In the final part of this essay, Jim turns to the “War on Poverty”, showing how the Kennedys, with David Hackett in the lead, were planning that program before JFK's civil rights bill was passed, and how, once Johnson took office, it was altered from its original intent and handed over to local authorities who hijacked it.
Bernard Wilds’ site of freely available, restored and re-compiled PDFs collected from the internet, has a new home.
In the third part of this review essay, Jim enumerates in detail the accomplishments of the Kennedy White House in the area of civil rights over the span of its brief three years, appending a table comparing these with those of the previous three administrations.
Jim DiEugenio reviews the career of this amazing economist, statesman, academician and author, with a particular view to his close and important rapport with John Kennedy, an advisory relationship unjustly underplayed or erased by writers such as David Halberstam.
In the second part of this review essay, Jim puts the glaring misrepresentations in Levingston, Margolick and Dyson under the microscope, ending with a long overdue critique of what has unjustly become a progressive shibboleth, the story of RFK's May 1963 meeting in New York with James Baldwin and other civil rights activists.
In the first part of this long review essay, Jim DiEugenio lays bare the atrocities which ensued from a defeated Reconstruction and the legal and social precedents this created, in an effort to clarify the historical backdrop to the inaction of nearly every US president up until JFK.
He leaned on JFK to stay out of Vietnam. Had Kennedy survived, might history have been different?
By Mark Perry, At: The American Conservative
Dr. Mantik states: “It is unique for me to write a second review, but too much remained unsaid after the first review. Wagner’s book clearly required more attention, especially since his profound mistakes are so often duplicated by the unenlightened mainstream media.”
Transcript, courtesy of David Giglio and Our Hidden History, of an interview with Roger Hilsman, who confirms that JFK's policy concerning Vietnam was essentially different from Johnson's. Note that he made these statements in 1983, nearly a decade before the publication of John Newman's book.
(Click here for video link)
We have also appended an important addendum, another interview with Hilsman from 1969.
What happens when the Left abandons its concern for such things as accuracy, morality and fact-based writing? What does one call such reporting then? Does it then not become—for whatever reason—another form of propaganda? Jim DiEugenio once again blasts Counterpunch for its pig-headed blind spot concerning the Kennedys.
[photos courtesy of National Press Club (Silverstein) and Amazon.com (St.Clair)]