We are pleased to reprint here an excerpt from an MA thesis, The Imperial Imperative: John F Kennedy and US Foreign Relations, presented at University of Kent at Canterbury, which the author has graciously shared with us.
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.
He leaned on JFK to stay out of Vietnam. Had Kennedy survived, might history have been different?
By Mark Perry, At: The American Conservative
In response to a recent article which he characterizes as “a compendium of every MSM caricature of Garrison and his Kennedy case that one can imagine”, Jim DiEugenio revisits the New Orleans DA's career and his JFK case, and what the ARRB and subsequent research has revealed about it.
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)]
Jim reviews what he deems to be the best of three recent TV documentaries on Martin Luther King, Jr.
A thoroughly mediocre rendering of a tumultuous year. Mediocre in every way, including aesthetically, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
By Thomas A. Bass, at Mekong Review
The history of the Vietnam War is invariably delineated by historians as a continuum of escalating involvement from the administrations of Eisenhower through Nixon. This essay by Prof. Norwood challenges that notion by demonstrating how the vision of John F. Kennedy was consistently and vehemently opposed to conventional warfare there.