The awful spectacle of Camelot propaganda – which would have people believe that the white knight John Kennedy fought the forces of darkness – continues unabated. It’s awful because it makes a hero out of a terrorist. But self-modified (into believers in violence, deceit and inequality) rulers and agents of the Corporatocracy have no problem with that sort of thing. Neither do those in Hollywood/tv land who tend to make the very worst terrorists into heroes, regularly. From Darth Vader, who slaughtered children and defended a death star that could destroy whole inhabited planets in a single go, to The Master in Doctor Who, who, after committing terrorists acts galaxy-wide, with glee, one day says it’s time to side with the good Doctor because it’s the right thing to do. It makes for good drama and the audience loves it, but – The lesson? The right thing to do? How about: PAY FOR YOUR CRIMES!
Look at the current propaganda operation involving terrorists masquerading as heroic first responders in Syria! Deep State ally, Netflix, made a propaganda documentary about those first responders, called the White Helmets, that ended up getting an Oscar award for best short documentary. Then they decided to up their game and nominate the White Helmets for a Nobel Peace Prize! (I and others long ago decided that the Nobel Peace Prize itself is tainted beyond redemption. But it still dazzles the uncritical public.) The White Helmets didn’t win their peace prize, but the US-led Corporatocracy wasn’t about to confess to the public that they didn’t get it because there was too much pushback from what Vanessa Beeley referred to as the ‘truth to power complex’. As Beeley pointed out (in the video below), Whenever agents of the Corporatocracy tweeted some pro White Helmets crap, that would be followed by a flood of tweets – activists, regular people who are just paying attention – from those who know better.
“…the Nobel Peace Prize remains just a prize. But a most prestigious one it is, enjoying a celebrated status in its anointment of already notable personages.” – Michael Parenti
“The White Helmets were established in March 2013, in Istanbul, Turkey, and is headed by James Le Mesurier, a British “security” specialist and ‘ex’ British military intelligence officer with an impressive track record in some of the most dubious NATO intervention theatres including Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. Le Mesurier is a product of Britain’s elite Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, and has also been placed in a series of high-profile pasts [posts?] at the United Nations, European Union, and U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.” – Vanessa Beeley
Indeed, They decided to compensate the White Helmets for their Nobel Peace Prize loss! The fact of the matter is, the White Helmets are already getting lots of money from the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK AID and USAID and assorted European states. Is the Nobel Peace prize loss consolation money meant to disguise the moneys the White Helmets are already getting? Perhaps Boris Johnson et al figure that they can distract people from that fact and kill questions about why so much money is being funneled to the White Helmets – who should be subject to sanctions if they are Syrian and serving Syria! We can fool ourselves into thinking (or not thinking) a certain way that doesn’t get to the crux of the matter, if we wish. But for a fact, The police state depends on a dull public that is not intellectually, nor morally, up to the task of pushing back when their government strays, and so far, the people (everywhere) haven’t disappointed – in great enough numbers. (The ‘truth to power’ complex can only accomplish so much, it seems.) That’s partly why the police state’s reps keep shovelling out crap. They’ve seen that it produces results.
“While the lore of the White Helmets holds that the impetus behind the creation of Syrian Civil Defense came from the actions of Syrian civilian volunteers who responded to neighbors in need following attacks by the Syrian air force, pulling bodies from the rubble and rushing victims to the hospital, the organizational underpinnings of the White Helmets can be sourced to a March 2013 meeting in Istanbul between a retired British military officer, James Le Mesurier—who had experience in the murky world of private security companies and the shadowy confluence between national security and intelligence operations and international organizations—and representatives of the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Qatari Red Crescent Society. Earlier that month, the SNC was given Syria’s seat in the Arab League at a meeting of the league held in Qatar.
“At that meeting, the SNC assumed Syria’s seat, and the Arab League authorized member states to actively provide support, including arms and ammunition, to the Syrian rebels. The Qataris, working through the SNC, helped assemble for Le Mesurier $300,000 in seed money from Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom for a seven-day course designed to train and equip a 25-person rescue team, recruited by the SNC, for duty in so-called “liberated areas” of Syria. The SNC made available a pair of Syrian activists—Raed Saleh and Farouq Habib—to assist Le Mesurier in this work.
“With the help of the SNC, Le Mesurier reached out to the Turkish volunteer search and rescue agency AKUD to help design and deliver the training to the SNC volunteers. The success of this effort caught the attention of both the United States and the United Kingdom, and in 2014 Le Mesurier created his own company, May Day Rescue, using millions of dollars in aid from USAID and the United Kingdom’s Conflict Security and Stability Fund, to expand the role played by the White Helmets inside Syria. Since then, more than 3,000 “vetted” Syrians have received specialized training at May Day Rescue facilities inside Turkey and Jordan and have been organized into more than 120 teams located throughout rebel-held Syria—including areas under the exclusive control of Al Nusra Front and Islamic State.” – Scott Ritter
As Beeley and others note, We need to look carefully at where those funds go. One of the best articles giving an us an overall look at this Deep State-created NGO, meant to sell the idea of regime change in Syria, is by Patrick Henningsen, who oversees 21st Century Wire. It’s titled “An Oscar for a Propaganda Flick.” (I linked to the Consortium News version because I have a hard time with the 21st Century Wire website on my Toshiba Satellite, with windows 7. I figure that there might be others with similar problems. My newer Dell, on windows 10, seems to deal with the website okay.) They wanted to give a Nobel Peace Prize to the Middle East terrorists called the White Helmets, but too much bad press surrounding those fiends was happening so they just gave them a lesser award instead. If only sexy, handsome (like tool JFK) and Council On Foreign Relations member George Clooney had gotten busy on his White Helmets movie sooner, perhaps that would have helped here.
“The Nobel Peace Prize for War” by Michael Parenti
from the above linked-to article:
In October 2012, in all apparent seriousness, the Norwegian Nobel Committee (appointed by the Norwegian Parliament) bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize upon the European Union (EU). Let me say that again: the European Union with its 28 member states and 500 million inhabitants was awarded for having “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy, and human rights in Europe.” (Norway itself is not a member of the EU. The Norwegians had the good sense to vote against joining.)
Alfred Nobel’s will (1895) explicitly states that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The EU is not a person and has not worked for the abolition or reduction of standing armies or promotion of any kind of peace agenda. If the EU award looked a bit awkward, the BBC and other mainstream news media came to the rescue, referring to the “six decades of peace” and “sixty years without war” that the EU supposedly has achieved. The following day, somebody at the BBC did the numbers and started proclaiming that the EU had brought “seventy years of peace on the European continent.” What could these wise pundits possibly be thinking? Originally called the European Economic Community and formed in 1958, the European Union was established under its current name in 1993, about twenty years ago.
The Nobel Committee, the EU recipients, and the western media all overlooked the 1999 full-scale air war launched on the European continent against Yugoslavia, a socialist democracy that for the most part had offered a good life to people of various Slavic nationalities—as many of them still testify today.
The EU did not oppose that aggression. In fact, a number of EU member states, including Germany and France, joined in the 1999 war on European soil led largely by the United States. For 78 days, U.S. and other NATO forces bombed Yugoslavian factories, utilities, power stations, rail systems, bridges, hotels, apartment buildings, schools and hospitals, killing thousands of civilians, all in the name of a humanitarian rescue operation, all fueled by unsubstantiated stories of Serbian “genocide.” All this warfare took place on European soil.
“Nobel Hypocrisy” by Stephen Lendman
from the above linked-to article:
Since it was established in 1901, the Peace Prize was awarded to 95 individuals and 20 organizations. Some recipients were worthy like Martin Luther King, Jane Addams and Albert Schweitzer but too many were not including this year’s honoree. Al Gore joins a long list of past “ignoble” recipients like warrior presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and supporter of rogue regimes Jimmy Carter. He’s also among the likes of genocidists Henry Kissinger and three former Israeli prime ministers – Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin – along with former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who never met a US-led war he didn’t love and support. So much for promoting peace and what this award is supposed to signify. More on this below.
Almost anyone can be nominated for the prize and look who were but didn’t get it – Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin and more recently George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Rush Limbaugh laughably. In contrast, one of the most notable symbols of non-violence in the 20th century, Mahatma Gandhi, was nominated four times but never won. More recently, anti-war activist Kathy Kelly, co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness, now known as Voices for Creative Nonviolence, got three nominations but was passed over each time for less deserving candidates. Her “reward” instead was to be sentenced in 2004 to three months in federal prison for crossing the line into Fort Benning, Georgia in protest against the School of the Americas, now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation that’s commonly called “the school of assassins.”
Edward Curtin’s article is nothing more than another Camelot pusher’s effort to heap praise on the vile Kennedys and be patted on the back for it, which he will be because the police state supports those who support it and because a majority are infected with (have bought) Camelot propaganda. (I visited Curtin’s website and commented on his article, lambasting him for failing to be a decent public intellectual and had my comment disappeared afterward, without explanation. As you wish Edward. I’m not sure Curtin is a victim of Camelot propaganda. I’d call him a pusher of Camelot propganda. Maybe people like him just need to be in on something big.) Joseph Kennedy and his sons John and Robert, and Patricia Kennedy (who married Peter Lawford and became “a chartered member of the clique” who associated with Sam Giancana) were all gangsters. And since Bobby was a knowing and willing accessory to his brother’s awful criminal behavior, we must include him in our category of Camelot propaganda. The effort to fool people into thinking that John F. Kennedy was a hero is also an effort to fool people into thinking that Robert Kennedy was a hero.
It’s worth mentioning – and needs to be mentioned, clearly – Noam Chomsky’s description of the US’s ‘defeat’ in Vietnam. (Keep in mind that while JFK was the second of five presidents who dealt with the active war against Vietnam, it was JFK, specifically, who introduced a qualitative increase in the American presence in Vietnam, which Hersh describes as ‘expanding the rules’. Under Kennedy, Black Ops, terrorism and chemical warfare would be unleased in Vietnam.) The book I’m quoting from below is the 2003 edition, but it was published in 1982. From pages 27 – 29 of “Towards A New Cold War,” we get the following:
Reporting on a visit to Vietnam, Ngo Vinh Long (see note 43) writes that in one central province, 7 million antipersonnel bombs and M-79 grenades had to be dislodged in order to reclaim the fields. In another, a million unexploded bombs and grenades remain in the ground and more than three thousand people have been killed since 1975. A third is largely “denuded by the bombing and shelling.” Destruction of trees and vegetation have led to flooding and scorching winds that blow sand into rice paddies. “Much of the land in central Vietnam had been destroyed by chemical defoliants, bombs and salt water which invaded the paddyfields after American forces destroyed the sea dikes and widened many rivers to accommodate their gunboats.”
In the Plain of Jars in Laos, where a completely defenseless peasant society was subjected to one of the most devastating attacks in the history of warfare, the land is littered with unexploded ordnance. The United States has refused to provide the technology to remove it. The U.S. government has even denied information to Mennonite representatives who have sought ways to help peasants who must clear the land by hand, with many casualties.
There is ample reporting on mass starvation that Vietnam is facing, but the fact that the United States made a certain contribution to this tragedy is often conveniently overlooked. For example, Business Week reports the “prospect of famine” in Vietnam, and the accompanying renewal of “the ‘boat people’ exodus,” but the report has no word to suggest that the United States has ever had any involvement in Indochina, past or present.
In fact, the involvement is present as well as past. Since the war’s end, the United States has done what it could to ensure that its partial victory would endure. “There is a great deal of evidence,” Martin Woollacott writes, “that the foot-dragging policy of the United States on diplomatic relations and on aid, whether or not it was tagged with the humiliating label of reparations, helped close off the Yugoslavia option for Vietnam.” That is quite correct. A World Bank Official observes that “since 1977, the US has constantly refused to make any accommodation with Vietnam, forcing it further and further into the Soviet camp.” This is a typical procedure when some area is “lost” to the Free World; compare the case of China, Cuba, and now Nicaragua. It is a procedure that may be reversed (as in the case of China) if it is recognized that “rollback” is not in the cards. For the time being, however, the United States is committed to maximizing hardship and suffering in Vietnam. It has exerted effective pressure on the World Bank to withhold development aid, and the Reagan Administration “has launched a vigorous, behind-the-scenes campaign at UN headquarters to cut UN humanitarian and development aid to Vietnam.” The present moment is particularly opportune because of the starvation conditions in Vietnam and the fact that “refugees recently leaving Vietnam are reported to be citing economic reasons far more than any other for their flight from the hard-pressed South-east Asian nation.” Thus, cutting food aid has a double benefit: increasing misery, and increasing the refugee flow, so that Western humanitarians can then deplore the barbarian savagery of the Vietnamese leadership as illustrated by the tragic fate of the boat people. The United States and the European Economic Community have refused to respond to a UNICEF appeal for milk and food for the Vietnamese emergency. The U.S. government also initially rejected an appeal from the Mennonite Central Committee to allow it to ship wheat to Vietnam, where, the committee’s executive secretary for Asia points out, “drought in late 1979 and early 1980 was followed by typhoons and floods that caused heavy destruction to the rice crop in northern and central Vietnam.” At the same time, “prospects for loans from the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank are very bleak, since many donor countries, especially the US and Japan [which benefited substantially from the U.S. war as an offshore procurement base], are opposed to any assistance to Vietnam…
In fact, the goal of U.S. policy is clear enough. Not content with a partial victory of the sort just described, the United States wants to ensure the maximum possible suffering in countries that have been so ignoble as to resist American aggression, in the hope that sooner or later “Vietnam will crack,” and the partial victory can be extended to a total one. Perhaps analogues can be found in the gloomy history of great-power cynicism, but offhand none come to mind. Again, it is notworthy that protest is next to nonexistent, providing further insights into “Western humanism” and the real significance of the wringing of hands over human rights violations committed by official enemies.”
“Overall, it’s not so much the content; it’s the image of very attractive people. Hollywood, above all, knows that image trumps fact. Political consultants know that, too. You can get away with quite a lot if you’re personable, attractive, and charismatic.” – Tom Hayden (from Ed Rampell’s article titled “How the Oscars, and Michelle Obama, Saluted the CIA”. Incredibly, Hayden was infected with Camelot propaganda. It’s powerful stuff.)
I know nothing about the girl in the polka dot dress in Edward Curtin’s article, and I know virtually nothing about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination. If I was to look into it, I wouldn’t want a writer like Curtin to be my guide. He makes unsupported assertions and quotes others who (to go by Curtin’s reportage) make unsupported assertions. For example, he quotes Vince Salandria, who asserts that “President Kennedy was assassinated by our national-security state…” Without slam dunk evidence, that should be “President Kennedy was probably assassinated by our national-security state.” Authors who make assertions like that – providing no context that could point to their conclusions – are engaging in sloppy work. That is to say, no context is provided, by Curtin, for the statement made by Vince Salandria asserting that the national security (police) state killed President Kennedy. (Perhaps Vince Salandria ‘does’ provide it. In that case, Curtin needs to pass it, or some of it, on here.) One could easily run through the actual historical record (which, yes, would damage some narratives), providing ample reasons why a conspiracy involving the American “national-security state” would be entered into that would involve a plan to assassinate JFK. Sure, the same conspirators who might want to murder JFK would therefore also want to assassinate his brother, who was a willing surrogate for the murderous JFK.
I say “easily.” JFK betrayed everyone; from his wife, to those in America looking to him for 1. principled leadership and 2. security, (1: some secret service members, like Larry Newman, assigned to protect the president; 2: security jeopardized by a president who sleeps with the East Germany [Communist] leader’s employee Ellen Rometsch), to John McCone who JFK ignored (and later betrayed) when McCone warned him about nukes entering Cuba, to ExComm members kept in the dark about Kennedy’s assassination efforts, to the Cuban exiles who he literally sacrificed for political reasons, to his lovers who he no doubt gave (not harmless) venereal disease to, to Dr Cheddi Jagan (first native born prime minister of British Guiana), to JFK’s friend Ngo Dinh Diem, to those everywhere (including Brazil and the rest of South America) looking to Kennedy to make a (actual) positive difference and to American voters who were never told big truths that they deserved to know (and which would have caused them to view Kennedy less as a saint, to say the least). The deal that Sam Giancana made with Joe Kennedy was he would have Fidel Castro killed and the US government would leave his criminal organization alone. As far as I can tell, the vicious, macho RFK didn’t leave Giancana’s organization alone. I think that may be because he wanted to scare the scary Giancana in order to covey the message that he and his brother were the scariest and not to be trifled with. Anyway, Curtin’s statements are incautious, which I guess he can get away with because he has lots of moral support. As long as he helps propagate Camelot propaganda – and the crowd pushing Camelot propaganda is bigger than the one trying to counter it – then the errors and crap presentation will be ignored.
I don’t know anything about the story about the woman in the polka dot dress, so I can’t say too much about it, but I notice some things (aside from assertions by Curtin and some of those who he quotes about ‘knowing’ who killed Kennedy) about Curtin’s story that are off. (Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, so I do not take the position that if there’s no smoking gun, then we should dismiss everything.) Curtin, and others, are saying that the girl in the polka dot dress is meant to be a diversion. We are supposed to be endlessly diverted into discovering who she is etc.. But he also informs us that the police had no interest in following up with their own investigation of the girl in the polka dot dress or with assistance for those doing their investigation of that woman. Okay. Is that more of the conspiracy? If so, this is a high level of sophistication. This is very complex. It would mean that the efforts by authorities to have us believe that there is nothing to see here are actually meant to convince us that there is (which makes it hard to argue that there isn’t a conspiracy). Then we just keep falling deeper into that rabbit hole. – I’m not saying that this point that Curtin is making about the woman in the polka dot dress isn’t good. I’m just making observations about it. And it’s beside the point.
But the biggest problem for Curtin are his blinders about what the Kennedys were all about. He simply ignores historical facts or colors them falsely; and he has so much moral support for that. Perhaps that is more important to him than facts. As Noam Chomsky convincingly, and authoritatively – and that’s authoritatively, not as in ‘special’ but as in providing evidence and arguing, from known facts, the sources for which one is prepared to reveal – lays out in his book about Camelot propaganda, titled “Rethinking Camelot,” There was no major policy change seen between JFK’s administration and successor Lyndon Johnson’s. (Where is it all you Camelot pushers?) JFK may have realized that Vietnam was a disaster (and a major crime, but neither he nor other politicians, then or now, go there) and felt that America had to quit the war, but there is zero evidence that he wanted that ‘without’ military victory. Therefore, He wasn’t assassinated because of that. You aren’t going to be assassinated for a non existant reason. Which fact cripples narratives of authors, like Fernando Faura, who Curtin relies on. Bobby Kennedy was every bit as hawkish as his brother. If Bobby Kennedy had become President, he certainly would not have considered ever withdrawing from Vietnam without military victory (however defined). And he certainly would not have done it solely because it was the right thing to do. If the ‘right thing to do’ happened to also be the thing that could benefit Bobby personally (or him and his brother, when JFK was alive), then it might get done. That’s just the real, historical Robert Kennedy, whether Curtin et al like it or not.
Curtin writes something incidentally about Israelis oppressing Palestinians that tells us something about Edward Curtin. He asks: “Was it simply fortuitous that Sirhan’s Palestinian Arabic origins were emphasized and that his lawyers, who in no way defended him, suggested that he was mad at RFK for supporting the sending of planes to Israel and the oppression of the Palestinians by Israel?” Perhaps Curtin, who knows this about RFK, simply thinks barbarism is decency. (Sirhan Sirhan was the man who went to jail for killing Robert Kennedy.)
Incidentally, Another example of JFK’s awful character can be seen in the fact, as laid out by Seymour Hersh, that although JFK apparently wanted the troops out of Vietnam, and although Diem even gave him a way to do that (that he could take to the public), JFK felt that the timing wasn’t right. The ‘terror bombing’ (John Pilger) had to continue at least until JFK had his re-election in ‘64 behind him. He didn’t want to give the Republicans any ammunition in the campainging underway. Kennedy didn’t want them telling voters that he was weak on anti-communism. He didn’t want to be seen as a weak president, cutting and running because the going is rough. But his evident interest in pulling out the troops did not include the thought of leaving without military victory or some sort of victory.
How did JFK’s admin define military victory? It depended upon the operation. In the case of Vietnam, evidently military victory would be achieved when the country was rendered broken and not capable of being repaired for a long time.
In fact, as Chomsky makes clear, that victory in Vietnam was achieved if you consider the actual goal. The goal was simply to turn Vietnam into a basket case, a ruined country for decades to come and one that could not possibly serve as an example of successful communist development – because, as we know, democracy is all about the freedom to choose. If Chomsky’s narrative is a bit wobbly (JFK wanted, but never achieved, withdrawal ‘with’ military victory OR The goal, achieved, was the destruction of communist Vietnam), still it can’t be said that he didn’t marshal tons of evidence, present sufficient facts and so forth. And that’s what writers like Edward Curtin need to do.
JFK had no hesitation about sacrificing people – any people – for his own personal gain. And he did so. As for the Cuban missile crisis; Yes, he made a deal with Khrushchev that forestalled nuclear war. But he shouldn’t get credit for defusing a crisis that he was responsible for creating, which is the case. As Seymour Hersh noted, in his book “The Dark Side Of Camelot,” the Soviets and the Cubans knew about JFK’s efforts to have Castro assassinated and they knew about plans JFK had, carried over from Dwight D. Eisenhower, to invade Cuba. But the American public didn’t know about JFK’s criminal assassination program, for JFK didn’t dare tell them. That would have put the missile crisis in a whole new light. It would have appeared, as in fact was the case, that Khrushchev was acting to defend the people’s revolution in Cuba against imperialists and gangsters who wanted to return Cuba to its former status as a de facto colony of the United States, where US-based corporations could pillage at will and the mob could have its operations.
“The American aggression played a role in Nikita Khrushchev’s decision to move nuclear missiles and launchers into Cuba, triggering the missile crisis of October 1962.” – page 293 of “The Dark Side Of Camelot”
The US never cared about the Cuban people, as Howard Zinn reminds us in his book “A People’s History Of The United States, 1492-2001.” from pages 311 & 312:
The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States “the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty…” It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points.
The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans – and Cubans – to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal. A mass meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League at Fanueil Hall in Boston denounced it, ex-governor George Boutwell saying: “In disregard of our pledge of freedom and sovereignty to Cuba we are imposing on that Island conditions of colonial vassalage.”
In Havana, a torchlight procession of fifteen thousand Cubans marched on the Constitutional Convention, urging them to reject the Amendment. But General Leonard Wood, head of the occupation forces, assured McKinley: “The people of Cuba lend themselves readily to all sorts of demonstrations and parades, and little significance should be attached to them.”…
General Leonard Wood wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: “There is, of course, little or no independence left in Cuba under the Platt Amendment.”
The Bay of Pigs was not a happy moment for the murderous young president. His mob associates, liased with through CIA agent Robert Maheu, were supposed to assassinate Fidel Castro on or before the day the invasion force landed, as Maheu told Hersh. That invasion force was made up of Cuban exiles who had been training under Jake Esterline in Guatemala. (Esterline was not at all happy with the unprincipled use of the mob, but had no channel through which to whistleblow.) Castro’s assassination was supposed to encourage the Cuban people to rise up and help the invaders to overthrow the now leaderless regime, but the mob failed and the Cuban people were solidly behind their regime, which was solidly behind them. They would have been solidly behind their regime with or without Castro.
At the same time, there was communication via back channels between JFK and Khrushchev that eventually led to a determination by those leaders to have a summit. JFK was now less enthusiastic about the Cuban exiles’ mission, partly due to the failure of the mob and partly due to the optics that would result if he pressed ahead with the invasion, after making public statements about never attacking Cuba. “…friends in the agency, the press, and elsewhere” (Hersh) tried to warn Kennedy that his secret (American planned and organized) invasion plans were not secret, but he was just too arrogant and puffed up to listen. He figured that the mob, which helped him win election in 1960, would again come through for him. And those, like Allen Dulles, around him who were similarly willfully blind helped reinforce Kennedy’s foolishness. Kennedy thought, also, that the American public, and the world, would actually believe he had nothing to do with the invasion by Cuban exiles. So, until he had reasons to not want the invasion, in earnest, he did want it. And the plan went ahead. Then disaster struck on April 17, partly because of the actions (that even Robert Maheu believed JFK was criminally resposible for!) of JFK in failing to fully back up the now landed Cuban exiles.
JFK was now more interested in securing his first major foreign policy win, with the Soviets, which he felt might have been less likely if Khrushchev had been able to throw up in JFK’s face his public proclamation about leaving Cuba alone and his actions belying that proclamation. “…Kennedy, fearful that his administration would become even more closely linked to the invasion, refused to let the second bombing take place…” (Hersh, page 209) So there would be no actions, beyond those already taken, belying that claim. JFK’s faded interest in taking Cuba and his increased interest in the possibilities that a summit with Khrushchev presented proved fatal to the so easily sacrificed Cuban exiles. Of the 1,400 who landed on the beach, 114 were killed and about 1,200 were captured. “As Kennedy had to know, his decision amounted to a death sentence for the Cuban exiles fighting on the ground. But he and Nikita Khrushchev had just agreed, after weeks of secret back-and-forth, to an early June summit meeting in Europe.” (Hersh, page 212) What would have happened if JFK, setting aside his personal ambitions, had sent in a second bombing sortie to back up the landed exiles, as was the plan? We’ll never know. (The first sortie of 8 B-26 bombers, sent two days previous to the exile brigade’s landing at the Bay of Pigs, were no match for the Cuban airforce.) Did Kennedy give a thought to the abandonment of the Cuban exiles who were doing his bidding? Sure he did. That thought came to be called the “disposal problem.”
“Kennedy… Schlesinger noted… was also concerned – as was Dulles – about the “disposal problem” if the operation was called off before it began and the Cuban exiles went back, unbloodied, to Florida, where they would surely tell their story of frustration and disappointment to every journalist they could find. Schlesinger quoted Kennedy as saying of the Cuban exile brigade, “If we have to get rid of these… men, it is much better to dump them in Cuba than in the United States, especially if that is where they want to go.”” (Hersh, page 210) (Right, Jack; The Cuban exiles who can’t beat Fidel if you abandon them want to be in Cuba where pro regime Cubans will welcome them with open arms, garlands and marching bands.) Hersh notes that JFK’s cancellation of the second bombing sortie was a political, not a military, decision. JFK was concerned about how not acting, even if it meant acting and failing, would look to Americans once the Republicans spun it a certain way. He could have called off the invasion altogether and saved lives. But that would have gravely jeopardized his political plans.
Robert Kennedy was not only JFK’s younger brother, but he was his greatest fan and most trustworthy aide. And he was JFK’s totally willing and able partner in crime. He was, as Hersh notes, JFK’s surrogate, prodding the CIA to get on with business (including it’s assassination efforts). And he was JFK’s protector, “making sure that the FBI and other federal police agencies were unable to derail the assassination operations.”
And just as JFK was willing to sacrifice anyone for his own personal gain, and pleasure, so too Robert Kennedy was willing to sacrifice anyone for his and his brother’s own personal gain. One episode in connection with the Bay of Pigs fiasco illustrates Bobby Kennedy’s perfidy nicely.
Seymour Hersh tells the story of the four Alabama Air National Guard pilots who had been training Cuban exiles in Nicaragua. They wanted to be heroes and so, upon hearing about JFK’s cancellation of the second air sortie, they took off without authorization and went bombing in Cuba on their own, inflicting heavy damage to Cuban forces before being downed by them. When the Kennedys found out about it sometime on April 19, they were most concerned about the potential for that to demonstrate, contrary to US government’s claims, that the US was causing trouble in Cuba. Richard Bissell, who was in charge of Kennedy’s ‘get Castro’ planning, was summoned to the White House where he had a meeting with John and Robert Kennedy. Robert was vicious, while his brother sat back and watched the show. He got in Bissell’s face and, according to Bissell (32 years later!), said “Those American pilots had better be goddamned well dead… Bobby’s only concern was the image of his brother and what the pilots could do if they were captured.” Then Bobby Kennedy told Bissell that the CIA had better keep the families of the pilots (whose fate was at this time unkown) quiet, which is why getting the widows of the pilots pensions was extremely difficult. It took a threat from a big Kennedy donor named Oscar Wyatt, who one of the pilots wives knew, to take the whole thing to the media to get Bobby Kennedy to come through with (not full) pensions for the families of the pilots.
You know, Edward, even TIME, which is wholeheartedly behind the ongoing Camelot operation, has the good sense to dish a little dirt on JFK. Wrote Camelot pusher, David Von Drehle, in his TIME Special Edition on JFK (chapter five):
Kennedy’s reputation glows despite revelations of the extreme recklessness with which he conducted his personal life. His sexual conquests as president ranged from a teenage intern to the wife of a friend and associate. He was both exhibitionist and voyeur during afternoon orgies in the White House swimming pool. Secret Service agents tried in vain to keep track of the stream of unknown women, including some prostitutes, who were ushered past the guards to meet with the president. In one notorious case, Kennedy shared a mistress with Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana – both men were introduced to Judith Campbell Exner by their mutual friend Frank Sinatra. Giancana had been recruited at the time to help the CIA kill Castro. When FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, a man despised by the Kennedys, uncovered the unseemly triangle, he paid a call on the president to warn him of the danger of blackmail…
Kennedy’s licentious behavior deeply wounded his young wife, Jacqueline, whose beauty and poise were essential to his calculatingly misleading image as head of America’s most glamorous family…
Too many people now know enough about white knight JFK that any stories about him that covered it all up would cause frowns. But there are limits. Mentioning JFK’s sexual conquests is one thing – and probably something that makes women swoon and gives men ideas. But mentioning that he had venereal disease and that there is no reason to suppose that he didn’t pass it on to his victims is, evidently, taboo (except for some, like Noam Chomsky and Seymour Hersh). That might be counterproductive.
Ironically, as Seymour Hersh reports, Hedley Donovan, a onetime editor of Time Inc., dared to challenge the group think on Saint Kennedy, albeit timorously, in a memoir written in 1987. See page 209 of “The Dark Side Of Camelot.” But TIME, with its reissue of a special Camelot edition (with no information, other than “DISPLAY UNTIL 8/11/17 on the front cover, within it to tell readers about its provenance), including a fawning article (“His Finest Speech”) by destroyer Jeffrey Sachs, has not failed the Corporatocracy. Sachs is something else.
He’s pleased as punch at the evident success of the US progaganda system in making its citizens dull. He quotes JFK: “No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity.” In that same speech, JFK so kindly referred to the Soviet Union as an “implacable foe,” even though, during the Vietnam war there were only Americans, and their Korean and Chinese mercenaries, in Vietnam. And elsewhere Kennedy railed against what he called “a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy,” referring to Communism. Whatever Jeffrey. I wouldn’t expect you to share with TIME’s readers William Blum’s Master List of countries that the US has attempted to do regime change in or succeeded in carrying out regime change.
Its 2017. A lot more of us know about the facts surrounding JFK’s fake missile gap with the Soviets and other things. And he states, about the arms build up, which the US is far and away in the lead among all nations building up their armies and weapons inventory, “They are squandering their wealth in an arms race.” This is for the gullible public, because Jeffrey’s friends in the Pentagon and defence contractor sections of the deep state, who have more pull than individual presidents who they allow to wear a crown, want the profits that come from making weapons to be used in wars of aggression in order to steal countries for their resources and so that the US can dominate and its 1% can own the world.
Here is a section of Sach’s article. His article consists of paragraphs of Kennedy’s 1963 Peace Speech interspersed with comments by Sachs. Here’s a section; I will italicize Kennedy’s words:
=== === =
Kennedy’s rhetoric soared with empathy and insight, in what to my mind are the most eloquent and important words of the speech, and perhaps of his presidency:
So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.
Kennedy called for a resumption of disarmament talks, implicity returning to the timetable he had proposed at the U.N. General Assembly in 1961:
Our primary long-range interest… is general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.
Kennedy concluded the Peace Speech with two important announcements. The first was that Khrushchev, Kennedy and British prime minister Harold Macmillan, the leaders of the three nuclear powers, had agreed to talks to try to complete a test ban treaty. The second was that the U.S. would not conduct nuclear tests as long as other states did not do so. Both announcements were interrupted by vigorous applause. The listeners recognized that something new and important was getting underway…
= === ===
“Pushing for the test ban was not all politics for Kennedy. He had a carefully conceived strategic agenda reaching all the way back to his days in the Senate: he was convinced that a test ban treaty would freeze the huge American advantage over the Soviet Union in weapons research and deployment… What Kennedy knew in 1963, and Nikita Khrushchev did not, was the extent to which the Pentagon’s nuclear scientists were prepared to continue their work underground. The test ban treaty would not slow the arms race.” – page 385 of “The Dark Side Of Camelot” by Seymour Hersh
In a very different venue from that where he gave his Peace Speech (at American University in Washington D.C.) , later, namely in Senate hearings, the test ban “was described to Senators hostile to arms control not as a victory against the arms race but as a victory in it.” – Hersh
“The profit-seeking imperative of capitalism was the basis for U.S. foreign policy’s emphasis on sweeping away nationalist impediments to a global economic order of favorable climates for U.S. trade and investment. Capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands of a tiny minority of bankers, investors and high level corporate executives, which uses its wealth and control of important economic assets to obtrude its policy preferences on the state. This is not to suggest that a cabal of rich capitalists secretly meets to dictate policy prescriptions to the U.S. government. Intead, the business community takes advantage of a multitude of mechanisms to ensure its policy preferences prevail in competition with other groups…
“Another reason foreign policy guided by the sectional interests of corporate America is less likely to be publicly opposed is because, in order to mobilize popular support for their foreign policies, U.S. leaders have veiled the aggressive pursuit of private economic interests abroad behind the myth that the United States is inherently virtuous and is a force for good around the world and therefore is pursuing disinterested goals. Accordingly, the exploitative nature of U.S. foreign policy, and its connection to the sectional interests of wealthy investors and top-level corporate executives, is largely hidden from the U.S. public.” – Stephen Gowans, from pages 16-19 of “Washington’s Long War On Syria”
“Activists like myself are often scoffed at for saying the same old things to the same old people… preaching to the choir… The choir needs to be frequently reminded and enlightened.
“As cynical as many Americans may think the members of the choir are, the choir is frequently not cynical enough about the power elite’s motivations. No matter how many times they’re lied to, they still often underestimate the government’s capacity for deceit, clinging to the belief that their elected leaders somehow mean well. As long as people believe that their elected leaders are well intentioned, the leaders can, and do, get away with murder. Literally. This belief is the most significant of the myths the present book deals with.” – William Blum, from pages 12 & 13 of “America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy – The Truth About US Foreign Policy And Everything Else”
“The role of the technical intelligentsia in decision-making is pre-dominant in those parts of the economy that are “in the service of the war technique” (or such substitutes as the space race) and that are closely linked to government, which underwrites their security and growth. It is little wonder, then, that the technical intelligentsia is, typically, committed to what Barrington Moore calls “the predatory solution of token reform at home and counterrevolutionary imperialism abroad.” Elsewhere, Moore offers the following summary of the “predominant voice of America at home and abroad” – and ideology that expresses the needs of the American socioeconomic elites, that is propounded with various gradations of subtlety by many American intellectuals, and that gains substantial adherence on the part of the majority that has obtained “some share in the affluent society”:
You may protest in words as much as you like. There is but one condition attached to the freedom we would very much like to encourage: your protests may be as loud as possible as long as they remain ineffective. Though we regret your sufferings very much and would like to do something about them – indeed we have studied them very carefully and have already spoken to your rulers and immediate superiors about these matters – any attempt by you to remove your oppressors by force is a threat to civilised society and the democratic process. Such threats we cannot and shall not tolerate. As you resort to force, we will, if need be, wipe you from the face of the earth by the measured response that rains down fire from the skies.
“A society in which this is the predominant voice can be maintained only through some form of national mobilization, which may range in its extent from, at the minimum, a commitment of substantial resources to a credible threat of force or violence. Give the realities of international politics, this commitment can be maintained in the United States only by a form of national psychosis of the sort given voice, for example, by the present secretary of defense, who sees us “locked in a real war, joined in mortal combat on the battlefield, each contender maneuvering for advantage” – a war against an enemy who appears in many guises: Kremlin bureaucrat, Asian peasant, Latin American student, and, no doubt, “urban guerilla” at home. Far saner voices can be hear expressing a perception that is not totally dissimilar. Perhaps success can be attained in the national endeavor announced by this predominant voice.
In Moore’s informed judgment, the system “has considerable flexibility and room for maneuver, including strategic retreat.” In any event, this much is farily sure. Success can be achieved only at the cost of severe demoralization, which will make life as meaningless for those who share in the affluent society as it is hopeless for the peasant in Guatemala. Perhaps “war is the health of the state” – but only in the sense in which an economy is “healthy” when a rising GDP includes the cost of napalm and missiles and riot-control devices, jails and detention camps, placing a man on the moon, and so on.” – Noam Chomsky, chapter one of “Masters Of Mankind – Essays And Lectures, 1969-2013”
Paul Street’s article titled “The “New JFK”: Nothing Great To Be” looks at the way the Corporatocracy and its agents, like Jeffrey Sachs, use good looking and talking presidents to sell its elite-serving system of oppression.
Explaining why his hero Barack Obama was not invited to a liberal rally honoring the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington last August 24th (four days before the exact anniversary date of August 28th), leading black Democratic Party activist and MSNBC talk show host Rev. Al Sharpton explained that Obama is “the new John F. Kennedy (JFK), not the new [Dr. Martin Luther] King.”…
Let’s take a look back at the real and original President Kennedy. It is an apt moment for such a retrospective, as liberal Kennedy worship and nostalgia spikes anew with the coming 50-year anniversary of JFK’s assassination in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 2013.
The major problem with Sharpton’s comparison is his instinctive liberal assumption that it’s a good thing to be “the new John F. Kennedy.”
“The role played by twentieth-century Presidents,” political scientist Bruce Mirroff noted 37 years ago, “has been characteristically conservative. ‘Liberal’ as well as ‘conservative’ Presidents… have bent their strongest efforts, not to alter, but to preserve America’s dominant institutions. Whatever their professed sympathies, their actions have served, not to redistribute wealth and power, but to perpetuate existing inequalities… [serving as] central figures in the maintenance of established [hierarchical] socioeconomic arrangements.”
As Miroff demonstrated in his forgotten classic Pragmatic Illusions: The Presidential Politics of John F. Kennedy (1976), the liberal icon JFK was no exception to the rule. He lined up consistently on the conservative, that is, power-friendly side of each of what Dr. King called “the triple evils that are interrelated”: racism (deeply and institutionally understood), economic exploitation (capitalism), and U.S. militarism…
There is nothing new about the Obama-Kennedy analogy, of course. The black Seattle-based Left poet and activist [Michael Hureaux] sensed the dark side of the Kennedy-Obama analogy from the start. The Obama candidacy, Hureaux noted nearly a year before the Obama White House ascendency, was about “restor[ing] faith in the imperial project” by putting an eloquent black leader at its nominal head, to function as a “JFK in sepia.”…
Last Spring, the eminent left historian Perry Anderson noted of Obama that “Once invested with the authority of office, looks and aplomb have generated a celebrity ruler — colour relaying style to yield a JFK for a multi-cultural age, attracting much the same kind of engouement in the local intelligentsia and its counterparts abroad… Attempts by enthusiasts to talk of the [Obama] administration’s achievement as a second New Deal miss the comparator. Its egalitarian sheen belongs with the callisthenic gauze of the New Frontier.”
David Von Drehle (who put together the TIME special on JFK), Jeffrey Sachs, Barack Obama, JFK, corporate owned media editors and journalists, and bloggers like Edward Curtin, have willingly and knowingly allowed themselves to be stamped with the slave’s mark of the wild beast of Corporatocracy. It’s a free universe, but not one free of consequences.