I have to disagree with my faithful friend who doubts the release of thousands of JFK records in October 2017 will much affect popular understanding of the assassination of President Kennedy.
My friend is older and wiser than me in at least two ways. He knows the details of the JFK story better than I do and he has lived the JFK assassination story longer than I have. So perhaps I am over-optimistic but I sense possibilities for the decisive clarification of the JFK story in the next two years. The deadline and disclosures of October 25, 2017 should help.
Here’s why. If we think historically, we can see that dramatic changes in popular thinking can occur with the convergence of three factors: new perspectives, new technology, and new information.
In the JFK story of 2016 all three are present.
A Washington Affair
Consider the story of President Thomas Jefferson’s long running affairs with Sally Hemings, an African-American woman whom he owned. If you had asked a panel of Washington experts in 1963 whether this story was true, they would have replied with a unanimous and resounding “No.”
The very notion was absurd, they would have said, an insult to a great man. The professors and the senior editors would have dismissed the story of a Jefferson-Hemings liaison as as an unfounded malicious rumor spread by political partisans, outright racists and undereducated colored people.
Then came a new perspective. With the rise of the civil rights movement, the oral history of the Hemings family was treated with new respect. The Hemings descendents had always said that Tom and Sally had children, and the Hemings were descended from both. People, white and black, began to realize their story might be just as valid as the self-serving myths of the Jefferson family.
Then came new technology. The emergence of genetic testing and DNA science in the 1970s provided a new means of testing whether Sally Hemings bore Tom Jefferson’s children. DNA from Jefferson and Hemings descendents were compared. There was a 99.9 percent chance that the Hemings were descended from a male Jefferson.
Then came new information. Jefferson’s meticulous notebooks were consulted again. They revealed little about his relationship with Hemings. But they did show that he lived in physical proximity to Hemings nine months before the birth of each of their children. No other male Jefferson was close to Hemings each time she became pregnant.
Now most everyone agrees that Jefferson and Hemings had a relationship. People argue about whether it was rape, romance, mutual exploitation or something else. In any case, the expert’s conclusion of 1963 has been rendered defunct and forgotten. It has been superseded by a new popular understanding.
The Future of JFK
On the JFK assassination story, we can see similar factors at work
We have new perspectives, born of broad social change.
The revelations of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden exposed the reality of a pervasiveness and powerful of mass surveillance national security state. The secrecy surrounding JFK’s assassination is not seen as a cover-up of treachery or incompetence. It is seen more as a manifestation of reality.
We have a new technology, the Internet. For a long time the U.S. government controlled the public narrative of November 22, 1963 by controlling access to the historical record. The JFK Records Act of 1992 ended the government’s monopoly on the facts. Now thanks to Oliver Curme and the Mary Ferrell Foundation, anyone anywhere who wants to know the JFK story can learn the facts in their own home. The Internet makes it possible for onlline civil society to analyze the evidence in new ways that the national security agencies and the mainstream media organizations did not.
And, come October 2017, we will have new information. The files identified by Politico and WhoWhatWhy that are due for online release twenty months from now might [emphasis on the conditional] have a catalytic effect.
The Road to 2017
The problem is that the CIA is well aware of this possibility and thus can be expected, for reasons of institutional self-protection defined as “national security” to block full disclosure.
So, in October 2017 we may not get a decisive answer to the question, “Who Killed JFK?” But we will get a definitive answer to a more contemporary (and perhaps important) question: “Will the CIA obey the law when it comes to JFK?
If the CIA does not practice full disclosure in October 2017 we will know that the CIA’s answer is “No,.” that the CIA’s current leadership does not intended to conform to the will of people as expressed by Congress and the law when it comes to transparency about ancient files related to the the murder of a sitting president. That will be revealing, though hardly surprising.
But if the CIA can be persuaded–or shamed or obliged or otherwise convinced– to practice full disclosure in October 2017, I say there is a chance that the new information will lead to decisive clarification.
The key is full disclosure. Only full disclosure will dispel the suspicion, presumably unfounded, that the CIA’s current leadership is concealing malfeasance in the wrongful death of the 35th president.
/
If Jefferson, Sally Hemmings, and JFK could comment what would they say on this thread?
Jefferson and Sally would advise you do as JFK actually did, go to the premier of the film SPARTACUS, written by the Black Listed screen writer Dalton Trumbo; crossing picket line of jingos screeching out the antimony of America defending itself from “the horrors” of Free Speech.
And then writing a rave review of the film and it’s hero portrayed by Kirk Douglas, who also produced the film and had the foresight and courage to hire the best screen writer in the business despite the hysteria of red baiting sweeping the nation at the time. A time not so different from our time today, where the boogieman of the “Islamic Terrorist” has replaced the boogieman of the “International Communist” as the enemy du jour.
\\][//
“The story thus far………”~Mark A. O’Blazney
Color me baffled.
\\][//
Willy,
Mark probably knows more than the rest of us, combined. He is a grandson named in the obituary of this woman.:
Jim Garrison appealed to his uncle, then president of NBC news, for equal time to address Sheridan’s “White Paper” broadcast. He was also Leo Damore’s researcher. I think Mark is just letting us know he
is reading the comments here.
Well then Tom,
Does Mr. O’Blasney feel he needs a formal invitation to join in the conversation? Perhaps so, why don’t you make such an invitation to him. He may have some interesting information he would like to share with us here.
\\][//
The story thus far………..
To be honest I’ve lost track of the “Baldwin” story.
With the long posts, and, I don’t know why Tom’s posts
do
this. It’s distracting.
Can anyone provide a Concise synopsis in plain English of how this proves the Garrison Investigation was a part of the cover up of the JFK Assassination?
“, I don’t know why Tom’s posts
do
this. It’s distracting.”~Ronnie Wayne
That happens to text copy & pasted from PDF’s.
\\][//
John McAdams, there is a humanist and moralist interpretation of history, not just the facts or outcomes perspective. While I do understand your points about powerlessness, I think my fellow truth seekers were attempting to focus on the inhumane, sociocultural deprivation, and barbaric institution of ownership of another human being. The irony of slavery is that the “masters,” overall, were less humane than the “slaves.” It was the whole “psychological, sociocultural imbalance underpinning the crime of slavery” (despite being “legal,” slave laws were immoral; thus,invalid laws)that still manifests as a racial divide – the unhealed wound and deep American chasm. Ask the Native Americans, the Asians, the Women, or other large marginalized groups that experienced systemic discrimination. Ask them of the affects/effects. Ask them if it was fair. Ask them would they do it to others. Ask them!
So, it is from this historical perspective I say to all who read this, waken from the myth this government has lulled you into believing. Awaken from the dream world created by spin masters, who themselves were dupes and puppets employed by the puppet masters controlling the strings. POWER will sell you and through you under the bus when your value is deemed worthless. Your innocence means nothing, nor does your loyalty, or allegiance.It is all a psychological state in time. NOTHING remains the same. POWER comes and goes. It’s only a matter of TIME.
“What is strong wins: that is the universal law.
If only it were not so often precisely what is stupid and evil!”
~Friedrich Nietzsche
\\][//
Look . . . you mentioned the 3/5 Compromise, and I pointed out the correct number, and also that it’s bogus to make it a racial grievance, since any number chosen would have left slaves powerless (but changed the distribution of power between slave and non-slave states).
If you want to make a “humanist and moralist interpretation of history” feel free. It’s not relevant to the point I made.
Does it somehow bother you when somebody talks about the actual empirical effects of policies?
The Subtext Decoder Ring is hidden in the floor-safe in McAdams’ closet. Have you been rifling through his private affairs?
\\][//
kennedy63, just when I despaired that the feminine aspect of our collective humanity – embodied in any gender – was void on this site you come along to breath life. thank you.
“Look . . . you mentioned the 3/5 Compromise, and I pointed out the correct number, and also that it’s bogus to make it a racial grievance, since any number chosen would have left slaves powerless (but changed the distribution of power between slave and non-slave states). If you want to make a “humanist and moralist interpretation of history” feel free. It’s not relevant to the point I made.” — John McAdams
In fact John, it is All that is relevant in the grand scheme of things. Set aside your paternalistic, authoritarian deductions of what is and isn’t relevant and consider the real time effects of your abstract assessments of the “empirical effects” of policies. Get your hands dirty. Walk among ’em John. Feel what it’s like to be non male, non white, non over 60 (was that your first achilles heel), and above all else, “non-American”.
you ask: “Does it somehow bother you when somebody talks about the actual empirical effects of policies?”
To coin a phrase from a former Fox News celebrity, “You Betcha!” John . . . when the fundamentals of those policies are not identified from the outset as toxic.
I agree kennedy63’s post is an excellent one. I want to point out that I was the first to post a comment asking Dr. McAdams what he meant when he corrected
“3/4” to “3/5” and I was satisfied that he meant what I thought he was saying. I posted that the underlying condition, enslavement, was the core offense and
the compromise fractional “resident count,” negotiated in the Constitutional Convention was irrelevant to the actual condition of enslavement.
I’ve been approving the critical comments despite my disagreement with the opinions about Dr. McAdams, related to this issue. IOW, what you are saying about
him, in reaction to what he first said, his attempt to correct the “numbers” of the commenter who first brought up the matter, you are also saying about me.
Why not put the blame where it lies, our Founding Fathers, slave owners, slave traders, anyone who consciously and directly benefited from the institution of slavery, including northern cotton buyers and the champions of Constitutional “originalism” in our own day and age.
“Why not put the blame where it lies, our Founding Fathers..”~Tom S.
BINGO!
The USA us Hypocricy Inc. from that perspective.
And that is a perspective I share.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a moral and ethical compromise masked as a political one.
\\][//
“Why not put the blame where it lies, our Founding Fathers..”~Tom S.
BINGO!
“Why not put the blame where it lies, our Founding Fathers”~Tom S.
BINGO!
The USA is Hypocrisy Inc. from that perspective.
And that is a perspective I share.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a moral and ethical compromise masked as a political one.
\\][//
I don’t know where in the world you get this.
An originalist view of the 13th Amendment is that it outlawed slavery.
This is interesting, but merely attacks Scalia for not being a consistent originalist.
It says nothing to contradict what I posted, which is that an “originalist” view of the 13th Amendment is that it outlawed slavery.
Well…. I did include this in the quote….
Dr. McAdams, you can tip toe, tap dance all around it…. confine your opinion to maintaining that the “originist” approach that was anachronistic when Justice Scalia resurrected it and championed it is not conflicted to the degree it is hypocritical, on grounds that after the thirteenth amendment was passed and ratified it was a component of the US Constitution, but the criticism of Justice Harlen’s positions
is what it is, and your opinion is in conflict with the constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation. It also is in conflict with:
The best face I can put on it is that the originist approach of Justice Scalia was intellectually
flawed, inconsistent, and a reasonable person could regard it as disingenuous.
Can any who have followed this particular conversation over the last several days related to “originalism” deny the irony that Justice Scalia died while we debated? The further irony is that he died in West Texas, Big Bend country as a guest of the owner of the Cibolo Ranch resort, John B. Poindexter, the Vietnam Vet who several years ago petitioned for and secured a Presidential Unit Citation on behalf of his men for extraordinary service in Vietnam.
a repeat comment: “In light of the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (RIP) while on a hunting trip funded by the owner of the Cibolo Ranch in Big Bend Country, West Texas, one is prompted to wonder, why hasn’t the argument of the legal rights of a US citizen to have access to 50 plus yr old documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy made it’s way to the Supreme Court? Is it a matter of funding? Is it a matter of commitment? I wonder if John B. Poindexer, an Army veteran of Vietnam might now be inspired to weigh in, financially, in honour of the memory of Scalia’s death at his West Texas resort … to take up the Jim Lesar, Jeff Morley et al case all the way to the Supreme Court in recognition of the serendipitous/coincidence that the Court – our Third Branch of Government – is now up for grabs so to speak. We all need friends at court. Mr. Poindexter had immediate access to at least one Supreme. I think it’s reasonable and rationale to ask him to honour Scalia and fund a more strident pursuit on behalf of Jim Lesar et al in pursuit of the withheld documents that may or may not be released in 2017. (No, this has nothing to do with the John Poindexter Iran Contra history.)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cibolo-creek-ranch-owner-recalls-scalia’s-last-hours-in-texas/ar-BBpuxoe
I’m not sure what you point is, Tom, except that you don’t like Scalia, and don’t like Citizens United.
OK, so you are a leftie. But I don’t see how that relates to this thread.
John McAdams
February 15, 2016 at 9:42 am
Well…. I did include this in the quote….
I’m not sure what you point is, Tom, except that you don’t like Scalia, and don’t like Citizens United.
John; remember when it required a fine legal mind to sit on the Supreme Court? That was a long time ago.
This is just an argumentum ad hominem.
You and Willy have utterly failed to address what I said, other than to want to change the subject.
That’s because what I said was clearly true.
When you start condemning true statements as “paternalistic, authoritarian,” you have lost the debate.
It’s the essence of political correctness that the objective truth or falsity of any statement is irrelevant.
“This is just an argumentum ad hominem.”~McAdams
Yes indeed John, our comments were indeed directed at you and your person. This does not invalidate an argument. As you should know as a presumed “scholar” there is ‘Justified Ad Hominem’, and argument against the speaker as to his obvious orientation and attendant agenda.
Some of us are familiar with the Federalist Society, and it’s peculiar views on the textual meaning of the Constitution. Although these veiws are offered under the euphemism of “Original Intent”; they are far from the original intent of the Constitution as it has been popularly understood.
But as Tom and I have offered, perhaps the original intent of the Constitution was in fact covert. Perhaps the idea of “equal rights” was never a serious contention held by the patrician class of the United States. Perhaps the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self evident” was in fact simply propaganda by an oligarchy that had formed within the Colonies.
Although I think that Jefferson was sincere, I think many of the other signatories of the Declaration were not.
Regardless, we have ended up in an oligarchy in the present. Any who argue against this are not facing the facts of our present condition.
\\][//
There is no such thing. What you engaged in was simply name calling.
Your “obvious orientation and attendant agenda” nonsense simply means “I’m going to assume that the person I disagree with has an evil agenda, and attack him. I’m not going to debate what he obviously said.”
And you have been unable to debate what I in fact said.
Perhaps McAdams being a professor and all of that, is still unfamiliar with Deconstruction, Framing subsets and gleaning a writer’s assumptions from the subtext.
No matter how you attempt to hide it, no matter how you claim you have no obvious agenda, every word you write proves the contrary.
\\][//
Again, you simply engage in a personal attack, and fail to address anything I’ve said.
(continued) This country and government was complicit in destroying people of color; discriminating against women, mistreating the most helpless, and brutalizing the incarcerated. But I digress…
We are here to contest the same government and its handling of the JFK assassination records. Expect the same foul treatment as people of color because we all are outsiders and marginalized. Grouped together (in their eyes) as conspiracy buffs, and looking for “smoking guns” not there (in the records). TRUTH is on our side. Despite what they call us, those of us born of African ancestors held captive in America, we understand the nature of the struggle, and the tricks, lies, vilification, and murder (as policy) employed to silence opposition. The Citizenry has come to a point Jefferson spoke about: “Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.
Thomas Jefferson
I think you trivialize slavery if you compare it to the scoffing that conspiracists receive in some quarters.
After all, conspiracists are free to express their opinions, publish books (several have been best sellers), make movies and documentaries, and hang out in places like this.
Nobody has a right to have people agree with them. They only have a right to speak.
It could be worse: Leslie believes that people who say things she don’t like should be locked up.
Dammit McAdams, you are supposed to be a college professor.
So what is this ignorant use of syntax:
“Leslie believes that people who say things she don’t like should be locked up.”
The proper word is “DOESN’T” McAdams, not “DON’T”.
And as far as trivializing slavery on this thread, no one has made a better effort of that than you yourself.
\\][//
It’s considered tacky to attack people’s spelling, grammar or usage on the ‘net. Stuff is written quickly.
I started writing the sentence with the plural (“things they don’t like) and changed it to singular, without changing the “don’t” to “doesn’t.”
Of course, while you complain about grammar, you don’t mind that Leslie has suggested that people whom she sees as saying politically incorrect things should be locked up.
Sometimes I do get the feeling I am talking to toddlers on this blogsite.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
February 13, 2016 at 5:38 pm
“Sometimes I do get the feeling I am talking to toddlers on this blogsite.”
And if you don’t let me help you with understanding the Vietnam War policies of JFK (or anyone else for that matter) You are going to flunk Vietnam War 101.
Now looks to me that is going to be an embarrassment to you; flunking a course these “toddlers” can pass.
You have got to get a grip on your arrogance Willy. Please!
Fletcher Prouty on the Bay of Pigs:
https://youtu.be/4tLUAkXFzGU
About 55 minutes. Well worth a viewing.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
February 14, 2016 at 8:07 pm
Fletcher Prouty on the Bay of Pigs:
https://youtu.be/4tLUAkXFzGU
About 55 minutes. Well worth a viewing.
Willy, you wasted 55 minutes watching a nut? You have too much time on our hands.
You have forgotten how to use quotation marks again Mr. Clarke.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
February 15, 2016 at 8:08 am
“You have forgotten how to use quotation marks again Mr. Clarke.”
I apologize Willy. I’m really trying hard to remember this because I want to make you happy with me. Thanks for the reminder.
It could be worse: Leslie believes that people who say things she don’t like should be locked up. — John McAdams
Huh? Please John, do elaborate. I would be interested to learn how you came to that conclusion which is completely void of fact. I don’t want to see you locked up; I want to read that you’ve sought counselling.
Leslie,
Beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.
You are at the edge of a slippery slope that leads to an abyss of deep error.
I would hope that you understand that the definition of “hate speech” is one of those Orwellian terms, malleable as silly putty and explosive as RDX.
If you would like to see the 1st Amendment destroyed by covert means look no further than the term “hate speech”
You might look up the Case of Ernst Zündel in Germany.
Or this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
Or this one:
France Moves to Make ‘Conspiracy Theories’ Illegal by Government Decree…
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/19/france-moves-to-make-conspiracy-theories-illegal-by-government-decree/
Or:
An alleged would-be terrorist in Poland, a Swedish serial shooter and an Islamist extremist of Chechen background all have something in common: a connection to American conspiracy culture.
https://www.hate-speech.org/the-atlantic-conspiracy-link/
****************************
Some things to ponder…?
\\][//
While you are citing a rather questionable website, I agree that Cameron’s arguments are terribly dangerous.
He claims that conspiracy theories can inspire violence. But a lot of speech can inspire violence. Anti-abortion speech can inspire attacks on abortion clinics, and anti-police speech attacks on cops. We’ve seen both in recent months.
Of course, government will never ban all conspiracy theories, since typically governments finds some conspiracy theories serve their interests. I’m sure everybody here can think of example.
Willy Whitten, it’s difficult to get one’s head around this. As shared with John McAdams, this is a double bind. Intolerance of hatred of ‘the other’ has been turned upside down to argue in favour of tolerance of those who hate? It’s even tricky to formulate the argument effectively. The operative word here is NOT intolerance, Willy. It’s “hate”.
Rather than introducing a myriad of examples of how ‘intolerance’ effects us all, reduce it to the pertinent question. Why not talk to toddlers about hatred instead of adolescent bullies posing as authority – either side of the debate. Toddlers don’t know the concept.
“He claims that conspiracy theories can inspire violence. But a lot of speech can inspire violence.”~McAdams
Yes, it depends on the listener more than the speaker, doesn’t it? In a bar full of ignorant drunks complimenting a woman on her good looks can enrage her chaperon to attack the person making the compliment.
I am in favor of free speech unlimited but for the “clear and present danger” clause. I think that the suppression of opinions in more dangerous than the free expression of them.
Like in this very blog for example. I agree that you have the attitude of a bigot. That insults the sensibilities of quite a few commentators here.
But since we all have the right of free speech, you can be confronted on that term, and that insults you. Insult is not Assault.
As the Supreme Court argued there is a critical distinction between Speech & Action. ‘Insult’ is not ‘Assault’. When these two concepts are confused with one another is when we drift into cognitive dissonance.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
February 13, 2016 at 2:55 pm
“I am in favor of free speech unlimited but for the “clear and present danger” clause. I think that the suppression of opinions in more dangerous than the free expression of them.”
Bang on, Willy. I agree 100% with you here. Now if you would give Leslie and me your opinion on this; Do you think the Political Correct Nazis (just kidding Leslie) have been a enemy of free expression?
Well Willy, you need to know that I agree that you have the attitude of a bigot.
And you insult the sensibilities of quite a few commentators here.
Professor McAdams, Ms. Sharp, Mr. Whitten, Mr. Clarke, and Tom S., may I interject into your discussion the following distinction? In the context of our current political process, I think it would be useful to point out the vast gulf of difference between the actions of a socialist political party that came to power through participation in a parliamentary system, and those who achieved dominance through violence, and established one-party dictatorships. Lumping the two together is a disservice, at best.
Tom S.
February 15, 2016 at 11:00 pm
“Bill, you include in your comments a lot of content that resembles what I expect to hear in a Voice of America broadcast script.”
A Voice of America broadcast is propaganda, right? While I believe some here engage in propaganda I don’t believe you and I are among this group. I certainly hope you do not think I’m here to disperse propaganda. Since I have had some trouble with this before I wonder if what you really meant is that you expect me to sound like a gung ho American with a Flattop haircut and with a American Flag on his lapel yelling “WE ARE The GREATEST” and we’ve never done anyone wrong. Well hell Tom that isn’t me. The fact that I have seen some of America’s handiwork puts me in good position here. The fact that I was part of it breaks my heart.
And you do understand, of course, that I can predict what you and the group will say and what writers you will back and what theories you will accept no matter how sloppy their work. I think we are all very predictable here.
“ Where do you come by your confidence, how do you know what you know?”
Er…….the same way you do?
“Bill, the more I learn, the less I know,”
Oh me too but we have some that already know everything there is to know. They stopped learning long ago.
“but I wanted to give you some things to think about, if you are open to that….. FerInstance, what do the commie boys have, to lose?”
Oh hell yeah I’m open to it. Let me note that I reference the lower grade communist and American soldiers here and not the high ranking generals and politicians. But sadly they have nothing to lose, both sides. They were for the most part born poor and will be poor when they die. Both sides again. They fight (both sides) due to the propaganda they have heard all of their life. Perhaps I bought it in the late 50s and up to the mid-60s but I had lost it before they sent me to Vietnam. I remain bitter about it today. A long time ago I was very damn bitter about it.
“The Brits were the most bloodthirsty of all,” said Henry Breck, Groton ’54, a CIA case officer in India in the 1960s. “Of course, if you’re in a real war you must fight hard — and the upper classes fight the hardest. They have th the most to lose.”
I like this one; ole Henry is bang on but I doubt we could truthfully blame the Brits as “the MOST bloodthirsty”. All involved in the colonial system were very cruel and hardhearted. They didn’t bat an eye about starving a native.
And Tom, my favorite singer from the first time I heard her is Joan Baez. The old girl just turned 75 and still singing.
You said:
And then you say:
So people who disagree with you need “counselling [sic].”
You are just doubling down on the intolerance.
In other words John, the citizens of Germany who enjoyed the right to ‘free speech’ that fomented in their turning on their fellow man, hauling them off to the camps and incinerating them, wouldn’t have benefited from a bit of counselling? Yes indeed, history has taught us that we should be tolerant of those who hate. Can you make sense of that double bind?
“You are just doubling down on the intolerance.”
~McAdams
It is a complex issue is it not? When is intolerance of intolerance tolerance?
What are the ramifications of total tolerance?
How tolerant were the Nazis who came to power because of the Weimar Republic’s tolerance to free speech?
A complex conundrum is it not?
\\][//
When we start censoring speech, how can you be sure speech you agree with is not censored.
You and Leslie seem to like the idea of censoring Nazis.
How about censoring Communists?
How about censoring Socialists? Plenty of people believe those groups are as dangerous as Nazis.
And, of course, what happens when people who make perfectly reasonable arguments are accused of “hatred” and shut up?
And contemporary political correctness labels as “hatred” all sorts of things that are merely legitimate differences of opinion.
‘You and Leslie seem to like the idea of censoring Nazis. How about censoring Communists? How about censoring Socialists? Plenty of people believe those groups are as dangerous as Nazis.] — John McAdams
Now you attempt to introduce relativism? who among communists, socialists and fascists committed the most egregious crimes against humanity thus far? would you be willing to introduce capitalists into that analysis? I doubt it; might call attention to that Vietnam thing, or to the US/British driven military crimes in the Middle East in particular in the last decade.
I’ll tell you what John, let’s consider the possibility that someone … a communist, a socialist, a fascist, a capitalist knocks on your door this week to tell you that someone they follow – exercising his or her right to free speech – has designated you as a non person, or for the sake of argument, 3/5 of a person, and because they have the right to that speech and they happen to have the resources to seize the bully pulpit, hoards of their followers are congregating outside your door to ACT on the free speech they’ve been listening to, and that mob has decided to arrest you for being white, male, over 60, possibly unemployed, and possibly socially disagreeable. Decide which ‘ism’ has threatened you, or might the force behind your arrest be a collaboration that has contaminated the 1st Amendment.
In contrast consider the inspiration of John Kennedy who had the bullhorn for a brief moment in time. He exercised conscientious free speech, politically correct before his time.
I for one am not attempting to ‘shut you up’; in fact I’m interested in reading your definition of ‘differences of opinion’ vs. hatred of ‘the other’. You may need to refer to today’s talking points. I would recommend you check in at the Trump or Cruz campaigns first, they seem to have a handle on this.
leslie sharp
February 14, 2016 at 1:54 am
“Now you attempt to introduce relativism? who among communists, socialists and fascists committed the most egregious crimes against humanity thus far?”
Uncle Joe Stalin is so far ahead in this race no one can catch him unless they press the H bomb buttons. Add the crimes of Mao and the race is all over. One reason I will always hate the communist; They have, with their purges and great leaps forward, killed more of their own people than their enemy has killed.
“would you be willing to introduce capitalists into that analysis? I doubt it;”
Sure. They have blood on their hands too. This disgusting mess in the middle east since Shrub Bush and the other draft dodgers invaded Iraq is a very good example of how to kill soldiers and civilians without accomplishing much.
“might call attention to that Vietnam thing, or to the US/British driven military crimes in the Middle East in particular in the last decade.”
As terrible as these might have been nothing touches WWII. Well, perhaps our own civil war.
I’m simply pointing out that once we decide to punish people for “bad” speech, there is no guarantee that only groups that you dislike will be punished.
Once that starts, groups you like and want to protect might get punished too.
You have simply missed the point. And you do so because your gut impulse is to punish and shut up viewpoints that you disagree with.
I think the politically correct types here would be keen to protect the free speech rights of Communists.
“I think the politically correct types here would be keen to protect the free speech rights of Communists.”~McAdams
What is a “Communist”?
A “Marxist Economist”?
An “Anti-fascist”?
A member of the Communist Party prior to the 1940’s?
A “Left leaning politician” such as Bernie Sanders?
The Ford Foundation?
The Rockefeller Foundation?
The “Hippies” that protested the war in Vietnam?
Quite a multiple choice Smörgåsbord, isn’t it.
\\][//
John McAdams
February 14, 2016 at 8:38 am
Uncle Joe Stalin is so far ahead in this race no one can catch him unless they press the H bomb buttons.
“I think the politically correct types here would be keen to protect the free speech rights of Communists.”
Oh I’m sure they would John. But what they don’t understand is that the communist carry their right to free speech with them. It is called an AK-47 and they knew how to use it. They use the same AK-47 to rob others of their free speech. The communist don’t give a damn what anyone here thinks.
Often here when our CIA is being bashed about I think to myself that I wish these folks had known the communist. Now those boys were some bad asses.
Bill, you include in your comments a lot of content that resembles what I expect to hear
in a Voice of America broadcast script. Where do you come by your confidence, how do you
know what you know? An example, Bush and Anthony Lapham, we are told, were never CIA until
Ford appointed Bush as DCI, and Bush appointed Lapham as CIA Counsel. Lapham has no school,
work, or family ties with CIA’s Henry Breck, yet Breck was godfather of Lapham’s son and
Lapham was Breck’s best man. Bill, the more I learn, the less I know, but I wanted to give
you some things to think about, if you are open to that….. FerInstance, what do the commie
boys have, to lose?
…”
Bill,
When I saw the lines above in your comment, all I could think of was this.:
I can’t read you, Bill. I don’t know if you are just trying to get a rise out of other commenters,
or if you mean what you say. Whenever I take you at your word and comment accordingly, you respond
with, “oh no, I’m not that guy, I’m a feminist, or….” I guess it is incumbant on me to stop taking
the bait.
Tom S. February 16, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Bill,
“When I saw the lines above in your comment, all I could think of was this. ” …and to inoculating the American people from the viral knowledge that they themselves were first to be captured….”
Well Tom, I thought we had connected better than that and I am honestly disappointed that we haven’t. I’m not sure what you are saying in your quote here so before I reply to it could you gear it down and explain it to me at a more country level?
“I can’t read you, Bill. “
Sure you can. The problem is I don’t fit your model you have made for me. You equate me with a
“Voice of America broadcast script.” Why? Because I don’t like some people or their writing that you hold dear? Because I point out Jack didn’t order all of our troops home by 1965 in NSAM 263? Because I do these things you have convinced yourself that I am not a “good person”. Perhaps even a “Kennedy hater”. And with the “all or none” you speak of coming into play I can do no right. If I say there is much I admire about JFK you can’t believe me. I really like Kennedy63 and his, “I can understand” quote. Very good.
“I don’t know if you are just trying to get a rise out of other commenters,”
I haven’t been that childish since I quit drinking so much so long ago. I admit several times I pricked Willy just to get his goat. In my defense his arrogance and lack of knowledge of the subject drove me over the edge and I lost it. But just to prick the group; of course not.
“or if you mean what you say.”
Gee Tom, you really couldn’t see the passion in my post about NSAM 263? Hell yeah I mean what I say and I’m not afraid to say it.
“ Whenever I take you at your word and comment accordingly, you respond with, “oh no, I’m not that guy, I’m a feminist, or….”
Well hells bells Tom, you inferred I was a, “Voice of America broadcast script.” I am not that guy. And not by a long shot. Yes, I believe in fair play and equal pay for equal work. If that makes me a feminist then so be it.
“I guess it is incumbent on me to stop taking the bait.”
I’ve never dangled any bait here. You have never taken any bait here from me. You might, however, check some others here.
Bill,
Fair enough, I’ll make a third attempt. My first and second responses were in reaction to this, from you.:
Nine days later…..
Often here when the American people are being bent over and…….
Bill, I can’t fathom how you could have written that…it was an affront to my sensibilities.
Tom S.
February 17, 2016 at 2:11 am
Bill, I can’t fathom how you could have written that…it was an affront to my sensibilities.
Good Grief Tom. I had no idea it would be such an affront to you. Of course I would never have written it if I had known. My apology.
John McAdams, thanks you for the correct fraction (3/5) used to designate Afircans in America for yet the White man’s purposes of Power. Whether you realize it, you actually affirmed my premise that POWER concedes nothing without a demand. We are now demanding the US Government release files belonging to the American people, who pay for the expenses of our government. There is no government without citizens.
It is this same government that compromised on slavery by according 3/5 value to Africans in captivity in America for political expediency (so the North would accept the formula for representation, as not to overwhelmed by the headcount from the South).Yes, it was all about POWER. It blithely can be stated by you that “slaves” would be powerless anyway. You fail to mention all the laws that held them captive and in a state of arrested development. Laws that white men passed specifically for that purpose, and for their own psychological dysfunction of self-perceived superiority. TRUTH is that this nation rose from corruption and immorality.This government was compli
I don’t know what any of this discussion has to do with Jefferson, Sally Hemings or discussion of document release regarding the JFK Assassination. They key statement in the original article is “full disclosure” I guess the other main theory of the thread is it means all of DiEugeio and Mellen’s work, as well as Garrison’s is junk?
Ronnie Wayne
February 11, 2016 at 10:01 pm
“I guess the other main theory of the thread is it means all of DiEugeio and Mellen’s work, as well as Garrison’s is junk?”
I wouldn’t say “all of” DiEugeio’s stuff is junk but the sections of this history that I’m familiar with (JFK/Vietnam Policy) his stuff is pure junk. That would be because he regurgitates his junk from John Newman’s junk. Never have I seen such a blatant lie accepted by so many.
Well Bill, we agree to disagree. I think Jim’s work on Garrison and Vietnam are pretty thorough and deep. Most objections to it are unconvincing to me thus far.
Ronnie Wayne
February 12, 2016 at 10:42 pm
“Well Bill, we agree to disagree.”
I’m glad we can do this and remain agreeable!
“I think Jim’s work on Garrison and Vietnam are pretty thorough and deep. Most objections to it are unconvincing to me thus far.”
I’m not up on Garrison enough to debate that subject. You win the point by my default.
The Vietnam/JFK story is a different game. I don’t think I or anyone else wants to go through the NSAM 263 thing again but Newman and DiEugenio both use much speculation that they can’t support about this order. They can quote the old slogans from the 60s but they can’t show you their evidence. Without lying they both have none.
JFK and Vietnam, James Galbraith, Part II:
Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy’s watch.
Did Kennedy believe the war was being won? Perlstein accuses me of neglecting this question; in fact I devoted almost two thousand words of my Boston Review essay to it. Here is Robert McNamara’s summary of the October 2, 1963 meeting, my comment, and his description of the outcome:
One faction believed military progress had been good and training had progressed to the point where we could begin to withdraw. A second faction did not see the war as progressing well and did not see the South Vietnamese showing evidence of successful training. But they, too, agreed that we should begin to withdraw. . . . The third faction, representing the majority, considered the South Vietnamese trainable but believed our training had not been in place long enough to achieve results and, therefore, should continue at current levels.
As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:
After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.’
On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.
Had Kennedy lived, the withdrawal plan would have remained policy, and the numbers of US troops in Vietnam would have declined, unless and until policy changed. Might Kennedy still have “reversed the decision” at some point? Of course he might have. But there is no evidence that he intended to do so.
Lacking evidence, Perlstein drifts off into puerile commentary on JFK’s “machismo” and image of “youthful vigor.” Against these, he conjures phrases that reveal nothing except his own state of mind: “Bugout plans.” “…cutting and running.” “…pants-pissing fears.” And he pretends that the issue turns, in two words, on whether President John F. Kennedy was a “closet peacenik.”
Just consider the connotations of that pseudo-Russian epithet. Or those of the word “closet.” What— exactly— do you suppose— was that intended to bring to mind?
Part 1
Gary Aguilar
February 16, 2016 at 9:23 pm
Ah, Dr. Aguilar, I was wondering when you’d get down to this. But our old friend Ted Gittinger is gone and no longer here to box you about this subject again. I’ll do the best I can for him.
Before we start, a word on Galbraith please. Galbraith is a particular disappointment here because he is, I think, made of better stuff than the likes of Newman, Douglas, DiEugenio and others. These boys were lightweight when they came on the scene and as far as I’m concerned remain lightweight. Perhaps Galbraith (Junior) drank the cool-aid with Schlesinger.
“JFK and Vietnam, James Galbraith, Part II:”
Let us get to it, Doc. And right off the bat Junior swings and delivers the very wrong answer. Liar is such an ugly word I’m trying not to use it. The word will be replaced by such silly crap as “the wrong answer”, an incorrect answer and so forth. Or perhaps just the “L” word. Like the “N” word.
“After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. “
The first “incorrect answer; The 1,500 number is used by leading military historians like Anthony Marsh and you. McNamara uses 3,500 as the number. Now I don’t know which number is correct but I do know which number went into the books at the NSC meeting to draft NSAM 263. It wasn’t 1,500 Gary and this does not speak well for Junior’s scholarship here.
Taylor: I would think if we take these dates, Mr. President, it ought to be very clear what we mean by victory or success. That doesn’t mean that every [unclear] comes [unclear] a white flag. But we do- we’re crushing this insurgency to the point that the national security forces of Vietnam can [unclear].
McNamara: We have about 3,500 left at the end of the period.
1. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
“The war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy’s watch.”
The second incorrect answer but this one is funny. It reminds me of JFK telling Admiral Burke he couldn’t have any planes because JFK didn’t want America involved (in the BOP). The old salt lost his cool and told the president that “WE ARE INVOLVEED”. My point Gary is that it was already an American War on Kennedy’s watch. Here is evidence that they never planned on a “Vietnamese only” war. They are speaking about the American soldiers assigned as advisors to the Vietnamese battalions. These are the Americans that saw a good bit of combat on the ground but we don’t call them ground combat troops.
“McNamara: Very important, but this is at the battalion level. There are 90 battalions and 3 men per battalion are the stiffeners. That’s 270 men out of 17,000. Now we might want to keep those for an extended period.” 1. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
“Did Kennedy believe the war was being won? Perlstein accuses me of neglecting this question; in fact I devoted almost two thousand words of my Boston Review essay to it. Here is Robert McNamara’s summary of the October 2, 1963 meeting, my comment, and his description of the outcome:
One faction believed military progress had been good and training had progressed to the point where we could begin to withdraw. A second faction did not see the war as progressing well and did not see the South Vietnamese showing evidence of successful training. But they, too, agreed that we should begin to withdraw. . . . The third faction, representing the majority, considered the South Vietnamese trainable but believed our training had not been in place long enough to achieve results and, therefore, should continue at current levels.
“As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:”
The “L” Word. Am I the only one that wonders why it wasn’t in McNamara’s book?
If you listen to the Miller Center or the White House tapes no one even mentions withdrawal without victory much less claim they were for it. It wasn’t on the plate.
After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963″.
The 1,000 man withdrawal was so much BS. JFK and McNamara agreed to bring them home by normal rotation. That means some go home but some go to Vietnam. A net result of zero that you really can’t blame on LBJ.
“On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.”
Of course. The decision had been set in NSAM 263 which isn’t a “withdrawal plan” at all but a plan to win the war and then a withdrawal of our troops after the ARVN can handle things. This puts the Camelot Crowd in a bind since NSAM 263 doesn’t say what they need it to say so they “L” word about NSAM 263.
“Had Kennedy lived, the withdrawal plan would have remained policy, and the numbers of US troops in Vietnam would have declined, unless and until policy changed.”
The “withdrawal plan” remained in effect during 1964. It didn’t work. It was before it’s time.
Good to see you again Doc. Can’t you get Galbraith to give us at least one reference the next time you trot him out?
James Galbraith has rather settled the question of what JFK would have done in Vietnam. From “The Nation”: http://www.thenation.com/article/jfks-vietnam-withdrawal-plan-fact-not-speculation/
JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation
A response to Rick Perlstein.
By James K. Galbraith NOVEMBER 22, 2013
Ten years after my articles on JFK’s October 1963 decision to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, Rick Perlstein attempts a rebuttal. His technique is to concede the point, but then to misstate the context, deny the importance and spatter the mess with scornful phrases.
My essays in Boston Review and Salon established that the plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965 existed. And that President Kennedy had decided to implement that plan. In 2003, this was controversial. Many historians had denied it. Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, and Arthur Schlesinger were exceptions. They were right, and documents and tapes released under the JFK Records Act proved them right. The issue was resolved by early 2008 when Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson’s Deputy National Security Adviser, opened his reply to my letter in the New York Review of Books with these words:
Professor Galbraith is correct [Letters, NYR, December 6, 2007] that “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.
Bator followed with a qualification, which Perlstein repeats:
But… that plan was explicitly conditioned on Secretary McNamara’s and General Taylor’s ‘judgment that the major part of the US military task can be completed by the end of 1965…,’ that ‘the long term program to replace US personnel with trained Vietnamese [could go forward]without impairment of the war effort [emphasis added].
We disagree on this point, specifically on what the phrase “the major part of the US military task” meant. On the White House tapes of October 2, Robert McNamara differs with General Taylor on whether the war can be won by 1965. Instead he says: “ But I am sure that if we don’t meet those dates in the sense of ending the major military campaigns, we nonetheless can withdraw the bulk of our US forces according to the schedule we’ve laid out, worked out, because we can train the Vietnamese to do the job.” [emphasis added]. Taylor’s memorandum to the Joint Chiefs on October 4, 1963, which conveys the decision, contains no contingency. The troops were to be withdrawn. “All planning” would be based on that decision.
See part II, next.
Then why did JFK actively support the coup against Diem?
Every one of these ” JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam” myths is based on information predating the coup. If JFK really wanted to get out of Vietnam all he had to do was veto the coup-and Diem ( who Kennedy knew was seeking an accommodation with the Communists) would have asked him to leave as part of a settlement with the National Liberation Front. But Kennedy could not accept South Vietnam going Communist, so Diem had to go. JFK had to have known that besides Diem there was no unifying force that could counter the Communists, so by default the US would have to assume a greater role, politically and militarily. If JFK didn’t know what the consequences of the coup would be he would have been criminally neglegent-as the slapdash performance of the resultant Junta made clear within days of the coup. It wasn’t until the advent of the Thieu-Ky alliance years later that South Vietnam had any semblance of a functioning government Had JFK even considered withdrawal during that period of turmoil ( which was before there was any widespread opposition to the war) his political support would have collapsed.
No matter how you interpret the pre-coup policy statements( and many have completely misinterpreted them or even falsely claimed what they actually said) the event of the coup made them all inoperative-overtaken by events JFK himself had set in motion.
>>Had JFK even considered withdrawal during that period of turmoil ( which was before there was any widespread opposition to the war) his political support would have collapsed.<<
Putting aside the ongoing debate over NSAM 263 and JFK's real intentions, I believe JFK could have withdrawn from Vietnam after 1964 (assuming his re-election, which was very likely against Goldwater) without taking a severe political blow. He wouldn't have had to face another election, and Vietnam was not a terribly prominent issue until it was aggressively escalated in 1965.
Photon again displays his lack of reading comprehension skills.
Mr. Aguilar presented information backed by citations and sound reasoning thereof. Photon simply employs pure opinion, grounded in naught but his own profound biases; anal hurlant.
\\][//
You weren’t around, were you J.D.? You seem to have forgotten how overwhelming was the support for the Tonkin Gulf resolution, which anybody with a recollection of Korea knew handed Johnson a blank check.
Again, I ask you-If Diem was covertly trying to enter into an agreement with the Communists ( which JFK and and his staff was aware of) which undoubtably would be followed by a request for American forces to leave the country, why would Kennedy acquiesce to his removal when his presence would have accomplished everything that you claim JFK wanted?
That fact in itself destroys the ” JFK would have pulled out ” myth.
“That fact in itself destroys the ” JFK would have pulled out ” myth.”~Photon
Photon’s INTERPRETATIONS of “the facts” destroys historical memory, just like the hack PR that Dr Photon’s agenda calls for.
\\][//
It is reported that when Ho learned of Diem’s death he said he couldn’t believe the Americans had been so stupid.
Here was a man that had spent most of his life in the jungle who had a much better understanding of the situation than all these brilliant and well educated men we had in the White House. I find that rather funny too.
Willy Whitten
February 17, 2016 at 6:23 am
“Mr. Aguilar presented information backed by citations and sound reasoning thereof.”
He did much as you do Willy. Gary proclaims “they’re right” and thanks that is suppose to mean something to us. You like to use, “proved beyond a point” when it is of course not proven beyond a point. For the life of me I fail to understand why either of you would think your word so ringing to any of us.
J.D.
February 17, 2016 at 3:26 am
Putting aside the ongoing debate over NSAM 263 and JFK’s real intentions, I believe JFK could have withdrawn from Vietnam after 1964 (assuming his re-election, which was very likely against Goldwater) without taking a severe political blow. He wouldn’t have had to face another election, and Vietnam was not a terribly prominent issue until it was aggressively escalated in 1965.
I believe he could have pulled it off but don’t underestimate the thump he would take. No bills through congress but that wasn’t going to well to start with. it would blow any hope Bobby had to be president and I imagine life would have been pretty bad for the old boy. He was a man of courage. I think he would have pulled out if he thought it necessary but I don’t think he ever thought that.
The communist (VC) went to armed conflict in 1959. The NVA made the decision to send intact combat units (NVA)south in 1963. They did so in 1964. Our Marines came ashore March of 1965. I hope you give this more repect that Willy did.
I do not discuss things – nothing, with someone who has called me a liar.
I hope our little soldier boy Bill Clarke understands this.
\\][//
Who cares if I was “around” then, Photon? None of us lived through the Civil War, but scholars don’t seem to consider that a hindrance to learning more about it.
JFK had many options open to him for dealing with the Vietnam crisis. If you’re going to claim that he was inevitably going to follow the same path LBJ did, you’re going to have to do better than making up contrived “proofs” like “If JFK was going to do X, why didn’t he do Y?”
J.D., neither you nor Willy nor anybody else has answered why JFK supported the coup against Diem if he was planning on pulling out.
The situation was completely analogous to Colin Powell warning George Bush that after invading Iraq he would ” own it”, i.e. would be responsible for running the place and keeping the population supplied.
Once Diem was gone more active American involvement was inevitable.
“Once Diem was gone more active American involvement was inevitable.”~Gen. Photon
Pure supposition and hot air, like all the BS you lay on this blog; worthless blablabla.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
February 17, 2016 at 11:05 am
“That fact in itself destroys the ” JFK would have pulled out ” myth.”~Photon
“Photon’s INTERPRETATIONS of “the facts” destroys historical memory, just like the hack PR that Dr Photon’s agenda calls for.”
The man just rolled over you Willy. You can’t answer the question so you speak of agendas.
Willy Whitten
February 17, 2016 at 4:07 pm
“I do not discuss things – nothing, with someone who has called me a liar.”
Get off your arrogant high horse Willy. You have made comments about the JFK Vietnam policy here that leaves you with only two options; admit that you “L word” or that you were under the influence when you made the “incorrect words”. Neither option looks too good for you.
“I hope our little soldier boy Bill Clarke understands this.”
Little? I weighed 235 when I went to Vietnam. I weighed 185 when I left Vietnam and now weigh 285 or so. Do you ever know what you are talking about?
Willy Whitten
February 18, 2016 at 11:14 am
“There were NEVER any combat troops in Vietnam during the Kennedy administration.”
I’d say Willy was “L word” here but that might be too harsh because I fear Willy has met the worst fate of a propagandist; poor Willy now believes his own propaganda!
Whatever, what Willy says here is not true and is not true by a long shot. I’ve posted references, including personal emails from Dr. Moise, showing Willy to be wrong here. No use posting them again but they are certainly available on request.
So far I have NEVER seen Willy defend this position with a credible reference, his WORD not being a credible reference to me.
Simply put, we had military personnel engaged in combat on the ground, air and seas of Vietnam. Call these men what you will, they were fighting and dying and leading combat operations in Vietnam. References furnished before and again on request. Willy, any references for us?
“ALL of the military personnel there were in an advisory position. “
I have found that the use of “ALL” and a few other similar words predict an “L Word” coming up. It hold true here. True, Willy can call them advisers but that isn’t the real answer to what they were doing and why their were dying.
“Anyone who makes claims to the contrary is misinformed or spreading disinformation.”
My god, your arrogance and self-righteous knows no bounds. You show not one reference to support your “L Word” but have the nerve to make that statement?
“The 400 Special Force Troops sent to Vietnam were there in an adviser capacity as well.”
What the American Special Force troops do “as well” Willy is that they kill people and they do it very well. Bottom line, when JFK sent 400 of them to Vietnam he had some killing on his mind.
Do you remember what battalion of ARVN these 400 SF men were assigned to? No you don’t because they didn’t go to a regular ARVN battalion. They went instead to the “Yard” groups of irregulars up in the mountains of Vietnam.
Often these irregular units grow and play a large role in promoting these “Covert Operations” you tells me JFK wanted to shut down.
Willy, neither Dr. Aguilar nor James Galbraith have presented any evidence for JFK having any withdrawal plans following the Diem coup, which changed everything concerning US involvement in South Vietnam. The lack of reading comprehension is not mine; I can’t see what isn’t there.
NSAM 263 2 October declaring its intention to … at a later date, a unilateral withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam.
This NSAM was still in effect when Kennedy was killed. He never saw nor approved NSAM 273.
11/21/63
DRAFT
TOP SECRET
NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. __________
“The President has reviewed the discussions of South Vietnam which occurred in Honolulu, and has discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge. He directs that the following guidance be issued to all concerned”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which “President” discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge?
Which “President” reviewed and directed?
Certainly NOT President Kennedy.
\\][//
If my point is not clear to you Photon,
Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated November 2, 1963
NSAM 263 which called for unilateral withdrawal of American personnel by 1965 was still in effect. It was in effect until the day Kennedy was assassinated.
No one has to “prove” this Photon, it is public record and known history.
\\][//
Of critical import is the fact that in 1963 there were no “combat troops” in Vietnam, only ‘Advisers’…and CIA.
The point that many miss is the fact that NSAM 263 sought to bring home the bulk of “US Personnel” This would include any Advisers still in country by 1965 – but more critically, removing the CIA from Southeast Asia.
Kennedy’s larger agenda was to shut down Covert Operations world wide; to put a definitive end to the global charade of the Cold War; to disavow Empire.
\\][//
Photon
February 17, 2016 at 8:54 am
Willy, neither Dr. Aguilar nor James Galbraith have presented any evidence for JFK having any withdrawal plans following the Diem coup, which changed everything concerning US involvement in South Vietnam.
Willy is behind the 8 ball here because he doesn’t know the history. And since the history isn’t what Willy wants it to be he could never accept it. Poor Willy.
They removed Diem so we could win the war but soon after we remove him, getting him killed in the process, we withdraw and go home? Brilliant.
Willy Whitten
February 17, 2016 at 3:46 pm
“No one has to “prove” this Photon, it is public record and known history.”
True. it is written in black and white and easy to find. Which always made me wonder why you couldn’t understand it.
Remember this “L word” Willy?
Willy Whitten
September 3, 2015 at 11:53 am
“I am not the one that made a false claim about what NSAM 263 had to say.”~Bill Clarke
“Oh yes indeed you are, those of us here who have dug into this controversy know you are the one who is making false claims. Kennedy was pulling 1000 troops by he end of 1963, and all of them by 1965 – yes, come hell or high water.”…. gotcha.
” Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away.” John F. Kennedy, Sept 2, 1963.
Willy, NSAM 263 claimed that we were winning the war and would be able to successfully disengage by 1965. The coup was an admission that that perception was faulty.
Willy Whitten
February 17, 2016 at 9:32 pm
“Of critical import is the fact that in 1963 there were no “combat troops” in Vietnam, only ‘Advisers’…and CIA.”
The capital “L word”
“The point that many miss is the fact that NSAM 263 sought to bring home the bulk of “US Personnel” This would include any Advisers still in country by 1965 – but more critically, removing the CIA from Southeast Asia.”
You just can’t help it can you Willy. From McNamaa; 3,500 men will remain, many of them “advisers” down in the ARVN battalions. I don’t recall NSAM 263 saying a damn thing about the CIA. You made this up didn’t you.
“Kennedy’s larger agenda was to shut down Covert Operations world wide; to put a definitive end to the global charade of the Cold War; to disavow Empire.”
So to show his heart was pure he sends 400 Special Force Troops to Vietnam and has the Special Force School named after him. You crack me up Willy.
Those who might attempt to argue against my closing remarks on February 17, 2016 at 9:32 pm, have not properly considered the man Kennedy himself, in his own words and deeds.
The foundation of his sociopolitical philosophy is crystallized by the time of his speech to Congress in 1957, deploring empire, and making a stirring and profoundly prescient case against the structure of empire; that it was at it’s core the rejection of the unalienable rights of human beings.
We cannot loose track of this as we follow his career in the practical political arena. Kennedy was a brilliant political tactician who could “play the game” against itself. Replacing Kennedy the man in the core of his being, with the actor in politics, is a mortal error for those who argue that Kennedy was a “Cold Warrior” and a ‘Hawk’ at any time in his political career.
\\][//
There were NEVER any combat troops in Vietnam during the Kennedy administration. ALL of the military personnel there were in an advisory position.
Anyone who makes claims to the contrary is misinformed or spreading disinformation.
The 400 Special Force Troops sent to Vietnam were there in an adviser capacity as well.
\\][//
Bill Clarke’s pretenses of being some sort of “history expert on the Vietnam War” is laughable nonsense. He is a hack.
He cannot hold a candle to Fletcher Prouty, or John M. Newman.
\\][//
Not quite so simple. Diem had been badly at odds with the Buddhist majority in the country, and the hope was that the new regime would be better able to unite the country against the communists.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viet17.htm
According to the AP:
I find it remarkable that not only are some here still fighting the Vietnam War, but are still fighting the Cold War: with all this twattle about “Commies” and “Pinkos” under every bed.
It is the 21st century for gawd sake.
I will remind every one of my detractors of this fact. I have read every document connected with MSAM 263. I need no one to interpret them for me.
It is a raw unmitigated FACT that all military personnel in Vietnam were there under the auspices of “Adviser” — it is only gross assumption based on hot air to claim otherwise. There was warfare going on in that country while these advisers were there, it is not some sneaking mystery that some of them were killed.
As far as withdrawal including CIA, and my making up that 263 would necessarily mean their withdrawal as well…is it really necessary to point out that CIA were and are US personnel?
All of the points made by Photon, McAdams, and our little soldierboy Bill Clarke are spin, and PR BS.
It is established that Kennedy was determined to withdraw all US personnel from Southeast Asia by 1965. It is in the record. It is the previously mentioned trio who are misstating that record.
. . .
As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:
After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.
\\][//
Willy Whitten February 18, 2016 at 2:11 pm
“Bill Clarke’s pretenses of being some sort of “history expert on the Vietnam War” is laughable nonsense.”
What is laughable Willy is that you can NEVER back up your rash and false statements about me or Vietnam. You are, as we say in Texas, “all hat and no cattle”, a windbag.
Back up your BS for once Willy. Show me where I’ve ever claimed to be an expert on anything.
“He cannot hold a candle to Fletcher Prouty, or John M. Newman.”
Good lord I hope not, Willy. I never want to be an “L word” or a propagandist of their high level. But at least these two know something about Vietnam. They would never make such a foolish statement like you do (the commies didn’t escalate until we did first, China didn’t help the commie until LBJ escalated and on and on). They could pass Vietnam War 101. Why both decided to play loose with NSAM 263 and other major factors I don’t know. Money and fame I’d guess.
You can’t and never will pass unless you get a grip on your arrogance and your dependence on the old slogans to hide the fact that you know nothing about the subject.
I thought you didn’t want to talk to me Whitten. I certainly don’t want to talk to you so I ask again; what is the deal with you.
Willy Whitten
February 18, 2016 at 7:08 pm
“I find it remarkable that not only are some here still fighting the Vietnam War, but are still fighting the Cold War: with all this twattle about “Commies” and “Pinkos” under every bed.”
You feel a spanking coming on about Vietnam so you try to muddy the trail? Wise of you, Willy.
1. The Vietnam War and the assassination of FJK coincide roughly. That would make them roughly the same age so studying the assassination and the war are roughly the same age.
2. Some allege that JFK was killed because he was going to withdraw from Vietnam. This makes the Vietnam War required reading here to understand the assassination.
3. The Cold War of course concerned every president from 1945 until the wall came down. That includes the term of JFK for you Willy.
4. My point is that despite all your self-righteous indignation you are right in among us! You are doing exactly what you are poking fun at us for doing. How much more self-righteous can you be?
“I will remind every one of my detractors of this fact. I have read every document connected with MSAM 263.”
Think we’ll put this one on a new reply Willie. We do have a word limit here you know and I could wright a book here.
“It is a raw unmitigated FACT that “all” military personnel in Vietnam were there under the auspices of “Adviser” — it is only gross assumption based on hot air to claim otherwise. There was warfare going on in that country while these advisers were there, it is not some sneaking mystery that some of them were killed. “
Willy I tire of your childish crap about word usage. You’re putting men in body bags and crying that they’re just “Advisers”. Disgusting. Again, despite what Willy would have us believe, we had U.S. troops engaged in combat on the ground, in the air and on the seas of Vietnam during the term of JFK. See Neil Sheehan “Bright Shining Lie” and/or Habersham’s “Making of a Quagmire” for a good background here.
“As far as withdrawal including CIA, and my making up that 263 would necessarily mean their withdrawal as well…is it really necessary to point out that CIA were and are US personnel?”
You might have accidently scored a point here. Way to go Willy.
You “L Word” again here. Still no reference Willy? How do we all know that we misstate your record is we can’t see it. Come on Willy, show it to us.
Much crap on McNamara’s BS snipped for space and redundancy.
Willy Whitten
February 18, 2016 at 7:08 pm
“I will remind every one of my detractors of this fact. I have read every document connected with MSAM 263.”
You’ve read EVERY document? Every document you say? Well read this document hot shot. Since you have already “L Word” what NSAM 263 states (reference coming soon) you only have several choices here Whitten.
a.Plead guilty of “L Word” and apologize.
b.Plead ignorant of the facts and pologize.
c.Claim you were set up!
Knowing you can do none of these let us move on here Willy.
“I need no one to interpret them for me.”
Now Willy that just isn’t true is it. It is nothing to be ashamed of. You evidently need a lot of people to interpret NSAM 263 for you and I’m here to help you ole buddy!
Here come your versions of NSAM 263 Willy.
This is what Willy Whitten had to say about NSAM 263 on this day.
September 3, 2015 at 11:53 am
“I am not the one that made a false claim about what NSAM 263 had to say.” Bill Clarke
Oh yes indeed you are, those of us here who have dug into this controversy know you are the one who is making false claims. Kennedy was pulling 1000 troops by the end of 1963, and all of them by 1965 – yes, come hell or high water.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
November 23, 2015 at 7:01 pm
No I don’t think ALL personnel would have been withdrawn, but I think those who would remain after 1965 would have been mainly diplomatic corps, with the withdrawal mainly being advisers, and military equipment, and getting the meddling CIA out of there as best as could be managed.
\\][//
So Willy you go from The Newman/DiEugenio crap (The “ALL” crap) on September 3, 2015 to on November 23, 2015 admitting that you don’t really think “ALL” personnel was to be withdrawn after all. And then you bless us with some Willy speculation about what would have happened, all pie in the sky. I gotta say Wily, looks to me that, despite your protest, you are in dire need of some help understanding NSAM 263.
“It is established that Kennedy was determined to withdraw all US personnel from Southeast Asia by 1965. It is in the record.”
Show us the record!
“It is the previously mentioned trio who are misstating that record.”
What record? You can’t produce it.
Ah, you go back to the “ALL” “L Word” and you “L Word” about how determined JFK was to to all this by 1965. You are becoming borning with your “L Words” Whitten.
JFK: Well, let’s say it anyway. Then ’65 if it doesn’t work out {unclear] we’ll get a new date. Reference supplied many time in the past.
I ask you again Willy, why withdraw if you are winning?
The Kennedy and Vietnam thing is very simple really: When the military thought that framing the war as going well would keep the men and equipment coming in to Vietnam, they fudged the information in that direction. When Kennedy decided to change tactics as it seemed the war was going well enough to begin bringing troops home as the training of the Vietnamese troops seemed to be working, the military suddenly reversed their assessment to show that the war wasn’t going well after all. Kennedy had it figured out at that point, that the military would frame it either way as long as they could keep the guns and men going into Vietnam.
No longer trusting the military’s own assessments Kennedy had his own assessment done by his direction; The Taylor-McNamara Report, which was overseen and written in DC on Kennedy’s personal direction. This resulted in NSAM 263 and it’s referrals to the Report as addendum.
NSAM 273 is often cited as being an extension of the same policy of Kennedy’s directive.
But it was not, paragraph # 7 of the McNamara report was penciled out by Lodge and Johnson and subtly changed to read that US advisers would only be withdrawn when victory was assured. This eventually led to the introduction of ground troops under Johnson, and an escalation to full-on total war against Vietnam.
* * * * * * *
NSAM 263 essentially became Kennedy’s death warrant. The coup was hatched and carried out in Dallas.
* * * * * * *
Before a large audience at the LBJ Library on May 1, 1995, McNamara restated his account of this meeting and stressed its importance. He confirmed that President Kennedy’s action had three elements: (1) complete withdrawal “by December 31, 1965,” (2) the first 1,000 out by the end of 1963, and (3) a public announcement, to set these decisions “in concrete,” which was made. McNamara also added the critical information that there exists a tape of this meeting, in the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, to which he had access and on which his account is based.
>The new version of paragraph 7 in the final draft of NSAM 273 signed by Johnson on November 26 opened the way for OPLAN 34A and the use of U.S.–directed forces in covert operations against North Vietnam.
\\][//
Those who grasp the true architecture of political power understand this:
The point is NOT to win the war. The point is to FIGHT the war.
This was true of the Vietnam War just like it is true of all modern wars.
\\][//
Mr. Whitten and Mr. Clark: May I interrupt your exchange of insults? Both of you are missing an important point. Assuming that Vietnam was an important factor in the assassination of JFK, it is not necessary for it to have been the reality that JFK was contemplating withdrawal. It is only necessary for potential coup plotters to draw that conclusion. Hearing “through the grapevine” that withdrawal was even discussed would have had a devastating effect, given their Cold War ethos.
On a related note, both of you reveal your Cold War biases through your favorite pejoratives. It’s naive to think it has no impact on your analysis.
JohnR,
I have never denied my biases.
THE WAR OF WORDS IN THE WAR OF THE WORLDS
The epistemic structure of one’s “inner world” can be defined as a Paradigm. This paradigm defines how an individual views and interprets the world around them.
There are multiple worlds, or universes – paradigms in play at all times in human cultures. There is the dominant paradigm enforced through indoctrination. There are then varying degrees of personal paradigm shifts as certain individuals break free from the dominant paradigm of their day.
“What is Truth” said jesting Pilate is an eternal question, best understood in grasping human language as metaphor…ie; Like is Not.
\\][//
“It is only necessary for potential coup plotters to draw that conclusion. Hearing “through the grapevine” that withdrawal was even discussed would have had a devastating effect, given their Cold War ethos.”~JohnR
They didn’t have to hear it through the grapevine John – they were sitting in on the meetings.
\\][//
JohnR February 19, 2016 at 9:07 am
“Mr. Whitten and Mr. Clark: May I interrupt your exchange of insults?”
By all means, please do JohnR.
“Both of you are missing an important point. Assuming that Vietnam was an important factor in the assassination of JFK,”
I don’t make that assumption JohnR but so be it. But I’ll make it for you in this message. I don’t think Vietnam had any thing to do with the death of JFK. But I’ll play the game and “assume” that it did with you.
“it is not necessary for it to have been the reality that JFK was contemplating withdrawal. It is only necessary for potential coup plotters to draw that conclusion.”
No problem here.
“Hearing “through the grapevine” that withdrawal was even discussed would have had a devastating effect, given their Cold War ethos.”
While that is, I believe true to a measure, wouldn’t the killers at least need some solid evidence before they killed the most powerful man in the world? I mean, if you take the shot and miss then the most powerful man in the world will be coming for you. And he won’t be happy with you at all!
“On a related note, both of you reveal your Cold War biases through your favorite pejoratives. It’s naive to think it has no impact on your analysis.”
True JohnR. I still have a Cold War bias and at 71 I probably won’t lose it. Of course it has an impact on my analysis. But fortunately I and any bias I carry did not write NSAM 263. I had nothing to do with that. Brilliant men wrote it and they wrote it in simple language for all to understand.
Bill Clarke, this is your comment (above) with the last sentence removed. This particular debate
is ended. There is never one exchange (two comments) about this in the threads it gains a foothold in.
If your comment related to this controversy does not appear, do not ask why.
JohnR,
I emailed your comment to Bill Clarke. He insists on continuing, accusing me of shortchanging him at the point
I ended this. No one can form an accurate understanding because it can only be based on the comments that have
been approved. JohnR, you are the only one in the discussion with a sole comment unapproved.
Tom,
Would you mind clarifying what the policy is here, please?
When you say, “This particular debate is ended,” do you mean the debate about JFK’s Vietnam policy or just the exchange between Willy and Bill in this thread?
Is Bill Clarke no longer allowed to post here? I certainly hope that’s not the case.
Ronnie,
I posted an excerpt from a Joan Mellen interview in which she talks about Garrison’s wife’s first cousins, David and Edward Baldwin.:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/thomas-jeffersons-affair-with-sally-hemings-tell-us-about-jfk/#comment-857445
She indicates, at least from how she describes them, that she does not know as much about them as we do. How does her presentation explain the universal non-disclosure of the backgrounds of these names, vs. what we now know, and Clay Shaw knew, but kept to himself?
“Garrison happens to be married to my godchild and first cousin”….
(Link to supporting footnote – https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vuym6rw9doQ/Vrdqs-3WcEI/AAAAAAAACu0/OK-mVPFKpW0/s512-Ic42/BaldwinCousinDonaldCarpenterFootnote.jpg )
So this is about Garrison’s wife’s cousins? Not that it’s not potentially important. But deep to follow and confusing.
Ronnie, you tell me how I can make this any plainer, and I will do it immediately! (If you say you don’t understand, why are you praising DiEugenio?)
Step 1.: Read these two items, a memo, followed by a description of Attorney Edward Baldwin.:
And:
Edward M. Baldwin’s former law partner, Judge Malcolm V. O’Hara testified to Orlean’s Parish grand jury,
Step 2.: Read this paragraph.:
Donald H Carpenter’s 2014 biography of Clay Shaw added this to the details in the paragraph above this sentence.:
Do we all miss the whole point? Baldwin was in Chicago in May 67 employed by the American Medical Association’s Political Action Committee. The AMA’s PAC.
Here is a former law partner’s description of Baldwin’s brother.:
Ronnie, the experts told us things went a specific way. They didn’t tell us these Baldwin brothers were
first cousins of Garrison’s wife, hopefully, for them, because they were unaware of it. But Garrison was
aware of it, and so was Shaw.
Ronnie, this is not rocket science. It matches this description, so it must be dissected because I had to dig for it, since it was NEVER presented by either “side,” only mentioned in passing, in
Donald H Carpenter’s 2014 Shaw biography.:
Several authors persuaded us that the CIA was swarming all over Garrison and his investigation and
his prosecution of Clay Shaw. What they didn’t tell us was that the two most prominent lawyers persuading
(interfering with) Garrison witnesses, were Clay Shaw’s former ITM hire just after the man returned to
the U.S. from a stint as a covert CIA agent in India posing as a newspaper reporter David Baldwin’s, brother Edward, and brother-in-law, Stephen B. Lemann, or that the Baldwin’s were Garrison’s wife’s
first cousins. Newspaper articles inform me, earlier this evening, that David Baldwin and family spent
Christmas, 1967 in NOLA with the stepmother of Stephen B Lemann, Baldwin’s mother-in-law, and the Thanksgiving holiday, in 1968. As I wrote at least five times, David Baldwin’s letter to Clay Shaw dated
the day after Shaw’s arrest, informs Shaw that Baldwin’s godchild and first cousin is Garrison’s wife.
Thanks Tom for the clarification. Still some pretty deep stuff.
Ronnie,
Could this be an indication that screenplay authors Sklar and Stone were misled, or …..?
Considering the success of the career of Tom Wicker, isn’t there some room for suspecting he could be one of our Mockingbirds?
Would that be anything more “presumption” than this?
“If a conspiracy as vast and consequential as the one claimed could have been carried out and covered up for three decades, why did the conspirators or their heirs allow Mr. Stone to make this movie? Why not murder him, as they supposedly murdered others? Why, for that matter, didn’t they knock off Mr. Garrison himself…”
\\][//
Yes, the CIA would rather be suspected as participants in the assassination rather than provide transparency.
Personally, I don’t just want to see Joannides’ files. I want to know who put him up to deceiving Congress in 70s, who decided to lie to successive investigations/archive releases about his very existence, and WHY.
“The professors and the senior editors would have dismissed the story of a Jefferson-Hemings liaison as an unfounded malicious rumor spread by political partisans, outright racists and undereducated colored people.”
I concur with the premise of the post, it’s supported tenets, and proposals (demands) for JFK TRUTH. Over time things change. It is the very nature of life and societies. Chattel slavery, once the staple of the South upon which its wealth depended, transformed from the ‘peculiar institution’ to emancipation; then, to Jim Crow; then, to the Civil Rights Movement; then, to inclusion and protection for all American by law – if not in actual practice. This last phrase “for all American by law – if not in actual practice” well summarizes what we are facing with release of government documents for JFK TRUTH.
I can add a few more inherent problems that come with “new perspectives, new technology, and new information:” resistance and reinterpretation. Using the Hemings-Jefferson case, protectors of Jefferson’s “image” did not want historical truth to be known, namely, that a white man could love a black woman despite prevailing attitudes and US Constitutional laws (which Jefferson helped to write) assigning Africans in America 3/4 value compared to Whites, and allowing the South to continue the untenable practice of “owning” human beings. Imagine the hypocrisy of Jefferson’s position. Sally Hemings bore the children Jefferson fathered. This is natural between humans. What complicated the natural process were the existing “perspective, privilege, and information” held by white males, who exclusively appropriated to themselves economic, legal, and political monopoly over society. Power concedes nothing without a demand; and, thus the various battles to end slavery, enfranchise women, end child labor practices, legitimize labor unions, food & drug inspection laws, Indian rights, Civil Rights, Special Needs legislation, and Gay rights. Can we see how a certain unspoken standard – even present at the founding of this country – (call it “entrenched white male power mindset”) continues its refusal to share the pie? How marginalized groups and progressive ideas are staunchly opposed unless and until a demand is made? In the Hemings-Jefferson case, the Hemings descendants of Jefferson (the African Americans) openly professed the Truth of their common progenitor. It was the white descendants (who also knew the Truth) that continued to resist until “irrefutable proof” was obtained. Power concedes nothing without a demand. The “DNA evidence” was the demand that forced, not only Jefferson’s descendant to concede to reality, but white America. It is Truth that white people and black people have engaged in relationships since Africans came to this country. The “myth” (read: lie) is the “image” that such human interactions were outlawed and taboo in society. Abortions were illegal and so was alcohol. We all know how those two “illegal” activities turned out.
So, here we are in 2016 embroiled with POWER over a demand for JFK TRUTH. Looking at the historical record, OUR demands, eventually, will usher in JFK TRUTH; but, also new problems (resistance).
Actually, three fifths.
It’s ironic that this is always cited as some sort of racial grievance.
Counting slaves as one whole American would have increased the power of slave states, by increasing their representation in the House of Representatives.
The politically correct view of this issue should be that slaves should have counted as zero. That would have minimized the power of Southern states.
In terms of voting power, slaves had zero power anyway.
Why can’t “the politically correct view” be described as horses being accorded three fifths status in US census count?
Are you actually inferring, in your, “It’s ironic that this is always cited as some sort of racial grievance.” that it is actually the opposite of grounds for a grievance?
Do tell!
OK, I guess I have to explain it again.
People who complain about slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person seem to be implying that it dehumanizes them.
But the only issue here was really the distribution of political power (in the House of Representatives) between whites in slave and non-slave states.
Slaves could have been counted as a full person. That would not have given them one bit more political power. It would simply have given their owners (and people in slave states) more power.
Dr. McAdams, thank you. Now I understand your point. It was irrelevant, not even redundant of the core issue, the dehumanization
of the condition of being enslaved. I had always understood it as a political compromise to pursue support for a legislative
structure in which representation of each state was influenced both by population as well as by the assignment of equal
representation of each state in the senate.
Professor Mcadams, please note:
“(Our) peculiar institution” was a euphemism for slavery and the economic ramifications of it in the American South. The meaning of “peculiar” in this expression is “one’s own”, that is, referring to something distinctive to or characteristic of a particular place or people. The proper use of the expression is always as a possessive, e.g., “our peculiar institution” or “the South’s peculiar institution”. It was in popular use during the first half of the 19th century, especially in legislative bodies, as the word slavery was deemed “improper,” and was actually banned in certain areas.[citation needed]
Some see this expression as specifically intended to gloss over the apparent contradiction between lawful slavery and the statement in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal”. But, in fact, at the time this expression became popular, it was used in association with a vigorous defense of slavery as a good thing.
One of the leaders in using the phrase, and in advancing the argument that slavery was a “positive good”, establishing the proper relation between the races, was John C. Calhoun, most notably in his Speech on the Reception of Abolition Petitions.
The March 1861 “Cornerstone Speech” of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens even argued that Jefferson’s words in the Declaration were mistaken, and that the Confederacy’s new Constitution, establishing “our peculiar institution”, had rectified the error.
[Wiki]
\\][//
John, Did you teach that at Marquette, that It’s all about Numbers? Did you introduce the philosophical implications of slavery in and of itself separate from these numbers? Did you challenge your students to consider what it might have been like to have been born African American in the US in that period, in spite of these numbers? Did you expose your students to the extraordinary courage it took from men of Martin Luther King’s character as they fought for their people, in spite of these numbers?
With all due respects, what a disgusting conversation in light of what we know about our history, and how very much more disturbing it is that this light weight debate is floating on this site without any more challenge than it is receiving. Germany passed laws to ensure that hate conversation would not be tolerated. America’s newest challenge is recognizing revisionist history and what constitutes ‘hate speech’ in this anti-politically correct movement lead by the likes of fellow commenter John McAdams. Are you actually suggesting that an African American’s descendants benefited in the long run from his being counted as less than a whole citizen? Fox News must have you on their “spin” payroll.
Oh, my!
Make an obvious observation that politically correct types disagree with (but only they don’t understand it) and they start talking about “hate speech” and shutting up people who say things they don’t like.
But Kennedy63 mentioned it, so I took the trouble to clarify the issue.
Correct. The Constitution was a series of compromises.
Gotta admit, once again the professor has schooled us, it was good for slaves to be counted as less than human. Those lucky duckies. Haha.
“Make an obvious observation that politically correct types disagree with (but only they don’t understand it) and they start talking about “hate speech” and shutting up people who say things they don’t like.” — John McAdams
Students of political science, please read Professor McAdams clearly: he says that he has made an ‘obvious observation.’ without acknowledging that it resonates in defence of the history of slavery in America … “after all folks, weren’t you lucky your great great granddaddy was counted as X percent of a human instead of Y percent of a human? ”
“Slaves could have been counted as a full person. That would not have given them one bit more political power. It would simply have given their owners (and people in slave states) more power. ” — John McAdams
John, do tell. In other words, you do not find slavery an anathema to the human condition in ANY culture; you are more concerned with how slaves were counted, how they would not have gained power had they been “counted” differently. Where’s your conscience, man, your responsibility to the generations you were entrusted with, at a Catholic university no less.
You folks are really slow in getting this.
Counting slaves as one whole person would have increased the power of slave holding states, by increasing their representation in the House of Representatives.
Slaves could not vote, nor engage in any other political activity, so they had essentially zero political power no matter how the House was apportioned.
“You folks are really slow in getting this.
Counting slaves . . . . ”
No, John, you’re the one that is slow in getting this.
The operative word is “slave.”
leslie sharp
February 11, 2016 at 8:35 pm
“John, Did you teach that at Marquette, that It’s all about Numbers?”
I wouldn’t target the actual numbers so much myself, Leslie. If you classify a man at any thing less than 100% man you have just slapped him in he face. I doubt the brothers unlawfully gathered around the corn crib at night and prayed for a 1/64 increase in their being a 100% man.
John does indeed make a very accurate point. The slaves would have been politically better off by not being counted at all.
“Did you expose your students to the extraordinary courage it took from men of Martin Luther King’s character as they fought for their people, in spite of these numbers?”
We’d probably be better off not discussing the character of MLK. He was an alley cat like many other men of power (see list of past presidents for starters). Instead let us discuss his leadership abilities and here he shines. In fact I don’t think the black community has had any leadership since King and Thurgood Marshall. I don’t think the white community has had any real leadership since JFK and LBJ. What we have now are 2 bit self serving racist. On both sides of the fence! We have no leadership. I see none coming.
Paulf’ February 11, 2016 at 10:48 pm
“Gotta admit, once again the professor has schooled us, it was good for slaves to be counted as less than human. Those lucky duckies. Haha.”
John McAdams February 11, 2016 at 11:09 pm
“You folks are really slow in getting this.”
I have been greatly shocked by the replies you have received on this one. You might as well have used the “N” word the way you are being portrayed here.
“Counting slaves as one whole person would have increased the power of slave holding states, by increasing their representation in the House of Representatives.”
Look accurate to me. Looks easy to understand too.
“Slaves could not vote, nor engage in any other political activity, so they had essentially zero political power no matter how the House was apportioned.”
Look accurate to me. Looks easy to understand too.
So what the hell is the problem! I wonder if this conflict between the Conspiracy backers (or whatever you want to be called)and the Lone Nutters (or whatever you want to be called)has become so bitter that logic and reason and truth no longer matter.
‘ . . If you classify a man at any thing less than 100% man you have just slapped him in he face.’ — Bill Clark
You made the point better than I.
“John does indeed make a very accurate point. The slaves would have been politically better off by not being counted at all.”
Were John McAdams not a (retired?) professor of political science, his opinion would be merely that, subjective; however, he would have been represented to his students as an ‘authority’ on whom they should rely for facts, and from all I have read about his disposition he was an extremely ‘biased’ authority in his classroom. Would not his responsibility be to open any discussion about the history of slavery by emphasizing the insidious nature of that system? Instead, here he emphasizes how ‘fortunate the slaves’ would have been had they not been counted at all. Perhaps Bill you haven’t followed his reputation as one who is opposed to “politically correct” – one of the more positive movements in our country in the last century – and I admit that fuelled my response. His analysis of counting slaves has the undertow of toxic propaganda, imo.
“We’d probably be better off not discussing the character of MLK. He was an alley cat like many other men of power . . . ” — Bill Clark
Courage, insight, conviction, concern for one’s fellow man, culminating in his anti-Vietnam War movement fall into my definition of character Bill. “Alley cat” is pejorative … are you suggesting that MLK hung out in alleys, in trash cans? Would you be comfortable submitting a comment on this site calling John Kennedy an alley cat?
Bill, as if you couldn’t figure this out, this is a silly discussion which has nothing to do with JFK. In his usual dog-whistle style, McAdams corrects an irrelevant aside in a way that defends the honor of the Confederacy against some mythical “political correctness,” which in practice is a lament that it is not cool for people to be openly bigoted anymore.
leslie sharp
February 12, 2016 at 11:50 am
Thanks Leslie but to be sure we are on the same page here; my point was that it really doesn’t matter if you count a slave as ¾ of a white or 3/5 of a white. When you discount him 1/3200 the damage has been done. I saw no instance of John endorsing this system. He merely corrected the incorrect ¾ given to the correct 3/5 that was law at the time.
As for John’s point that not counting slaves at all would have weakened the slave states is perfectly clear and accurate as far as I can see.
“Would not his responsibility be to open any discussion about the history of slavery by emphasizing the insidious nature of that system? Instead, here he emphasizes how ‘fortunate the slaves’ would have been had they not been counted at all.”
No, I don’t believe John said that, much less emphasized it. I think John simply stated an actual fact regarding the slave states sending representatives to Congress.
“Perhaps Bill you haven’t followed his reputation as one who is opposed to “politically correct” – one of the more positive movements in our country in the last century – and I admit that fuelled my response.”
Oh yes, I’m aware of John’s cant on the PC movement. We used to chuckle about PC in John’s group long ago. It is one of the more silly movements in U.S. history and has been the most virulent opponent of Freedom of Speech since McCarthy and the black list. It also spawned the silly, “we can’t offend” policy”.
“His analysis of counting slaves has the undertow of toxic propaganda, imo.”
Only if you try very hard to make it so.
“We’d probably be better off not discussing the character of MLK. He was an alley cat like many other men of power . . .” — Bill Clark
Courage, insight, conviction, concern for one’s fellow man, culminating in his anti-Vietnam War movement fall into my definition of character Bill. “Alley cat” is pejorative … are you suggesting that MLK hung out in alleys, in trash cans?
I’m sure you have led a more genteel life than I have and I’m glad for that. My life having some rather rough spots in it. That said, I’d bet the farm you know exactly what I mean by “Alley Cat”. If not I can reword it for you using more earthly words.
“Would you be comfortable submitting a comment on this site calling John Kennedy an alley cat?”
Yes, I’d be comfortable with calling JFK an “alley cat” here. Look Leslie, I’m no prude. I could excuse a slip but these boys that have to screw all the women in the world have a pathological problem. It doesn’t take away from the great things some of them accomplished but I think it is certainly a flaw. A flaw that has a bearing on what I call “character”.
Calling people who disagree with you “bigots” is itself a form of bigotry.
The key thing about political correctness is its intolerance of any dissent from the standard politically correct position.
Politically correct people don’t want to argue their position. They just want to shut people people who disagree.
This WaPo article on political correctness in this election year seems to have something for both sides of the debate. Perhaps John McAdams and Bill Clarke would share their ‘favourite paragraph(s)’ for comparison? How is this relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy? It’s not a question that would be all that difficult to answer.
” . . . Others argue that growing antipathy to the notion of political correctness has become an all-purpose excuse for the inexcusable. They say it has emboldened too many to express racism, sexism and intolerance, which endure even as the country grows more diverse. . . . “Driving powerful sentiments underground is not the same as expunging them,” said William A. Galston, a Brookings Institution scholar who advised President Bill Clinton. “What we’re learning from Trump is that a lot of people have been biting their lips, but not changing their minds.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-trump-may-be-winning-the-war-on-political-correctness/2016/01/04/098cf832-afda-11e5-b711-1998289ffcea_story.html
John, you are hilarious. Being bigoted is bigoted, not calling it out. And I didn’t call you a bigot, just noted that the lament against “political correctness,” a stupid and meaningless phrase, is in practice a refuge for bigots. See: Donald Trump.
I come from a fundamentalist Christian environment, so I’ve heard a ton of bigots who swear up and down that gays or feminists or secular humanists or communists (fill in the blank) are the root of evil and will destroy America and spend eternity being tortured with Satan. But if you express contrary views, they get fairly hysterical and accuse you of trying to shut them down.
No, you can say whatever the heck you want, but accusing people who criticize your views of trying to stop you from speaking is a ploy to stop your critics from speaking.
I will say now with confidence that tolerance for intolerance is proven time and again to be a great and tragic error historically.
And yes, with Trump it is garishly in the open. It is always only a small step beyond the pale, this danger of oppression gaining authority by tolerance for their known intolerance.
The fact is that a large proportion of the population is bigoted in one way or the other – and not just whites. So what do you do then in a “democracy” when a demagogue captures the imagination of a large portion, a majority of a population? With the undercurrents that are constantly there, this is bound to rise to the surface at some point in some strange historical cycle.
My answer to this problem is one few here would agree with; the Anarchy of the Sovereign Individual. The abandonment of central governments, and only free associations, no coerced membership into the collective. A nation cannot be taken over by a charismatic demagogue if there is no nation to be taken over.
This anarchy situation can only take place in a more mature and self sufficient people to come to pass. The future looks to be headed for more of a collectivist society, not a lesser one.
Propaganda, Indoctrination, the manipulation of base habit? Perhaps the herd is destine to be forever baffled by their own existence.
\\][//
No, it’s not.
Political correctness is a distinct phenomenon. Politically correct people can be distinguished from traditional liberals, who believed in free speech.
The key element in political correctness is that the truth or falsity of a proposition does not matter. All that matters is that it serves the interest of “social justice.”
Thus some people here complained at my perfectly accurate description of the significance of the 3/5 Compromise.
For the politically correct, what matters is the race, gender and sexual orientation associated with a particular position.
Objective standards of evidence and logic don’t matter.
Trump just insults people.
If he limited himself to statements that are politically incorrect, but true, that would be good.
It’s politically incorrect, for example, to point out that feminists exaggerate the prevalence of campus date rape, or that black people are disproportionately incarcerated because they disproportionately commit crimes.
Those are true statements, and relevant if certain issues come up.
John, let’s revisit your original statement.
Actually, three fifths.
‘It’s ironic that this is always cited as some sort of racial grievance.’
Does this not indicate that in your opinion, counting an African American as anything other than 1 person should not be construed as ‘some sort of racial grievance’. If it’s not a grievance – impacting a specific race – what would you call it?
‘Counting slaves as one whole American would have increased the power of slave states, by increasing their representation in the House of Representatives.’
True fact. And void of the the overriding context of the practice enslaving another human being. You argue as if the debate was somehow rational in that time and place, hiding in historical ‘fact’ without insisting on a caveat, fact: slavery was, is and always will be an anathema to the human condition.
‘The politically correct view of this issue should be that slaves should have counted as zero. That would have minimized the power of Southern states.’
I’m surprised you attempt to speak from the view of political correctness since you don’t actually understand it. But, yes, you can twist the logic to suit an agenda – as apologist for slavery, as a true unrepentant Confederate-born citizen would. Would you state unequivocally that you reject the concept of slavery? If not, there is no purpose served in continuing this discussion.
‘In terms of voting power, slaves had zero power anyway.’
Would you state, unequivocally that you consider that political reality was an anathema to our democracy?
I’ll do that if you’ll denounce Joseph Stalin.
Of course, you never said anything in support of Stalin. But then I never said anything in support of slavery.
So you go first.
That’s easy. I denounce Joseph Stalin.
Now your turn.
OK, I denounce slavery.
If that makes you feel better, good.
Of course, we have accomplished nothing to help the victims of slavery, nor the victims of Stalinism.
So denunciations are a rather cheap way of claiming virtue.
‘OK, I denounce slavery. . . . If that makes you feel better, good. . . . Of course, we have accomplished nothing to help the victims of slavery, nor the victims of Stalinism. . . . So denunciations are a rather cheap way of claiming virtue.’
That must be new territory for you, John, “virtue”. You’ll recognize the Irish phrase … “You are some ‘piece a work’.” Full of ploys that you exercise for the pure mischief. How can anyone take you seriously these days.
How can anybody take you seriously when you turn to ad hominem, rather than discuss issues.
“I’ll do that if you’ll denounce Joseph Stalin.
[…]
So denunciations are a rather cheap way of claiming virtue.”~McAdams
. . .
It is obvious that it was McAdams himself that chose the ‘cheap way of claiming virtue’, as his proximate suggestion led the denunciation game.
But we “must not” consider McAdams’ to be disingenuous when caught out in such ludicrous charades of “logic” time and again…. because? I don’t think there is an excuse, it’s “just because” – like the impossible naggery of Humpty Dumpty to Alice, in ‘Through The Looking Glass’.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”~Lewis Carroll
\\][//
I don’t believe a “Smoking Gun” that proves a Conspiracy will be found in the next batch of documents to be released. There may be some new leads or a broader understanding of how much government agencies knew about Oswald prior to the assassination. Beyond that, I’m not expecting much.
I do however, agree that Science could alter the official view of the Kennedy assassination. Particularly in the area of testing the Lead and Fiber in the Bullet and Bullet fragments
I am inclined to agree with you Neil. I don’t think there will be a smoking gun as such. But those of us who believe that either Oswald did not act alone in the assassination of President Kennedy, or was a genuine patsy, are going to have to look at threads that can be further developed and built upon.
I am thinking primarily of the CIA/DRE’s role in the events of the summer of 1963 in New Orleans (Joannides’ files should be of some assistance there), the key events that took in Mexico City, the files of Harvey, Morales, Hunt, Philips, Goodpasture, it appears there is going to be more information on Oswald’s 201 file released, more on Jack Ruby, and more on the activities of anti-Castro Cubans groups, such as Alpha 66. I suspect it will be less of a case of a smoking gun, and more one of joining the dots.
It appears now, on the surface at least, that Jim Garrison’s investigation and arrest and prosecution of
Claw Shaw was a contrivance, the players, including Shaw, witting participants. If this is indeed the case,
would the cooperation and silence of both Garrison and Shaw not have required some influence (coercion, manipulation) of an order many times higher than what was required to “nudge” Ruby into place in the DPD HQ garage, and his silence that followed? Ruby was just an individual. Garrison and company are associated with a big cast of players, assumed of a “need to know” level of instruction, and a paper record of CIA concern that is also
a staged presentation.
It points to big concerns masked by big distraction. JFK, the movie and the late 1991 pushback of GQ magazine’s
Nicholas Lemann seem of the same formula, the cat chasing its tail to preserve the appearance of adversarial
“sides,” and to reinforce legitimacy of the film itself.
If this is what actually happened, what the Garrison investigation was really intended to do, what is it they
vehemently want to conceal from us?
You are saying that Garrison himself was part of a JFK assassination conspiracy cover up?
On the surface, at least. It has become a reasonable suspicion….
Even if this was meant by you to be an entirely sarcastic response, it is a reasonable reaction.:
I was not aware until last night that Joan Mellen met Garrison just after the Shaw trial, in 1969.
I do not know what you’re inclination is, but mine is to attempt to make sense of the entirety of the details.
Would your question of me, if it is a valid premise, all one team giving the appearance of opposing factions,
account for the following (and for Stone’s film)? If not, what else might?:
You’ve said, Dr. McAdams, as far as yourself, when I asked you to “get real,” “What you see, is what you get.”
What do you make of all this, especially Shaw and his lawyers sitting on this.:
“Garrison happens to be married to my godchild and first cousin”….
(Link to supporting footnote – https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vuym6rw9doQ/Vrdqs-3WcEI/AAAAAAAACu0/OK-mVPFKpW0/s512-Ic42/BaldwinCousinDonaldCarpenterFootnote.jpg )
I assume emerging verifiable research details are building blocks forming a greater historical account, at least in
genealogical research.
I included this in a 2013 comment.:
…Stephen Lemann, an alleged paymaster for the CIA in New Orleans (his nephew went on to head Columbia’s School of Journalism) – https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/how-does-new-orleans-figure-in-the-jfk-story/#comment-116540
This could pose quite an uncomfortable conundrum for the ‘research community’. On the one hand, dot connecting is discounted out of hand by (for the sake of conversation here) John McAdams, Jean Davison and photon among others, so how can any one of them credibly exploit the possibility that Jim Garrison’s investigation was compromised by his association meaning dot connections thru his wife Leah Elizabeth to her godfather/first cousin David Baldwin and thru him the Lemann family and thru them the old establishment New Orleans Monroe family, without endorsing the argument that dots lead to silhouettes that eventually may lead to photographs and film. Any comment, John?
On the other hand, Jim Garrison’s relationship by marriage to Baldwin and the Lemanns who we know as peripheral characters in his case against Clay Shaw begs the question: how hypocritical was he to argue ‘propinquity’ i.e Russo was at a party with Ferrie and Shaw where he met someone whom he identified later as Oswald while the assassination was being discussed, ergo Shaw and Ferrie must have been involved with the assassination …. when in fact Garrison failed to identify his own personal propinquity to Baldwin, the Lemanns and thru them, Clay Shaw?
Along comes Zachary Sklar to help pull together Garrison’s book. Did Garrison withhold his familial connections to David Baldwin (regardless of Baldwin’s critical assessment of the mental stability of his goddaughter’s husband) or did Sklar know about it and choose to edit it out? And if so was Stone aware of the family connections between Garrison’s wife Leah Elizabeth and David Baldwin which connected her directly to Stephen Lemann ? Were Sklar and Stone aware of the memos that implicated Lemann as a CIA paymaster let alone the history of his relative David Baldwin (and Jesse Core) in India with the US Embassy and the subsequent employment at the International Trade Mart?
In “JFK” the movie, Oliver Stone informed us thru Sissy and Kevin that there was a great deal of tension between them during the investigation. We know that Sissy asked furtively “why are you prosecuting this nice man? [Clay Shaw]” (paraphrasing) What we don’t know is why she was so upset. It could be argued that she had an insider’s opinion of Shaw’s character via her godfather David Baldwin, OR thru Baldwin she was being pressured to pressure her husband; but why wouldn’t Sklar and or Stone clarify that dynamic in the film when the tension between Garrison and his wife was portrayed as highly significant? Dramatic license or did they know more? and did this film further obscure the machinations out of New Orleans leading to 11.22.63 Dallas. We get one small glimpse from a character on Kevin’s legal team who tells us that a Ruth Kloepfer divulged that Stephen Lemann was a CIA paymaster. Beyond that, the Leah Garrison, her godfather David Baldwin and his Lemann/Monroe connections are unexplored.
Well, now Tom S. is seeing to it that they are explored, on this site.”
“He (Edward M. Baldwin) enumerated or spelled out his personal dislike for Jim Garrison, that he personally thought he should be destroyed, that Sheridan’s so-called mission in the City of New Orleans with this so-called documentary was to end the problem, destroy Garrison or to get him to resign” ~Judge O’Hara
“Garrison happens to be married to my godchild and first cousin”~David Baldwin
. . .
So Tom, How do you put these two data points together to come up with Balswin and Garrison coming together in a plot together?
You ask: “what is it they vehemently want to conceal from us?”
So what do you think that could possibly be?
It seems to me concealing a family feud, would be the most simple answer here.
\\][//
Except, Willy, you’re not accounting for Shaw’s and his lawyer’s silence about “a family feud,” or for the Lemann’s and David Baldwin’s CIA connections. What person would expose themselves to two years of
uncertainty and incalculable legal expenses, not to mention the risks of the outcome of a criminal trial, if he possessed what David Baldwin shared with Shaw in a letter dated the day after Shaw’s arrest?
We’re kicking this around to attempt to determine how it could all be reasonably explained, Willy. You’ve offered an incomplete explanation.
You also have not explained Nicholas Lemann’s ariticle in the January, 1992 GQ Magazine
edition. His father Thomas was and still is alive, and his uncle Stephen B Lemann was alive at the time. So were Jim and Liz Garrison. Nicholas’s article fits the limited hangout/grand distraction scenario of the appearance of this entire saga, but it was not
a gesture in keeping with a preservation of family secrets explanation.
If it ALL has already been explained to your satisfaction, please share where I can find
the explanation. The problem here is that Max Holland has not informed one “side” how to
talk about ALL of this, and the other side does not need or appreciate these new details. Donald H Carpenter’s mention of everthing in my ending paragraph in this comment was published without comment in his book and has gone unnoticed for more than two years.
This is still the layout.:
vs.
I want to make it clear here, I DO in fact support what Tom is doing here in providing a more thorough picture of the circumstances surrounding the Garrison trial of Clay Shaw.
While I have a different take on what this information actually might mean, that does not mean I am not suspending my final judgement on what might develop further here on the subject. I might be persuaded by further argument. At this point I am not quite yet.
Buy I might add I have not read a critique of my take on the idea that “Dirty Laundry” being aired in public was a firm taboo with the New Orleans elites of the time. And how that might very well have led to lack of disclosures by certain parties involved.
Why is this not a reasonable proposition?
\\][//
Tom, are you suggesting that since some of the players in the Garrison/Shaw saga traveled in the same social or family circles, that the whole investigation was a phony? Are you serious??
Hey Stephen! I’ve laid out what I found. I’ve attempted a reasonable explanation for the silence….universal silence,
including from Clay Shaw and his lawyers. No one seems inclined to touch it.
I’m not invested in any particular scenario. Please attempt to explain it all, if you can address every facet, and I’ll
do the same as I just did with Willy’s explanation. I’ll either point out what you have not taken into account, or I’ll agree
that your explanation is at least or more reasonable and encompassing as the idea that the entire saga was a contrivance.
I am serious about developing a reasonable explanation to fit the facts, as I always try to be.
I can’t really follow your reasoning on this. It strikes me as a very unlikely scenario.
Stephen,
It is your perogative to choose not to wrap your mind around these facts and attempt to make sense of them.
It is your choice to attempt to minimize the weight of them, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts,
without consequence.
It is, at its core, the complete blackout of this information. Garrison’s father-in-law, Harold J. Ziegler,
also uncle (brother of their mother) of David and Edward Baldwin, died in July, 1968. Link to view obit image:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Kre582h1clA/Vrfm1sEbqMI/AAAAAAAACwI/Ntga8jujLlU/s512-Ic42/HaroldZieglerObit072768.jpg
You, yourself presented the minimization description of social circles. Does prominent not accompany that description? This segment of the connections should have
gotten attention in the local press. Clay Shaw should have taken David Baldwin’s March 2, 1967 letter to his attorneys.
Edward Baldwin was compelled to testify before a grand jury. Where in the transcript of his testimony is it mentioned
that he is first cousin of Garrison’s wife, Leah, aka Liz?
David Baldwin’s two brothers-in-law, Thomas Lemann is father of Nicholas Lemann. Note the date of the FCC license renewal
app.:
Garrison is describing Stephen B Lemann:
December 21, 1991, JFK, the movie, is released in theaters.:
January, 1992 issue of GQ Magazine:
Nicholas’s grandmother, who lived into her 90’s, was the mother-in-law of David Baldwin.
Part I of II
Part II of II
No disclosure in Nicholas Lemann’s GQ article, deception to the court in his justifications for writing the article,
No disclosure in Nicholas’s rebuttal to Zachary Sklar, or from Sklar about Lemann’s conflicts/background:
I’m not choosing anything; I’m merely opining that, by any objective measure, the facts you cite do not inexorably lead to the analysis you postulated. I’ve been immersed in the New Orleans case for a long time and I’m qualified to have an an opinion on this.
That having been said, discussion and debate are good things.
You certainly are qualified, Stephen. Did you read Donald H Carpenter’s book, “Man of a Million Fragments: The True Story of Clay Shaw”? I imagine it is tedious, if you are not using it as a reference source, but actually reading it as a book.
Stephen, I try to filter what I find, through the question, “what would a reasonable person believe about this?”
I don’t think one would simply find it unintriguing, and walk away, unless one is already heavily invested in a set of conclusions, and these new details do not fit.
For example, these new details do not fit this unqualified presentation.:
….or this-
“Garrison happens to be married to my godchild and first cousin”….
(Link to supporting footnote – https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vuym6rw9doQ/Vrdqs-3WcEI/AAAAAAAACu0/OK-mVPFKpW0/s512-Ic42/BaldwinCousinDonaldCarpenterFootnote.jpg )
What do you suppose the reaction of a reasonable person would be if their only exposure was a rudimentary knowledge
of Garrison’s investigation and arrest and prosecution of Clay Shaw, Joan Mellen’s excerpted 2006 interview by Rex Bradford,
and David Baldwin’s March 2, 1967 letter to Clay Shaw?
An update to my reply to Stephen Roy. The lack of disclosure continues, unabated. I could have saved my breath and quite a few keystrokes, and only
responded to you once, instead of proceeding into several exchanges with you, uninformed, thanks to your nondisclosure, at the outset. It turns out you
read the Donald H. Carpenter biography on Clay Shaw not once, but at least twice, and you wrote a review of the book available at, of all places, Max Holland’s
website, and Holland happens to be the instigator/contributor to the “nothing to see here, move along, folks” minimization effort titled, “Bedeviled by Spooks”.:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
Link to Stephen Roy’s review.: http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2015/03/shaw.html
These snippets from Carpenter’s book do not exactly flatter Max Holland’s point of view, and Stephen Roy just happens not to have mentioned either of them in his
review, but he has made a point of coming here to challenge my presentation of them and my preliminary analysis in a rather haughty tone, especially in his most recent comment.
I’m glad I did not rely on Stephen Roy to describe what is in author Carpenter’s book, and I came by my information independently of Carpenter’s book, and gave him
credit where it was due. From as seemingly incompatible corners as Jean’s, Willy’s (Whitten), and Photon’s, the lack of appreciation or silence in reaction to these new details is telling. This is still Jfkfacts.org, and I assume our readers want to know, at least some of them.:
The problem is that the “information” that you came up with has no relevance to the assassination.
You posted a CIA memo saying that Baldwin was probably a friend of Core. Turns out that is true. But that same CIA memo shows that Core was not CIA.
Indeed, Baldwin was not CIA after 1952.
Since you have connected all of these folks to Jim Garrison, does it follow that Garrison was a CIA stooge?
Actually, I think you have asserted essentially that.
Dr. McAdams, do you not understand that this new information does confirm that the people who claimed to understand and to relate to us what was going on,
from Shaw’s reaction, to Sheridan’s activities, the directors and staff of WDSU, the CIA documents, Max Holland’s et al “Bedeviled by Spooks,” (and much of the analysis in pages on your website) the contemporary newspaper, broadcast, (including the NBC Whitepaper) reporting, the articles and books by Phelan, Lifton, Weisberg, Turner, Garrison, Davy, Mellen, DiEugenio, and the screenplay by Sklar and Stone,
grand jury and Shaw Trial testimony, are not what we’ve been lead to believe? I find that beyond a doubt, now. I find it very troubling. I find the minimization of these newly
emerged facts not unexpected, but an indication that facts are not the highest priority. You, yourself just resorted to your well worn, “what does this all have to do
with the Assassination of JFK?” Why not ask that question of the now proven liar and disingenuous Dean Emeritus Nicholas B. Lemann, a scoundrel masquerading as a scholar
and a leading journalist, a man who you’ve defended the actions and statements of stubbornly these past few weeks, and will probably continue to do so for reasons I cannot link to any commitment to accuracy or ethics?
If nothing else, almost overnight, considering the span of 49 years, we now have a new litmus test separating those intent on preserving reputation and or belief system,
above all else, from those intent on figuring out what the hell happened in New Orleans between 1966 and December, 1991.
I hadn’t yet responded to your post asking if I had read Carpenter. What difference does it make? Unless I’m misreading you, you feel that the interrelationships of several of the persons from the Garrison-Shaw probe should have been disclosed, and that the lack of disclosure suggests that the whole thing was a contrivance. All I am saying is that I disagree with this analysis.
Stephen, these are your comments:
Come to find out, you wrote a review of Donald H. Carpenter’s book. It appeared and still is on Max Holland’s website. You say, “I am qualified to have an opinion
on this.”
You stated this in your book review.: http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2015/03/shaw.html
But in your review, you neglected to mention perhaps the two most important pieces of, unique, new information in the entire book.:
It follows that your assertion that you are qualified to have an opinion, must be weighed alongside your glaring omissions, and speaking for myself, I cannot discern
if you’ve come here to attempt damage control related to your own reputation, or if you are one of the people primarily interested in determining what the hell actually happened in the Garrison investigation and the arrest and prosecution of Clay Shaw.
There were many irrelevant things I saw no need to include in my brief edited review of a 700 page book. Stop suggesting that I have an agenda.
You seem to think that people being related to each other or traveling in the same social circles means that they are conspiring together. I don’t. That way of thinking is dangerously irresponsible.
A gross and disturbing minimization of what I discovered over this past month and Donald H Carpenter confirmed in his book. You have an agenda, and the last
thing you would want pushing up against your particular belief system is evidence the Garrison investigation and the arrest and prosecution of Clay Shaw was
a sham contrivance, a limited hang out intended to give the appearance that Garrison “must have had something,” and the CIA was paying people to discredit
him and his witnesses. You have no explanation for Shaw knowing (and keeping secret) that David Baldwin’s godchild and David’s and his brother Edward’s first
cousin was Garrison’s wife. You have not the least reaction or curiousity about this, from the son of David Baldwin’s brother-in-law.:
vs. this, which you say in your comment was too trivial to highlight in your book review, or even to admit the oddity, curiousity, or importance of, in your comments here.
Instead, you infer that I am somehow “the problem.”
Stephen, you claimed you are “qualified” to give an opinion. Considering your comments after that assertion, and your reasoning for not even mentioning,
or regarding as significant, unique details that obviously are new and unexplored, readers can decide what it is you are qualified to offer them.
Stephen, I consider the information no one wants to talk about, including you in the last five days;
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/ia1cS0iJlRU
….You started a thread with a description Seinfeld would be proud of, a presentation about nothing in
particular.
I began with the claims of authors DiEugenio, Mellen, Nicholas B. Lemann, Sklar, Stone, and Garrison himself,
and I react to their claims vs. what I discovered independently, as I assume author Carpenter did.
I can see who is reasonable vs. who is deceptive, clueless, in denial, or all three. It is reasonable to
devote considerable attention to this, and to accept that Garrison certainly wasn’t clueless. There is a lot of damage and it really doesn’t matter who is clueless vs who is deceptive or in denial. Did a $41 million movie get made and distributed and drive the political decision to create the ARRB despite Garrison and his former wife withholding from Sklar and Stone that the government sponsored saboteurs of his prosecution of Shaw identified by Garrison were actually his in-laws, or, as in the case of Shaw, did Sklar and Stone become informed and evinced no detectable reactions?
I looked into the background of Ed Butler, leading me to Jesse Core and to his and Shaw’s friend, David Baldwin.
The result is something that almost never happens, an opportunity to expose the agenda driven vs. the fact finders.
Those with other priorities than identifying and embracing what a reasonable person would, are exposed as the
tide recedes. This comment includes three links, one to your recent comments, another to Greg Burnham unwittingly presenting what is at stake here, and lastly a link to Jim DiEugenio’s (non)reaction to being informed of Garrison’s lack of disclosure before, during and even 23 years after the Shaw jury verdict. Neither of you seems curious or even interested in whether Garrison actually was forthcoming with Sklar and Stone.
Stephen, your approach over the last five days is to obfuscate, intentionally withholding what you
know. I criticized you for doing it in your pre-review evaluation of Carpenter’s book, but now, over at
McAdams’s newsgroup, you confirm the reasoning behind my criticism. It doesn’t matter if your silence is
uncomfortable, or calculated, it fails to inform.: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11626-Clay-Shaw&p=108014#post108014
OK, I’m done listening to your rude implications. So much for being Jeff’s impartial admin.
In just a few words, WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE of “Shaw knowing (and keeping secret) that David Baldwin’s godchild and David’s and his brother Edward’s first cousin was Garrison’s wife”? How does that lead to the conclusion that the whole thing was phony? I don’t think ANYBODY reading this understands what you’re saying.
Stephen, I am partial to the facts. I avoid glossing over or minimizing them. I work vigorously to let the facts lead me to where ever
they point, and I try to be direct. I’ve stated my opinion of what you’ve been stating in your comments and I’ve supported my opinion
to the best of my ability. You’ve posted not a single supporting link.
No one disclosed these tight knit connections, or commented on them, including you.:
But the people named above, and those closest to them, and a number of book authors have published plenty of other germane things.:
….Garrison included in his six page complaint letter to the FCC chairman, published in
the June 18 Times-Picayune;
In a memo to Jim Garrison dated May, 24 1967 – https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-853581 – CIA asset and NOLA ADA William Martin – https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=14708&relPageId=5 – wrote:
David Baldwin’s brother, attorney Edward M. Baldwin, and Stephen B. Lemann were representing – http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62433&relPageId=70
Townley and Sheridan, http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62427&relPageId=15 (see Baldwin’s grand jury testimony) and Baldwin was also representing William Gurvich (see Gurvich’s grand jury testimony).
Edward M. Baldwin’s former law partner, Judge Malcolm V. O’Hara testified to Orlean’s Parish grand jury,:
Twenty-four years later, coinciding with the December, 1991, debut in theaters of Oliver Stone’s film, “JFK,” Stephen B. Lemann’s nephew, Nicholas B. Lemann, currently dean emeritus, the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, wrote an article, The Case Against Jim Garrison The ex-D.A.’s theory on who murdered JFK reassessed and shot full of holes, published in the January 1992 Conde Naste, GQ magazine. Garrison investigation witness Perry Russo filed a lawsuit claiming defamation, against Conde Nast – GQ. Nicholas B. Lemann, attributed in the court record,
Your loss, sir, and to answer your question, it matters that you are not particularly curious, because I assume
you have the background knowledge, if you choose to apply it, to know what to look for and to highlight it, for others.:
SS Chief Rowley spelled the name wrong… McChann, and has the subject’s age wrong (too young) by at least five years…..reported as age 26 in 1964:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11341&search=walter_mcchann#relPageId=2&tab=page
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-20/#comment-862907
……..
http://phw01.newsbank.com/cache/arhb/fullsize/pl_003162016_1918_47709_859.pdf
Date: Thursday, April 23, 1964 Paper: Times-Picayune
Tom, this is very interesting, but since Garrison’s political career and reputation were both destroyed by his investigation, it is very hard for me to believe that his investigation was anything but sincere.
I’m a little confused by your reference to the film JFK; are you suggesting that Oliver Stone was somehow trying to cover up the truth about the assassination?
J.D.,
Zachary Sklar edited Jim Garrison’s 1988 book and co-wrote the screenplay of Oliver Stone’s movie.:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1
I’m applying the same standard to Oliver Stone as I am to Dean Emeritus Nicholas B. Lemann. If either is sharp enough
to achieve the success it is inarguable that they have, indeed, achieved, then it follows that they were in close enough
to have a much better understanding of the underlying dynamics than I obviously have been able to bring out. Stone spent
$41 million, he had a budget for research. I have an internet subscription, curiousity, some free time, and consistent search
“luck”.
Peter Janney had what he called a “crack” research team behind the details in his book, “Mary’s Mosaic”. I could share the email
I received from his researcher, Roger Charles, inquiring as to how I found Janney’s “missing” CIA assassin via google searches.
You would not expect things to be the way you come upon them, that much I’ve learned through experience. I think it is best to
hold the facts up alongside each other and observe what they tell you, as if you are assembling and examining them for the first time.
” . . . since Garrison’s political career and reputation were both destroyed by his investigation, it is very hard for me to believe that his investigation was anything but sincere. . . . I’m a little confused by your reference to the film JFK; are you suggesting that Oliver Stone was somehow trying to cover up the truth about the assassination? – JD
How many careers and reputations have been destroyed along the way of the Kennedy assassination investigation? That should not be a rationale for avoiding the question of whether or not Garrison was sincere, ‘used’, or culpable in an operation of obfuscation. Resistance to addressing these and similar questions is indicative of a dysfunctional effort among researchers, imv. Oliver Stone deserves all the credit and accolades he has received for “JFK”, but in exchange I think it’s a fair question to ask (and I’ll bet Stone is well able for the conversation) why the Leah Elizabeth Ziegler Garrison relationship with the Baldwins – one of whom was formerly involved with the CIA and later employed at ITM by Clay Shaw and the other who is implicated in the CBS/Sheridan/Townley effort to impugn Garrison and who was professionally involved with Leon Hubert – was not explored in Sklar’s script/Stone’s movie.
I don’t think anyone is drawing conclusions here. I think the facts are on the table, and to shy from them or worse, be insulted by the very questions, could be indicative of that dysfunctional system. Resolve that these facts are meaningless, determine they are significant with alarming implications, but at least have the conversation.
I think what is at the root of this whole thing is larger than simply the family thing with Garrison. I think that Garrison was considered a traitor to the Genteel Class of New Orleans. This was Jim Garrison’s real sin was according to his detractors.
I should think anyone who has ever lived in the deep south would grasp what a deadly sin this was considered to be by these hypocritical candy coated scoundrels of ‘Southern Hospitality’ and the Carpetbagger Heritage that put on such phony displays of “Class”. If you are not Born into this clique you cannot join. If you ARE born into this clique you cannot bow out from it with your hide in tact.
Apparently Garrison’s in-laws felt he had married above his rank in the first place. Another sin, perhaps forgivable if one kowtowed to the genteel rule-book closely, dotting all the “i’s” and crossing all the “t’s”.
Now Clay Shaw was considered a “nice man” an “upstanding citizen” and a part of this genteel clique where ‘Appearances’ are EVERYTHING: One can be ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ in these instances, but never openly Mr Hyde. So Shaw was pardoned for being Bertrand, precisely because that was proper etiquette, the ONLY thing to do in his unfortunate conundrum of being a gay man of high society.
So to me, the above are the underlying sociological integers that lay the foundation to the situation we are attempting to resolve.
So now we have set the table, let’s talk about REVENGE. Long simmering, deep seated revenge against an interloper into not only one’s class, but one’s family. Let’s talk about “Dirty Laundry” and the long held strictures against airing such in the open by members of the “Upper Crust”.
I propose that THIS is the answer to the problem you are trying to solve here.
I suggest this is at the heart of Baldwin’s intense hatred of Jim Garrison. I suggest that Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw was merely a convenient excuse for attacking Garrison, whom he loathed in the first place.
So now we come to this trumped up case these hypocritical socialites played against Garrison, using all the covert pressures of deceit and defamation at their disposal. We both know what powerful forces these were levied against Garrison.
Garrison was sabotaged – not just his case against Clay Shaw/Bertrand; but his entire life was sabotaged.
Like those who feel that Kennedy was a traitor to his class, and to this day indict him for his sexual escapades (that they ALL partake in themselves), Jim Garrison is to this day pilloried for being a traitor to his class.
I think it is misplace enthusiasm to join in on such defamation of Garrison in the search for what is now euphemistically called “truth” in this case.
It is no more than a rerun of what Lemann, Sheridan, and Baldwin did in 1967.
. . . . .
And although this is my opinion as to what is going on here; I cannot and do not insist on anyone agreeing with me.
\\][//
J.D.,
I think you might step back and think about the point that Tom is really making here; that there were no disclosures of these familial relationships at the time–when it would have been of significant benefit to Clay Shaw in the legal sense to bring Garrison’s family connections to light.
I have what I think is a reasonable answer that I have suggested. But you don’t seem to grasp the significance of these lacks of transparency by so many parties involved.
\\][//
Tom: I regret if my comment seemed dismissive; this is genuinely interesting and new information.
Willy’s interpretation (which I could not have seen at the time I made my post) seems plausible enough to me.
J.D., as I pointed out to Willy, his explanation does not address Clay Shaw’s knowledge related to him in a letter from David Baldwin the day after
Shaw’s arrest, nor does it deal with Nicholas Lemann’s timing and content of his January, 1992 GQ Magazine article resulting in a defamation lawsuit by
Perry Russo, and Lemann’s deceptive answer to the court of his motivation and justification for the slant of his anti Garrison article. He did not
disclose his deep family connections to the controversy he condemned in his article, or to Zachary Sklar in his rebuttal to Slar’s letter to GQ,
nor to the court hearing the Russo lawsuit. Willy’s scenario actually casts Garrison, if not Sklar and Stone in an extremely troubling manner.
Either no disclosure of the fact that Garrison’s tormentors, as he described them to the media, were Edward Baldwin, and Edward’s sister-in-law’s
family the Lemanns, father and uncle of Nicholas the writer. The Lemanns described in Carpenter’s book, in Garrison’s June, 1967 complaint letter to
the FCC, and 46 years later, in this article.:
J.D., so far I’ve experienced dismissive reactions, minimization and diversion, indignation, and in the case of Jim DiEugenio, deliberate avoidance. He prefers to
ignore this new controversy and prattle on about the irrelevant, malignant, Jim Fetzer.
Check it out…. https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?4-JFK-Assassination – my presentation is in the thread titled,
“New Book [coming soon] From Joan Mellen About LBJ et al.” I “lost” DiEugenio after he replied to a question I asked him, in a lower thread
on the same page, titled “Clay Shaw”.
Again, does anyone offer a scenario that explains all of these new details, integrated into the scenarios presented in “Bedeviled by Spooks,” or
in the books of Mellen or DiEugenio, or even alongside contemporary reporting of the authors I mentioned in my last comment?
Let’s just make these issues clear.
Is it not a fact that Baldwin revealed that Garrison was married to his first cousin and god daughter to Clay Shaw in a private correspondence?
The point I am trying to determine is WHEN did this information Baldwin gave to Shaw become public knowledge?
When this is cleared up, I will have more to say on this subject.
\\][//
Willy,
From what I have been able to learn, the relationship between David Baldwin and Jim Garrison’s wife was presented only once, publicly, without accompanying comment,
by author Donald H Carpenter in his 2014 Clay Shaw biography. My description below is verifiable, unique, and has never been disclosed in this form.:
I’ve attempted to explain it as I expect a reasonable person who has read the books by Ms. Mellen and Mr. DiEugenio would explain it. When this is also considered,
especially since so many more elaborate and intricate conspiracies have been championed, pre-autopsy surgery on JFK’s head, alteration or fabrication of the Zapruder film,
LBJ was the mastermind of the assassinayion and cover up, etc., I find the reaction to what I’ve presented amusing and very telling. Nobody likes it all that much!
“From what I have been able to learn, the relationship between David Baldwin and Jim Garrison’s wife was presented only once, publicly, without accompanying comment,
by author Donald H Carpenter in his 2014 Clay Shaw biography.”~Tom S.
Okay, so as far as is known no one knew this information aside from the families concerned besides Clay Shaw, until 2014.
That is what I though would be the case.
“I feel like a Spring Lamb!”~Clay Shaw, after his acquittal in the garrison trial.
Some have interpreted this as Shaw saying he felt like a lamb meant for slaughter. Or that he was a pawn in a big game. And I would think that Baldwin’s note to him may have given him that impression.
But WHO’S GAME? I would posit it was Baldwin’s game as O’Hara seems to indicate in his Grand Jury testimony.
I Won’t assert, but will ask; isn’t it supposition to include any others but Baldwin and his conspirators who set out to destroy Garrison?
Yes Garrison knew that his wife was Baldwin’s 1st cousin and god-daughter. But exactly how is him keeping mum on this fact tie him in with Baldwin and the others in a plot to destroy himself?
\\][//
Alright, Willy, scratch Stephen B. Lemann and the CIA. We’ll just confine our analysis to the mutual non-disclosures of Shaw, the Baldwin brothers, and Garrison, and ponder over which one of them put the others “up to it”.
‘I find the reaction to what I’ve presented amusing and very telling. Nobody likes it all that much!’ — Tom S.
My interpretation of the minimal response on this site is that those who comment at jfkfacts are having difficulty getting his or her head around the significance or lack of related to this revelation. Other researchers who recognize how this might or might not alter the perspective of the Garrison investigation of Clay Shaw and David Ferrie and the subsequent trial of Shaw seldom weigh in on this site anyway, so their lack of response can be explained quite simply, or it can raise flags – particularly if Tom S. has a history of dialogue with them on other forums. Stephen Roy’s appearance and dismissive comments could provide us with a bellwether. Reputations are at stake.
Following the documentable trail exclusively poses it’s own challenges … Salandria warned us. Fair dues to Tom S for the effort and commitment to only follow leads that have a piece of paper in support; but that method is in and of itself a double edged sword. In a court, the verifiable facts are presented for the jury to assess and adjudicate but the prosecution and the defence must eventually ‘sum up’ that evidence. I argue that Tom S. has been in the process of producing the ‘evidence’ and has chosen not to make assumptions as yet although I sense he is inching toward his summation, or leaving it to the eye of the beholder. Others approach it differently; for instance, with this information about Liz Garrison I have no difficulty or compunction against positing that Garrison was compromised, that Garrison, witting or not, represented a release valve in the first decade following the assassination, that the milieu in New Orleans was so convoluted (the Liz Garrison/Baldwin/Lemann relationship being but one example) it became the perfect foil for five decades of confusion and obfuscation, that the key characters in Garrison’s drama, Shaw and Ferrie served as patsies for a massive cover up of the real players with the power to authorize, plot and cover up the murder of Kennedy; Tom S. has struck the iceberg far beyond the tip and further identified a specific trajectory of obfuscation – Nicholas Lemann’s GQ article in 1991/2.
The question is not when the information about David Baldwin was made public, the question is why others along the way, responsible for fact checking their now highly respected projects, missed this, or wrote it off as insignificant? Nicholas Lemann was fully aware of the relationships in question.
So the question naturally arises; Why didn’t Clay Shaw in turn around, file a defamation of character suit against Garrison?
Could the answer to that be that he would have gone to legal council for assistance in such; and who was his legal assistance? We know of course that legal assistance were the people associated with Baldwin. So why would these people advise against such a suit against Garrison?
This brings me back to the “Dirty Laundry” taboo of the upper crust of New Orleans society. But this time Garrison was crushed professionally, his wife had left him. Other political machinations were still abroad, as revealed by O’Hara.
The addition of a defamation suit by Shaw would be a small addition to Garrisons troubles — but would be a HUGE PUBLIC SCANDAL for Baldwin’s extended family. What would be the bigger payoff, with less problems for these people?
I say avoiding a tabloid style scandal would have been the prime interest of these people.
\\][//
Yes. That’s is an explanation for why Ruby showed up in the DPD HQ basement on a Sunday morning, revolver in hand……
Willy, Nicholas B. Lemann did not publish his December, 1991, Garrison “hit piece.” in a tabloid. Joan Mellen met Garrison in 1969.
Her book “A Farewell to Justice,” is in its second revision.
Tom Purvis passed away before Donald H Carpenter’s biography of Clay Shaw was available.
“Willy, Nicholas B. Lemann did not publish his December, 1991, Garrison “hit piece.” in a tabloid. Joan Mellen met Garrison in 1969.”
~Tom S.
I realize that GQ is not a tabloid, but the hit piece on Garrison was a “tabloid style hit piece”.
\\][//
“I say avoiding a tabloid style scandal would have been the prime interest of these people.” — Willy Whitten
Willy, are you suggesting that the Baldwins, Lemanns, Zieglers and Jim Garrison were so small-minded that their worry about tabloid style scandal interfered with the investigation into the assassination of the leader of the free world? This was not a local, state or even regional murder investigation that could be buried in family, social or cultural dynamics. By all appearances, these were professionals, trained attorneys with credentials including in the diplomatic corp and high profile government and civic positions, so assigning them a parochial defense seems to me a weak observation. When you weave into the later story Walter Sheridan and NBC news – with the board of that broadcast system in the deep shadows – I don’t think it’s possible to employ such a simplistic rationale for Garrison’s failure to state up front that the very individuals he should have been investigating were in fact related to his wife. And in spite of the reticence to focus on Stephen Lemann, that is where the Baldwin and Core story leads, imo.
“The means and the reason”, in New Orleans? That would be Carlos Marcello. He didn’t have the means for the cover up without the help of the CIA. He did control NO including the Politicians. I’ve wondered for years if he didn’t order the hit on Oswald by Ruby. Even though Ruby came from Chicago Marcello controlled Dallas.
But Marcello couldn’t have covered it up Nationally.
“Willy, are you suggesting that the Baldwins, Lemanns, Zieglers and Jim Garrison were so small-minded that their worry about tabloid style scandal interfered with the investigation into the assassination of the leader of the free world?”
Excusing Garrison himself from that mix; YES I do think that.
Why am I excusing Garrison from that mix? Because he indicted Shaw. Because the others were involved with Shaw and CIA, and likely had ties to the assassination themselves, just like Shaw did. They didn’t WANT the investigation to who really killed Kennedy to bear fruit__because they themselves were the fruit.
\\][//
Willy, the Lemanns and Baldwins were up to their eyes in the military industrial complex in New Orleans, surely that’s clear by now. When you add into that mix that Garrison’s wife Liz was related to them, the fact that he indicted Shaw becomes even more curious for no other reason than the fact that from the outset he failed to disclose to the press, to the authorities who would be responsible for the legalities of his investigation, “at my own personal expense i.e. my peace of mind at home I am pursuing an individual (Clay Shaw) who has connections with my wife’s family and in fact if necessary I will pursue them directly.” But he did not. And beyond that, no researcher until recently ever identified that potential of ‘conflict of interest’. This has nothing to do with Southern decorum; this is a legal issue and those involved knew it at the time. Any judge could have argued, “Jim, you’ve obviously got a feud goin’ against your wife’s ‘cuzins’, you can’t pursue this.” The court didn’t make that determination publicly, Shaw didn’t use it in his own defence, Nicholas Lemann didn’t divulge it in ’91, and Sklar and Stone ignored it.
Okay Leslie, Tom,
If this elaborate patrician’s charade was meant as a distraction for some DEEPER connection to the JFK assassination what could that possibly be? Surely tiy must have some theory as to what purpose all of this was meant to serve.
Why raise a stink at all. Why not let it all lie quietly under the covers?
If you are positing that it was all meant to distract from the “industrial concerns” of these people, how does bringing their names into the open at all serve as such a cover?
\\][//
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……………. because that is what some of us believe happened instead of
a competent autopsy of JFK, and competent investigations of the assassinations of JFK and of Lee Harvey
Oswald.
Somebody else commenting under your name and contact info, Willy?
“Somebody else commenting under your name and contact info, Willy?”~TomS.
I have no idea how your response is supposed to connect to the questions of what possible MOTIVE Garrison combined with his extended family of in-laws would have in indicting Clay Shaw.
I was asking about the patrician class in New Orleans that supposedly included Garrison, indicting Shaw for some ulterior motive. Which is what I read as the theory you must be espousing here.
. . . . .
You seem to be answering as if I were asking why the research community (us) are investigating the Kennedy assassination!!!
How could you so thoroughly miss the context my comment was made from?
\\][//
Willy,
I was attempting to send you a message. Considering your recent posts, I don’t know you.
You are unfamiliar, considering you wrote this less than a month ago, and I had presented much
less information then, than I have in the interim.:
Again and again, Leslie or I answers your,
One or the other of us types word to the effect, “Willy, you are not taking into account the appearance of
two sides pitted bitterly against each other in public, yet it continued undisclosed that, despite what David Baldwin informed Clay Shaw of in his letter to Shaw the day after Shaw’s arrest, and despite that
David Baldwin’s brother-in-law was Stephen B. Lemann, and despite that Baldwin’s brother Edward was tag teaming with Lemann to interfere with prosecution witnesses in the State v. Clay Shaw, and despite Sklar serving as Garrison’s book editor in 1988 and co-screenplay writer with Stone in his $41 million “JFk, the movie, production, and despite Nicholas B. Lemann attempting to discredit the subject of the film in his well timed late 1991 GQ Magazine article, and despite Lemann misleading the court and plaintiff Perry Russo in Lemann’s answer to Russo’s 1992 defamation lawsuit, Garrison’s wife’s first cousin relationship
remained undisclosed, as did these Baldwins’ relationship by marriage, to the Lemanns.
I have not yet described the evidence supporting your comment of three weeks ago and quoted above, Willy.
The details about the Lemanns in the May 24, 1967 ADA William Martin memo to Jim Garrison. (See – https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-855300 )
Your repeated response in the face of all of that, amounts to, “yes, but maybe they ALL just wanted to avoid
disclosing any of it out of social concerns / appearances.”
All journalists, book authors, and even professional P.I.’s (Gurvich), as well as CIA and FBI, were also, to hear/read them NOT tell it, were kept in the dark about these conflicts of interests, David Baldwin, brother-in-law of Stephen B. Lemann, was godfather and first cousin of Garrison’s wife, Liz.
Tom,
I am sorry. I do understand all of the points you have made. I have followed all of these peoples connections closely.
What I do not understand is what it is all supposed to mean.
Is there a bottom line to this that you can state in simple terms?
\\][//
In your January 20 comment, (see – https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-851649 ) you seemed to have Stephen Lemann’s alleged relationship with the CIA at the center of your presentation. I already reminded you of the absence of the CIA’s role/influence in your more recent comments.:
Willy, if you really are unable to understand, it seems your repeatedly asking the same questions and offering the same incomplete explanation for why the above, is so, is not leading you to greater understanding or seems of much interest to other readers due to the repetition.
Alright Tom,
Let’s get to the bottom line of all this.
I think that Garrison had a case against Clay Shaw, I think it would have led to further revelations of the others involved with Clay Shaw had he secured a conviction.
I think that the sole reason for Garrison’s failure to convict Shaw as Bertrand was due to a concerted effort to destroy the trial and by extension destroy Garrison himself.
Those involve in this conspiracy to destroy Garrison include high ranking members of Garrison’s own in-laws.
So now, do you disagree with these assertions?
That is all I want to know. And if you do disagree what is the reason for that disagreement? Plainly put if you would.
\\][//
Those most prominently involved in this conspiracy to destroy Garrison, a conspiracy involving (supported by) the CIA, well supported both in memos in Garrison’s own investigation related records, and in CIA documents available at NARA, are attorney Edward Baldwin, a first cousin of Garrison’s wife who was the brother of a former covert CIA agent who worked several years for Clay Shaw and informed Shaw in a letter dated the day after Shaw’s arrest that Garrison’s wife, Liz was his godchild and first cousin, and was the brother-in-law of Stephen B Lemann and Thomas B Lemann, both directors in 1967 of station WDSU.
The still open question is how to fully explain the details above, considering that no one involved or in the media or in research that followed, including the 1988 book by Jim Garrison, edited by Zachary Sklar and made into a screenplay subsquently presented in a $41 million film production, ever mentioned those familial ties. The familial ties were finally mentioned, only in passing, in a biography of Claw Shaw authored by Donald H Carpenter in 2014, and reviewed by Stephen Roy at Max Holland’s website.: http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2015/03/
Let me get this straight Tom,
You think that Garrison should have recused himself from a prosecution of Clay Shaw because of his wife, and that connection to his in-laws.
Is this what you mean?
\\][//
“for the sake of argument”
1. as a basis for discussion or reasoning.
The purpose is to encourage discussion in an attempt to introduce reasoning to what in my opinion is unreasonable, that anyone could dismiss out of hand the significance of the failure to disclose Liz Garrison’s familial relationships with characters involved in the shadows of her husband’s investigation of Shaw and Ferrie. I share your frustration that this information cannot yet be boxed and wrapped in a tidy ribbon but deciding the discussion should be shut down simply because you lack the patience or curiosity is contrary to your reputation for intellectual rigor. Are you in fact so wedded to the “official version” of the Garrison story you would rather see the dissection of this new information interrupted than have that version challenged? I hate to employ the phrase as it has been so abused on this site, but … here goes, “how ironic”.
I’m having a deja vous all over again: “there’s nothing to see here folks, move along” — Warren Commission investigation
Would you be willing to post this information as a separate post? I think it would be extremely useful. This is the first time i have heard about this basic conflict of interest from Garrison.
I concur, Alain Wittman. This conversation deserves to be elevated to its own thread in order to pursue the analysis it warrants. In fact I’ve wondered for days why it hasn’t had it’s own thread, let alone buried in a debate that descended into our very own “civil war” reenactment.
Leslie,
I told you that nobody was going to like this, and it turns out, (no surprise) nobody does like it…..
I concur as will Ms Sharp,
One of the reasons this needs to be sussed out further is that as far as I understand it, this note from Baldwin to Shaw revealing that Garrison was related to him through marriage, was not made public until Donald H Carpenter’s book came out in 2014.
The question arises: How could Garrison known the connections between Baldwin and Clay Shaw at the time of his prosecution of Shaw?
Of course Garrison knew he was related by marriage to Baldwin. But how could he have known that Baldwin was in cahoots with Shaw?
\\][//
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-853431
Tom S.
January 25, 2016 at 5:38 pm
http://jfk.education/images/WilliamMartinMay24.jpg And
“I told you that nobody was going to like this, and it turns out, (no surprise) nobody does like it…”~Tom S.
If you are insinuating that I am one of those who “does not like it,” you are totally wrong.
I want to get to the bottom of this business as much as anyone else does.
But on the one hand you seem to insinuate that Garrison was part of some plot with his in-laws, yet on the other hand you give vital proofs that these same people were intent on crushing Garrison and his case.
This is why I keep asking you, which is it?
Do you think Garrison was culpable for knowingly performing his duties under a conflict of interest?
Or was this conspiracy to defame him covert and beyond his vision?
It seems clear to me that the second proposition is correct – that Garrison had knew that his in-laws were part of this concerted effort to destroy his case, but he in fact had a verifiable solid case against Shaw. Of course by the same token a case against his in-laws as well.
\\][//
Willy,
If I was insinuating something related to you I would not have put excerpts from a 1993 article by
William Davy under my observation to Leslie. “Nobody is going to like this,” is a pretty big subset.
To your credit, you have discussed and debated the significance and possible meaning of these newly
presented details, which is more than I can say of most who have had an opportunity to do it.
Thanks Tom,
I have been feeling a bit “put upon” lately.
I think I see that we are pretty much in agreement that Garrison had a solid case against Clay Shaw. Also that he was aware that his own in-laws were conspiring against him to sabotage the case.
Sometimes it is my own clumsy construction of my comments that leads to confusion. I am aware of that. There are many complexities to juggle at once in this topic.
So I will be more deliberate in my articulations in my commentary.
\\][//
Willy 2/14/16 6:45. Does Tom agree Garrison has a solid case against Shaw? I’m catching up.
“A solid case against Shaw”
Willy Whitten, among dozens of serious researchers seems to have long been wedded to the Garrison version of the conspiracy .. that it involved Clay Shaw and David Ferrie. Not to go off course here, but does anyone understand how these two particular personalities could have been invited into the inner-circle of decision makers and planners let alone those responsible for the cover up of the broad daylight murder of the US president? Shaw was flamboyant and bound to draw attention; Ferrie was eccentric and somewhat a loose cannon. Their alleged sexual orientation added to the potential for being compromised. Enter Perry Russo. Why would a sophisticated cabal involve these volatile individuals for any reason, unless it was to take the fall.
For the sake of argument and intended only to spur a fresh examination in light of the new facts, how has it evolved that Garrison had a ‘solid case against Shaw’ when in fact a jury deliberated only 50 some odd minutes before it exonerated Shaw. The jury selection must surely weigh into the equation, along with the judge which Stone captured as a symbol of questionable ethics among the judiciary in New Orleans. The reality is that Garrison’s failure to argue effectively placed on the official record that Shaw and by extension in popular lore Ferrie was ‘not guilty’ of involvement in the death of President Kennedy. When the facts finally surfaced to reveal that Lemann, Baldwin, Core, O’Hara, Sheridan, Hubert et al may well have represented arteries of the conspiracy extending from Clay Shaw, it was ‘too late’. The nail was in the coffin. Too many researchers and authors had too much invested. Researchers picked up the pieces of the Shaw investigation, Sklar and Stone collaborated in the elevation of Garrison to an additional victim of another layer of the conspiracy cover up, and those suspicious from the outset – the moment Jack Ruby gunned down Oswald in the midst of a phalanx of law enforcement – were vindicated.
(continued)
(continued)
The conundrum now is that we didn’t know everything about Garrison, personally. That’s at the crux of the recent revelations about Liz Garrison’s familial connections. When did Garrison realize that the evidence against Shaw was leading to individuals he knew to be related her? Was it early March 1967 when he was ‘informed by individuals’ that Stephen Lemann was the CIA paymaster in New Orleans? Was it earlier when he knew that his wife’s godfather, David Baldwin had worked for Clay Shaw at ITM, did he know that Baldwin and Core had been in India with the US Embassy (when Chester Bowles was Ambassador) and that they had been compromised in a security breach?
Why didn’t Garrison inform the court of his potential conflicts of interest, and if he did, why didn’t the judge demand that the investigation be handed off to an unbiased prosecutor? I posit, for now anyway, that either Garrison was the only one with the stomach for the investigation and that similar to others in this drama, he was used” (Blakey comes to mind) OR he was the designated prosecutor in a case that was designed as a release valve that was in fact what is now recognized as a ‘limited hangout’, and he played out his role either out of hubris or ignorance, or far more sinister. And therein lay the shadow.
“For the sake of argument and intended only to spur a fresh examination in light of the new facts, how has it evolved that Garrison had a ‘solid case against Shaw’ when in fact a jury deliberated only 50 some odd minutes before it exonerated Shaw.”~Leslie Sharp
A crooked judge.
\\][//
“For the sake of argument” Leslie? Or for the sake of clarification? I don’t think it is worth arguing just for the sake of doing it, but only for some valid purpose. Is your purpose really to bring clarity and perhaps some closure to this affair? Or do you want to keep it going as fun and games?
I would take another tack here and point out that the amount of evidence we now have, compared to what Garrison had at the time, proves Shaw’s guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a coordinated attack was in play against Garrison from CIA, national media, and Garrison’s own family – who were intimately tied to the assassination itself.
So you question whether Shaw had a strong case against Shaw. My position is that he did, and if everything he had on Shaw would have been admitted into the record, if the court would not have been biased in favor of the defense the trial would have lasted longer, more things would have developed, and the assassins and those behind them may have been identified.
Shaw admitted to the court clerk upon his arraignment when asked if he ever used an alias that he used the name Clay Bertrand. This was not allowed into the record as evidence for “technical reasons”.
Now you have followed all of the revelations Tom has brought forth just like I have. It is powerful proof of the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy by the very people Garrison was uncovering, as well as proof of the conspiracy to destroy Garrison’s case before he broke the case wide open using Shaw as the can-opener.
All of this is already on the record on this very page. I do not think it is necessary to relitigate it “for the sake of argument”.
\\][//
Words fail me…. wow!
“…what in my opinion is unreasonable, that anyone could dismiss out of hand the significance of the failure to disclose Liz Garrison’s familial relationships with characters involved in the shadows of her husband’s investigation”
~Leslie Sharp
. . .
“the significance of the failure”?
This is what I think is your responsibility to explain here. Just how significant is this “failure”?
Compare what ever ‘significance’ you find in this to the stakes of cracking open the plot to kill John Kennedy.
Who had the real conflict of interest in this whole affair? Who was working behind the scenes sabotaging the case against Shaw?
This is a practical contest for great steaks, not a pageant for who is the most unblemished ethically and morally. They are, and we are playing hard ball here – not pattycake.
“Nothing to see here”?
What are really the essentials to see here? Why is it that you see this ‘nondisclosure’ on Garrison’s part, in any way as sinister as the attacks on him by the forces that killed Kennedy?
\\][//
Possibly Garrison, or do you rule out even the possibility? If so, why? How are you able to discern what matters and what
doesn’t, seemingly with little difficulty and such confidence?
http://historiadiscordia.com/fred-newcomb-harold-weisberg-and-photographic-tomfoolery-in-the-garrison-investigation-part-00001/
http://historiadiscordia.com/barbara-reid-voodoo-practitioner-discordian-society-member-and-dealey-plaza-irregular-part-00002/
Did Garrison betray the trust placed in him by Joan Mellen or Zachary Sklar, to name just two, of many…. Sciambra, Alcock, et al? We know now Nicholas B. Lemann was openly deceitful….
IOW, there are many NEW unanswered questions. Do we attempt to answer them, come up
with additional questions, or do not pass go, go directly to Dealey Plaza, and sit
and stare at the storm drain and the picket fence… ?
“Possibly Garrison, or do you rule out even the possibility?”~Tom S.
Nothing is impossible, so I do not rule out anything. I just want to see the arguments put forth, with whatever evidence is available.
\\][//
Let us return to this core question; Why indict Clay Shaw in the first place?
If it was meant as some sort of distraction, a red herring, to throw everyone looking in the wrong direction. What was the right direction?
Does anyone have even a hypothetical answer for this?
\\][//
Man of a Million Fragments: The True Story of Clay Shaw
Donald H Carpenter, pg. 161,
Garrison was in too close. What does that mean? It would be easier to answer that if we could find some proof he
disclosed to Ms. Mellen or to Zachary Sklar that Stephen B. Lemann was the brother-in-law of David Baldwin and
that Baldwin was the godparent of Garrison’s wife, Liz, and that David and Edward Baldwin were Liz’s first cousins.
“Garrison smelled blood and headlines, and he went hard after Shaw.”
So, as I see this stacking up it is being posited that Garrison’s indictment of Shaw had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination, and everything to do with Garrison getting headlines.
Is this the theory du jour?
I am not being sarcastic, is this what you suppose was at the bottom of this whole affair?
\\][//
No, that’s right wing Hillyer’s take, writing in National Review. The reason I cited him was because his
non-spun facts support the 1967 characterization of Core’s role in Garrison’s professional life. Two sources stating the same facts, 46 years apart.
Again, we do not know what happened, and it is troubling that Garrison is described as so close to the
people closest to the target of his investigation, Clay Shaw.
Here is a reasonable observation. A district attorney coming into the investigation, cold, would have looked at Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, Jesse Core, and if they seemed worth investigation, Garrison would have been a person of interest in that hypothetical investigation, due to his ties to Core and his wife’s
relationships…goddaughter and first cousin of David Baldwin.
“Here is a reasonable observation. A district attorney coming into the investigation, cold, would have looked at Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, Jesse Core, and if they seemed worth investigation, Garrison would have been a person of interest in that hypothetical investigation, due to his ties to Core and his wife’s
relationships…goddaughter and first cousin of David Baldwin.”~Tom
Yes I see that. But Garrison was the only one to step into the pile of dog doo. Perhaps BECAUSE he was so close in and suspected Core, and his in-laws precisely because of their close proximity.
It would have been very weird indeed, and a clear conflict of interest for Garrison to indict the entire crew as co-conspirators, as they included members of his own extended family.
The best approach I see in this situation is to indict Shaw, and let all of the rest of it fall into view during the trial.
This seems to me the best strategy in his admittedly tight spot.
\\][//
‘ . . . Why is it that you see this ‘nondisclosure’ on Garrison’s part, in any way as sinister as the attacks on him by the forces that killed Kennedy?’ — Willy Whitten
Relativism, really?
It’s obvious the implications are layered: fundamentally, the information Garrison failed to disclose could have represented a conflict of interest. How could a judge or jury know whether or not Garrison was pursuing a vendetta against his in-laws had he introduced them into the case? If he had secured a conviction of Shaw, might that information surface on appeal, the entire case be thrown out? I’m not a lawyer, but these seem reasonable legal questions. Did he withhold facts about his wife’s relationship to Baldwin and Lemann for that reason, that he wanted to prosecute the case so badly he didn’t want to risk being prohibited? Another tier of “what’s to see here”: He had every opportunity to introduce Baldwin and even more significant the allegation that Stephen Lemann was the CIA paymaster which would have strengthened his argument of “conspiracy”, but he didn’t. Why not? This was a prosecutor who relied heavily on propinquity. A third tier is the question why the facts about the Baldwin, Lemann, Ziegler, Garrison relationships were avoided not only in ’67, and again in ’91, but to date?
‘This is what I think is your responsibility to explain here. Just how significant is this “failure”?’
I read this as a frustration on the part of those whose pursuit of resolution of the Kennedy assassination has been primarily through reading the research of others and assessing the merits, rather than turning over new stones to see what might have been missed and struggling with the implications. I agree with you that there was a conspiracy. Did Garrison expose it?
‘Compare what ever ‘significance’ you find in this to the stakes of cracking open the plot to kill John Kennedy.’ — WW
This too suggests a level of discomfort with anything that challenges Garrison; it is hardly a sound argument and in fact smacks of “the ends justifies the means” … there’s no relativism in a murder investigation, or at least there shouldn’t be. It’s your opinion that Garrison cracked open the plot to kill Kennedy. Do I believe his efforts served as sign posts, for instance the gun running allegations that have yet to be pursued sufficiently? Yes.
‘Who had the real conflict of interest …? Who was working behind the scenes sabotaging the case against Shaw?’ — WW
It’s not either or; one does not cancel out the other.
‘This is a practical contest for great steaks, not a pageant for who is the most unblemished ethically and morally. . . ‘ — WW
Who’s talking about ethics or morality? Who is suggesting the stakes are not great? These are questions not only with legal and historical implications, but far more sinister is the possibility the case was a charade, weaving fact with propaganda.
Wouldn’t the most rational explanation for all of these associations be that the white, predominantly Protestant and for want of a better term Anglo-Saxon political and social class that ran New Orleans before integration and the civil rights movement was a small, interrelated group that was segregated by class and wealth from the masses that made up the city? It should not be surprising that members of this professional class had personal relationships with other members of the group and professional relationships that may have had nothing to do with those personal relationships.
Garrison was a junior member of this group. What better way to increase his standing ( and chances for political advancement to the Governor’s Mansion) than a national investigation and trial? Perhaps he thought that he would get support from his relatives and acquaintances for putting N.O. on the map-or at least no active resistance.The fact that he didn’t have a case didn’t matter; unfortunately for him the people who apparently KNEW HIM THE BEST saw through his charade and tried to stop him from damaging the reputation of the city. The only thing that saved Garrison from probably being disbarred was the fact that Shaw died before he could bring his defamation suit forward.
Tom S, it appears that your pal Mr.DiEugenio is having a hard time accepting any of your concerns about the Garrison links to the “CIA” crowd in N.O. He likes to use your info, however-without giving you credit. He also was going to return to this forum-but now you have scared him off! He is another of these folks that continue to insist that I am Paul May-which should tell you how he really isn’t interested in the facts.
“Relativism, really?”~Leslie Sharp
Yes starkly sharp distinction, “relatively” speaking.
\\][//
“These are questions not only with legal and historical implications, but far more sinister is the possibility the case was a charade, weaving fact with propaganda.”~Leslie Sharp
Again, for what purpose?
I think you have woven a lot of your own suppositions in with this info on Garrison’s family relations. It is fine to have your own opinions on such things – but frankly I don’t buy it.
If you don’t think that there is proof enough that Shaw was actually Bertrand, that he was connected with CIA, that CIA and Garrison’s in-laws sabotaged the case that would have led to exposing them as part of the New Orleans portion of the plot to kill Kennedy, then I think you have gone off on the wildgoose chase that those out to destroy Garrison set up for you to follow.
\\][//
Willy,
Repeatedly, you’ve pushed back against this possibility as absurd, impossible, Garrison’s reputation and career were ruined. But, they were not, Shaw bore the brunt of it, if it was a contrivance, and… if it wasn’t.
I don’t think that the Shaw-Ferrie connection to the assassination has even come close to being debunked. You seem to be dismissing all the other points of interest posted in this thread’s commentary, all the known links of Shaw to Permindex/World Trademart, CIA connections of Shaw and Garrison’s in-laws.
You have now honed in on one single suppositional proposition, that Garrison was somehow involved with all of these people for some unknown purpose.
What was that purpose?
Oswald knew David Ferrie from the time he was in Civil Air Patrol at Moisant Airport when Ferrie was the leader of that organization. I have seen the photo’s of Oswald along with other young members in a group with Ferrie.
Ferrie was known to have been a frequent visitor to Guy Banister’s office on Camp Street in N.O. We know that Oswald was using an adjacent office to Bannister’s.
We know that Banister was involved with running guns and equipment to the anti-Castro Cubans.
So what do we do with all of those facts? Do we throw them out because Garrison was married to Baldwin’s god-daughter 1st cousin?
\\][//
“These are questions not only with legal and historical implications, but far more sinister is the possibility the case was a charade, weaving fact with propaganda.”~Leslie Sharp
‘Again, for what purpose? I think you have woven a lot of your own suppositions in with this info on Garrison’s family relations. It is fine to have your own opinions on such things – but frankly I don’t buy it.’ — Willy Whitten
Willy, yours is an interesting twist, worthy of defenders of the conclusion of the Warren Commission when they are confronted with but one example, why wasn’t FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum called to testify when he had been involved in at least 5 significant dramas in the 24 hour period following the assassination. My assertion that the absence of Odum’s testimony is significant has been written off as pure supposition. Why? And now you are writing off any question of Garrison’s reasons for failing to disclose his wife’s relationship to individuals he should have been (and may well have been) investigating as pure supposition? Is that because you can’t find a published author who has seriously addressed the question? That too would be an irony for those who have followed this site closely.
‘If you don’t think that there is proof enough that Shaw was actually Bertrand, that he was connected with CIA, that CIA and Garrison’s in-laws sabotaged the case that would have led to exposing them as part of the New Orleans portion of the plot to kill Kennedy, then I think you have gone off on the wild goose chase that those out to destroy Garrison set up for you to follow.’ — WW
You and apparently Jim Garrison halted the investigation at Clay Shaw. What about the history of David Baldwin at the CIA? What about Stephen Lemann’s alleged history as CIA paymaster. What about the fact that Garrison’s wife was related to them? Even if those facts didn’t surface in Garrison’s case, why don’t they at the very least capture your curiosity? Instead you avoid the debate and lurch to defence of the official version.
Let’s do an exercise: ‘If you don’t think there is proof enough that Oswald was blah blah blah, then I think you’ve gone off on the very wild goose chase certain members of the Warren Commission set up for you to follow ….’
” . . . and Garrison’s in-laws sabotaged the case that would have led to exposing them as part of the New Orleans portion of the plot. . .” — WW
You’ve skipped a step Willy. Garrison failed to disclose he was related to those who you allege sabotaged him. Why ?
Logically speaking, I don’t think you or anyone can have it both ways just because the Garrison case against Shaw fills a void you’re comfortable with. Rigorous analysis of Garrison should not pose any threat if indeed he was “on the trail” of the assassin.
“It would have been very weird indeed, and a clear conflict of interest for Garrison to indict the entire crew as co-conspirators, as they included members of his own extended family. . . . The best approach I see in this situation is to indict Shaw, and let all of the rest of it fall into view during the trial. . . . This seems to me the best strategy in his admittedly tight spot.” — WW
Well, at least we are inching forward. It would indeed have been a clear conflict of interest for Garrison to indict members of his own extended family. Now. Where do you go from here, Willy?
“Well, at least we are inching forward. It would indeed have been a clear conflict of interest for Garrison to indict members of his own extended family. Now. Where do you go from here, Willy?”
~Leslie Sharp
Clay Shaw was not part of Garrison’s family.
I Don’t need to go any further than that.
You obviously have a low tolerance to my disagreeing with you on this.
My most sincere apologies Leslie, but I do disagree.
\\][//