Jim DiEugenio continues his re-examination of Halberstam, emphasizing the near total antithesis between LBJ and JFK in terms of Vietnam (and foreign policy in general) which the book all but erased.
In the first of a two part study, Jim DiEugenio reexamines, in the light of what we now know, the book which perhaps more than any other epitomized the accepted wisdom on JFK's role in US involvement in Vietnam.
Although [Bundy] thought [Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest] was an entertaining and informative read, he concluded that the central thesis was just wrong. It was not the advisers—the best and brightest—who did the staff work who got us into the Vietnam War. It was the difference in the men who occupied the Oval Office. It was the difference between Kennedy and Johnson, writes Jim DiEugenio.
The book is well worth buying. In my view, it closes the chapter on a debate that has been going on since 1992. As shown here, it's a debate that should have never started, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
I actually wish the film had been longer so it could incorporate more of [the] facts and more of the revelations of the Assassination Records Review Board, since these all but closed the book on this ersatz debate about JFK and Vietnam, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Jim DiEugenio discusses reactions to his review of Lamar Waldron's Legacy of Secrecy.
One of the most puzzling things about Ultimate Sacrifice is that some have actually taken it seriously. Peter Scott has said it is well documented. My question to Peter: Well-documented with what? Frank Ragano and Ed Partin? If you don't analyze the footnotes you might be impressed, writes Jim DiEugenio.
With what the authors have now done to Williams' credibility, plus the near universality of agreement on the true nature of the C -Day plans, the end should be spelled out for this entire "second invasion" thesis, writes Jim DiEugenio.
At the height of the cold war, Kennedy found a way to inch back from the nuclear precipice. Under relentless pressures to go to war, he kept the peace. He talked to his enemies; he recognized the limits of American power; he understood that our true power came from our democratic ideals, not our military prowess. He is still a man ahead of his time, writes David Talbot.
The Good Shepherd was subtitled in its trailer, “The Untold Story of the Birth of the CIA.” This is a real misnomer, since most of the “untold” actual events are immediately recognizable to anyone who has a cursory knowledge of the history of the CIA. In another sense the subtitle is true since the story it tells is very liberally fictionalized. In that sense, it is untold, writes Philip Sheridan.