Kennedy's Legacy

terlin wrote:I have seen a lot of debate on various blogs and forums where people are debating whether or not Kennedy was actually a good President, actually trying to bring us out of the darkness of the Cold War.

Americans have a propensity for self-awareness and little notice of how others view our realm. To most Americans, Kennedy's death was a very personal loss and they have little notion how he could have had much effect beyond our shores. He had not, after all, spent all that much time overseas while in office.

The impact JFK had on the world was noticeable more to me - and others like me, philatelists all - by the number of countries around the world who issued stamps in memory of Kennedy. Almost every country outside the iron curtain (and even some within those bounds) issued stamps and held a time of mourning for the fallen President.

Why should these other countries even care?

Perhaps they saw a guiding light to lead the world from the grips of the Cold War, someone who saw opportunity where everyone else saw obstacles.

"Ich bin ein Berliner" was accepted by most of the world believing that Kennedy was one of them no matter where they were, Berlin or not. The vision he had of the future seemed to ignite people everywhere.

And when the light was extinguished there was wailing, moaning, gnashing of teeth, renting of clothing, darkness and desolation, from Ireland to South Africa.

Today I see so many people invested in the case that lie outside the United States. Some wonder why "those foreigners" bother themselves with something that is a purely American affair.

Those people cannot see the obvious.

And probably never will.

Faroe Islander wrote:Kennedy´s book, Profiles in Courage I think is what he was trying to live.

greg parker wrote:Well put, Mr T,

I had an aunt who was one of countless many "little peeps" around the world who wrote to Jacqui expressing their sympathy and own personal sadness. She was astounded that she actually received a reply.

Another reason for the rest of the world to be interested is because of the consequences of losing that beacon of light. It is said here, quite justifiably, that when the US sneezes, we catch a cold.

capone81 wrote:One thing that annoyed me about much of the mainstream media coverage of the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination was the bashing of Kennedy's Presidency. Lots of commentators like Gerald Posner were given time to air the view that Kennedy is overrated because he died tragically. 

Around the same time, there has been a mainstream media revival of sorts on the legacy of Lyndon Johnson. Don't get me wrong, Johnson was an effective President and deserves major kudos for his Civil rights and anti-Poverty agenda. Yet, I don't think he can be forgiven for the Vietnam war and his probable role in the coverup of Kennedy's assassination. 

Like most great leaders, Johnson was a complex man with both good and bad character traits.

gerrrycam wrote:JFK IS universal I'm an expat Canadian living in Thailand. JFK has been my hero for over 54 years. HIS death by hands of darkest kind of politics is a world changing event bring on US endless war

terlin wrote:Anyway, seeing the state we are in at present, I do not foresee another John Kennedy blessing us anytime soon.

terlin wrote:Apparently, it has become fashionable to assassinate the character of JFK, first with the alleged sexual misconduct and now saddling him with the Viet Nam War.

Terlin, this has been going on since the Church committee started down the path of finding out who was really in charge of the country in 1975.  Character assassination is what Jim D has called the "Posthumous Assassination" of JFK in his two-part article by that name.  It is amazing how practically all this crap, including the "respected" Sy Hersh, traces back to the Agency in one way or another.


Having grown up in Texas, my family knew a lot of dirt about LBJ and were surprised he got to be VP and were appalled when JFK died because that made the old SOB the man in charge. As for the Civil Rights legislation, that was Kennedy's. The anti-poverty was prompted by Martin Luther King. The Beautification of America was Lady Bird's. I think all LBJ gave us was Viet Nam.

I agree with this.  LBJ was certainly no crusader for African Americans or the poor before 1964.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:LBJ drops the N word:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms

terlin wrote:

Hasan Yusuf wrote:LBJ drops the N word:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms

Yes, I would believe it and probably a lot more than just this once. I grew up in Texas at that time and it was the "common" word used to describe African-Americans. Most people probably didn't think twice about it or wonder if the word was demeaning.

I seriously doubt he would be using the word if he was around today unless, of course, he was closeted with like-minded friends.

James DiEugenio wrote:Having done  a lot of  work on this issue I have come to the conclusion that this whole issue--who really was JFK?--is part of the MSM cover up just as much as who really killed Kennedy, and who was Lee Oswald?

Those three questions are so intertwined as to be inseparable as far as solving this case.

And in fact, the cover up books about who JFK really was were almost as prevalent at the 50th as were the cover up books about the assassination:  e.g. Dallek, Sabato, Knoll, Greenfield.

See, this concealment about who Kennedy was began in the mid 70's as a result of the Church Committee.  But also because the first wave of books on JFK were not as rigorous and scholarly as they should have been.  THey were essentially expanded memoirs by people like Salinger, Powers and O'Donnell, Sorenson and Schlesinger.  THerefore they could be dismissed as hagiography.

It was not until much later, with work done by authors like Mahoney, Newman, Gibson, Blight, Goldstein, and more recently, Muelenbeck and Rakove, that one really begins to understand who Kennedy was and what he was trying to do.  To say it was anything but a reversal of what came before is not to understand what was happening and why he was killed.

In my talk in Pittsburgh and my article at Consortium, I tried to show just how much was on the  table for the power elite if Kennedy had lived and been re-elected and RFK had followed him.  It is no exaggeration that when one considers what Kennedy was doing in Congo, Indonesia and Vietnam, just for starters, you are talking not billions, but I would say about 2 trillion was on the table. And I am being conservative.  The Katanga area of Congo, which the killers of Lumumba wanted to split from the country, and which JFK resisted all the way, was remarkably rich in minerals.

I mean look at it this way, when it was all over in Congo,the colonialists won, over the dead bodies of:

Lumumba
Hammarskjold
Kennedy

Who were all murdered. And in fact, Lesar told me after my talk, that he saw documents which said the CIA had sent Otto Skorzeny into Katanga to join with England and Netherlands to split the region off.

Same with West Irian in Indonesia which was even richer than Katanga. Once Kennedy was killed, the CIA and LBJ went to work on overthrowing the nationalist Sukarno, and replacing him with a Western stooge, in this case Suharto. So that the wealth of West Irian would go to the Western powers and not the people of Indonesia, which would have been the case if Sukarno had lived.  Today, just look at how big Freeprot McMoran is.

This is why I think its a huge mistake for us to  only talk about Cuba and Vietnam.  Kennedy's foreign policy was so revolutionary, subtle, and far reaching that it affected almost every area of the globe.  And i have not even talked about the Middle East yet.

I am convinced now that this was the reason for his murder.  That is the kind of money these people kill for without batting an eyelash.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/11/25/jfks-embrace-of-third-world-nationalists/

James DiEugenio wrote:This is why I think its a huge mistake for us to only talk about Cuba and Vietnam. Kennedy's foreign policy was so revolutionary, subtle, and far reaching that it affected almost every area of the globe. And i have not even talked about the Middle East yet.

Albert Rossi wrote:I've long held the position Jim voices here that you cannot separate out the assassination from who Kennedy was (politically).  I'm very thankful for the lucidity Jim has brought to the question of his foreign policy, which has for too long been mired in a lot of false assumptions and false emphases, if not outright falsehoods.  In fact, I am one of those who have said Jim really ought to write a longer work on the subject.

I used to say:  tell me your politics and I'll tell you who you think killed JFK.  That was perhaps a bit ingenuous on my part, and my recent experience among the researchers has shown me that you cannot always draw lines like this.  But I still think it does hold to some degree.

It is one of the reasons I am constantly of two minds when it comes to people who say they don't believe in "large" conspiracies.  Remember, Robert Blakey said the same thing to his staff:  "you've got to get your conspiracy smaller."  Usually, what they mean is not "large", but something else: a conspiracy which places in question the foundations of our economic power structure.

Now it is completely reasonable to be skeptical.  It is completely reasonable to be exigent when it comes to proof.  I of course avow the necessity of seeing the big picture, but to paraphrase Aby Warburg, God really is in the details.  Nevertheless, it has been my experience that those who don't like the idea of a high-level conspiracy more often than not cannot countenance the idea that American institutions could be something fundamentally other than what they claim to be.  They are much happier with the JFK assassination being an historical aberration, a few renegades who got out of hand.  That way, one can "repair" the status quo and question nothing.  Or believe that "Congress should be more vigilant" or some such.

Of course, I am one voice, and the jury is still out on this.  And if we ever come to plenitude on this case, my own bias could certainly be proven wrong.