into a war without knowing how or when to get out. Sounds familiar.



Galbraith and Vietnam

by RICHARD PARKER
The Nation, March 14, 2005 issue

In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.

But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics.

Early that November, just as Taylor and his team arrived back in Washington, Galbraith arrived from New Delhi for the state visit of Prime Minister Nehru. Hoping to gain a quick upper hand over Taylor and his mission, he arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. Ten days earlier, Galbraith, in one of his back-channel messages, had shared with Kennedy his growing concerns about Vietnam. From India, he'd played a role in defusing the Laos situation that spring, but over the summer, the Berlin crisis had sent a sharp chill through relations with the Soviets, with the risks of nuclear confrontation for a time all too real. About this, Galbraith now told the President:

Although at times I have been rather troubled by Berlin, I have always had the feeling that it would be worked out. I have continued to worry far, far more about South Viet Nam. This is more complex, far less controllable, far more varied in the factors involved, far more susceptible to misunderstanding. And to make matters worse, I have no real confidence in the sophistication and political judgment of our people there.

This was advice Kennedy was hearing from no one else in his Administration, but clearly welcomed.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050314/parker



So, to prevent war...



Papers reveal JFK efforts on Vietnam

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
Boston Globe June 6, 2005

EXCERPT...

Records show that McNamara and the military brass quickly criticized the proposal. An April 14 Pentagon memo to Kennedy said that ''a reversal of US policy could have disastrous effects, not only upon our relationship with South Vietnam, but with the rest of our Asian and other allies as well."

Nevertheless, Kennedy later told Harriman to instruct Galbraith to pursue the channel through M. J. Desai, then India's foreign secretary. At the time, the United States had only 1,500 military advisers in South Vietnam.

''The president wants to have instructions sent to Ambassador Galbraith to talk to Desai telling him that if Hanoi takes steps to reduce guerrilla activity , we would correspond accordingly," Harriman states in an April 17, 1962, memo to his staff. ''If they stop the guerrilla activity entirely, we would withdraw to a normal basis."

A draft cable dated the same day instructed Galbraith to use Desai as a ''channel discreetly communicating to responsible leaders North Vietnamese regime . . . the president's position as he indicated it."

But a week later, Harriman met with Kennedy and apparently persuaded him to delay, according to other documents, and the overture was never revived.

CONTINUED...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/06/papers_reveal_jfk_efforts_on_vietnam/



Which didn't stop some circles from trying to kindle a conflagration...



From The Secret History of the CIA by Joseph Trento:

EXCERPT…

Who changed the coup into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest accompanying them? To this day, nothing has been found in government archives tying the killings to either John or Robert Kennedy. So how did the tools and talents developed by Bill Harvey for ZR/RIFLE and Operation MONGOOSE get exported to Vietnam? Kennedy immediately ordered (William R.) Corson to find out what had happened and who was responsible. The answer he came up with: “On instructions from Averell Harriman…. The orders that ended in the deaths of Diem and his brother originated with Harriman and were carried out by Henry Cabot Lodge’s own military assistant.”

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

At the heart of the murders was the sudden and strange recall of Saigon Station Chief Jocko Richardson and his replacement by a no-name team barely known to history. The key member was a Special Operations Army officer, John Michael Dunn, who took his orders, not from the normal CIA hierarchy but from Harriman and Forrestal.

According to Corson, “John Michael Dunn was known to be in touch with the coup plotters,” although Dunn’s role has never been made public. Corson believes that Richardson was removed so that Dunn, assigned to Ambassador Lodtge for “special operations,” could act without hindrance.

SOURCE:

“The Secret History of the CIA.” Joseph Trento. 2001, Prima Publishing. pp. 334-335.



And, as you wrote, craigmatic, there was no stable government after that in Vietnam. The place was ripe for looting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:20 PM

37. What is a "Kennedy Democrat"?

I've heard people claim to be a Kennedy Democrat. And this week I read Jon Stewart describe Bill O'Reilly as one. Can't figure it out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:37 AM

52. That makes no sense whatsoever applied to O'Reilly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #52)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:09 AM

56. Jon Stewart said O'Reilly seemed ALMOST a Kennedy Democrat in comparison to RW extremists

I was confused, too, so I looked it up:

Stewart and Hannity have traded barbs before, and Stewart often targets Fox News in his "Daily Show" segments. But while Stewart had harsh words for Hannity, he showed fellow Fox News host Bill O’Reilly some love.

“It’s more sexual tension than anything else,” Stewart said of his relationship with O’Reilly. “I think he’s a great broadcaster. I think he understands his audience, though I think it’s sometimes to the detriment of his audience.”

He continued, “I think he comes by his views honestly. I can’t say I find him to be disingenuous. I just think that, in general, the right has moved so far out in that direction" that O’Reilly "appears to be almost a Kennedy Democrat by this point.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/11/jon-stewart-sean-hannity-trade-barbs-198607.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #56)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:14 AM

57. In other words, a humorous exaggeration by a satirist for comic effect. Makes more sense that way.

Thanks for digging that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #56)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:29 AM

59. Different source

It's excerpted from an interview in Rolling Stone that I read here:

"But not all Fox News commentators are equal in Stewart’s eyes.  He considers O’Reilly to be more like a “Kennedy Democrat” who comes by his views honestly.  Not so with Hannity, whom Stewart describes as “probably the most loathsome dude over there.” He describes Hannity as espousing “pure cynicism”: “Everything is presented in as devious a manner as it could possibly be presented.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/18/fox_news_misleads_about_jon_stewart_sean_hannity_bill_oreilly_and_the_insane_new_partisanship/

I still don't know what a "Kennedy Democrat" is. And I don't like thinking BOR is one regardless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #37)

Tue Nov 25, 2014, 05:40 PM

109. A Democrat who stands for: Justice. Freedom. Equality. Peace. Prosperity.

You know, Democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #109)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:42 AM

115. I think it's some kind of conservative Democrat

Maybe a blue dog?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:39 PM

40. It was Christmas day for American fascism

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #40)

Tue Nov 25, 2014, 05:45 PM

110. It really has been every warmongers' dream come true ever since.

JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

As a Democrat, a DUer and as a citizen of the United States, I was proud to attend the 2013 Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy at Duquesne University. One of the many important things discussed there was what author, historian and teacher, James DiEugenio reported on the important change in foreign policy JFK represented from his predecessor and his successors, immediate and otherwise.



DiEugenio said President John F. Kennedy did not undergo a change of heart from Cold War hawk to liberal dove Democrat only after the hair-raising nuclear crises he experienced in office. "John F. Kennedy was never a Cold Warrior," DiEugenio said. Throughout his 16-year career in the House and Senate, President Kennedy sided with the People, Justice and Democracy -- across the United States and around the world. This is a world view radically different from Eisenhower, and his foreign policy makers, principally the Dulles Brothers and their allies, including young Dick Nixon.

The JFK Administration may have represented a break in the action, H20 Man's Father explained to him and I agree. It was a special interlude, indeed. In only 1,037 days, we launched the nation toward the moon, creating a new type of economy; maintained the peace when several times the heads of the military and the secret organs of the national security state counseled all-out war; and started the nation on a path where all men are equal under the law, no matter race, color, or creed, and justice extended to economics and health, as under FDR and the New Deal.

DiEugenio’s research shows President Kennedy was working to defend the interests of democracy over those of colonialism, not only in Europe, as evinced in divided Berlin, but in Africa, Asia, South America and around the world. During less than three years in office, Kennedy turned official U.S. support from that of Eisenhower and the Dulles Brothers for supporting US commercial and colonial interests over democracy, such as in Guatemala and Iran, to respect for the nations and their democratically elected leaders, like Lumumba and Sukarno. In matters of war and peace, JFK always sided with peace, making overtures to North Vietnam. The Dulles Brothers and Nixon sided with France and the colonial powers, even drawing up plans to nuke the North Vietnamese Army at Dien Bien Phu, Operation VULTURE.

The record shows JFK's Foreign Policy of democracy over colonialism was immediately reversed by Lyndon B. Johnson, who reversed course in Vietnam and supported the pro-colonialist forces in Congo, Vietnam, Brazil, Dominican Republic and elsewhere around the world. Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and most who followed continued the Business-As-Usual, advancing the interests of Big Money, Big Oil and Big Wars for Profit.

One of the things I am most proud of is how Democratic Underground covered many of these salient points on its boards, from DU1 through the present day. At the Duquesne conference, I was listening and nodding, knowing that many times we had discussed this on DU. In looking back to one particularly important post through GOOGLE, I found we sourced this information back to DiEugenio. That's what the Internet can do: Spread Truth.

Why it matters.

Democracy depends on Truth. The Republic depends on Justice. That is, the reality that ours is a nation under law.

Once a criminal is, or criminals are, allowed to go free, Justice has been denied. We find ourselves operating under a falsehood, we are living a Big Lie.

We as a Nation have been on the criminal path since November 22, 1963.

DUers know you don’t need to read a history book or watch a tee vee special to know: It shows. Since 1964 and the Gulf of Tonkin, it’s been a series of wars without end for profit. And in the process, the rich became super-rich -- the richest and most powerful people in history.

Keep spreading the Truth, nikto! The next 51 years can be different -- they can be decades of peace and prosperity for ALL: They can be Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:45 PM

44. I was ten then. It was a good time for my family.

We had just moved to California a few years earlier. We lived in a modest but nice house, my parents were good parents and much was right within my world.

But I also remember the Viet Nam war brewing. I remember parents that beat their children and men that beat their wives without it being challenged. I remember the KKK was far more prominent. I remember black people couldn't buy houses in certain neighborhoods and couldn't hold certain jobs. I remember women could only hold certain jobs and choose a few certain career paths. I could go on, but in short, there were good and bad things then, as there are now. They were just different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:45 AM

60. Not long after Kennedy's "Camelot" came and went

We changed in a HUGE way. Vietnam, followed by Civil Rights, followed closely by Women's Lib.

What I recall affecting me personally was Mary Tyler Moore showing up to work in a pants suit. It was a watershed moment. "Mary Richards" was a perfect blend of traditional and liberated. I kinda idolized her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:50 AM

54. "Pierre Salinger" "Pierre who? Who is that?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 07:09 AM

61. It has been downhill since that awful day. n//t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:06 AM

64. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:10 PM

70. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:41 PM

73. "You will remember this birthday,

and everyone thereafter". That is what my Grandma said to me on my 15th Birthday. Very, very true, 50+ years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:27 PM

76. My Mom was a teacher at the time

She said they made the announcement and everyone was just shocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:28 PM

88. Since that day in November 63

this country/empire has been on a steady decline culturally, socially, racially, economically(for most citizens), culminating, so far, with the vote of Nov 4, 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:28 PM

89. I remember.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:39 PM

92. Yes I remember

On that day I was in Escondido California. A woman crying and screaming ran up to me and thru her arms around me. I will always remember her words. They have killed the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:42 PM

100. It was a hell of a time to be a white male, that's for damn sure.

The good ol' days!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #100)

Mon Nov 24, 2014, 07:59 AM

104. Sure was. Hear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. describe what JFK did during the 1960 campaign...

Rare recording of MLK talking about JFK

(CNN) -- A previously unheard recording of Martin Luther King Jr. discussing John F. Kennedy will be played Monday in the place where the civil rights leader was assassinated.

King's comments are on a 53-year-old reel-to-reel tape discovered in a Tennessee attic several years ago. But the last several minutes are only now being made public.

The civil rights leader is heard discussing Kennedy's role in securing his release from a Georgia prison after he was sentenced to four months of hard labor for a traffic violation two weeks before the election that sent Kennedy to the White House.

Then-Sen. Kennedy placed a call to Coretta Scott King against the advice of close advisers, expressing his concern to King's wife. His brother, Robert Kennedy also called the Georgia judge who had sentenced King to the chain gang and denied him bond. King was freed the next day.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/us/mlk-kennedy-recording/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:19 PM

102. Try to imagine

If there had been Twitter and FB that day. Imagine the theories that would have spread in minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Mon Nov 24, 2014, 10:46 AM

106. For a time capsule of the transition from the idealism of the late 1950s to

the vocal and visible activism of the 1960s I love the documentary "Berkeley in the 1960s" (1990). In the first 20 minutes it shows how the chest thumping anti-communist zeal of the 1950s created the idealism of the 1960s. It is as if all the talk of living in the greatest and freest country on earth made kids believe that it SHOULD BE.

A generation grew up believing in possibilities and believing that the freedoms of the Constitution are there for all and must be used or they will be squandered. Their disillusionment fueled the rage of the 1960s as they demanded that we should live up to our ideals. Recommended viewing for those who are interested:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread