Four-time Academy Award ® Winner Charles Guggenheim
ROBERT KENNEDY REMEMBERED
TRT 29 minutes Black & White

Shown on all television networks simultaneously and at the Democratic National Convention in August of 1968, this film biography evokes the spirit, quality and commitment Robert Kennedy brought to his life and work.

"Abraham, Martin and John" is a 1968 song written by Dick Holler and first recorded by Dion. It is a tribute to the memory of four assassinated Americans, all icons of social change, namely Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. It was written in response to the assassinations of King and the younger Kennedy in April and June 1968.

Each of the first three verses features one of the men named in the song's title, for example:

Has anybody here, seen my old friend Abraham -
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lot of people, but it seems the good, they die young
But I just looked around and he's gone.

After a bridge, the fourth and final verse mentions Robert "Bobby" Kennedy, and ends with a description of him walking over a hill with the other three men...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham,_Martin_and_John

427: Original Recipe | This American Life

Jake Halpern tells this story about document expert John Reznikoff, who came into possession of some materials which—if authentic—would change history. Then things got complicated. Jake is the author of several books, including World's End. (32 minutes)

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/427/original-recipe?act=2

I disagree with the statement that JFK "only turned toward withdrawal in 1963 after almost two years of escalation." Its not at all clear when "the turning point"--if there was such an event--actually was reached, but JFK certainly decided "against escalation" much earlier--indeed, some two years prior to his death.

An important time-marker for JFK--or at least the point when it seems clear what his future intentions were--was December 1961. At that point, JFK turned down the JCS in their request for combat troops for Vietnam.

This particular time marker--call it a "turning point" if you will--was a central focus for John Newman's Ph.D thesis, which was turned into the book, over the summer of 1991, and published that fall by Warner.

Relying here on recollection (so the quote which follows is approximate), a key document indicating JFK's future intentions was dated November 22, 1961 and pertained to a critical JFK meeting with the JCS. At that meeting, which marked JFK's rejection of requested combat troops, the document records JFK as saying something like, "How can you expect me to send troops 10,000 miles and halfway around the world, when I cannot invade Cuba, which is only 90 miles away?"

To which General Lemnitzer (of Northwoods fame) replied: "We should invade Cuba, too."

It was after this Nov/Dec 1961 period that it became clear that JFK was not going to escalate any further. Certainly, American combat troops were NOT going to be sent there. That whole idea was anathema to JFK, and he made that very clear to his inner circle. Going back to George Ball's 1968 memoir, "Discipline Of Power," one will find very strong and unequivocal statement to the effect that JFK never intended to send American combat troops to Vietnam, or follow the course that LBJ subsequently did.

Of course, around 1965--with the publication of "To Move A Nation," by Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Roger Hillsman--the same point was made, if not in his book, certainly on his L.A. Book tour.

Besides Ball, there is Michael Forrestal, who said that JFK told him--and I believe this was within a week of his death, and just prior to his going to Vietnam on a fact finding mission on the weekend of the assassination--that he (JFK) was involved in an extensive policy review, which also addressed the question of "whether we should even be there in the first place." (Quote from memory, from NBC "White Paper," circa 1971)

There is much more that can be said on this whole question of whether there was--as I and other JFK researchers called it-- a Post Assassination Foreign Policy Switch (PAFPS). While no foreign policy expert, I am quite familiar with the underlying documentation, because (a) I was tracking this situation carefully, from back in 1965; (B) I was an early friend of John Newman, a good 6 years before be became involved in the JFK research movement; and © I was very much involved with the ARRB, and Doug Horne, at the time key documents were being unearthed.

Here are some further comments, and anecdotal evidence, thrown together just for this email.

To begin with---and by that, I mean going back to the period 1965-1968--I, like many others who believed there was a conspiracy in Dallas, initially had some difficulty discerning the political motive. After all, didn't LBJ keep most of JFK's advisers? Didn't LBJ get the civil rights legislation passed? Etc. Over the years, as research on the Dealey Plaza aspects intensified, the foreign policy puzzle remained.

Then came the Pentagon Papers, the Defense Department's top-secret study of the growth of United States military involvement in Vietnam, leaked to the New York Times, which commenced publication on June 13, 1971. Suddenly, every morning's New York Times carried another collection of previously top secret document which exposed the debate that had been going on in the government, prior to the escalation, and many details pertaining to the secret planning.

Next came Peter Dale Scott's high original 1972 work, piecing together the puzzle of NSAM 263/273, and significant new light was shed. Of course, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and particularly allusions to JFK's withdrawal plan --and then the actual documents in the Gravel edition--provided much new data. Yes, indeed, it seemed there had been a post-assassination foreign policy switch. But you didn't have to be a Talmudic scholar to understand. I remember going to the UCLA dorm to have dinner, and watching Walter Cronkite, once a week, announce American casualties, which were topping 250 per week, back in 1967/68.

Going to microfilmed records of newspaper, someone discovered how, in early October 1963, the L.A. Times ran a front page banner headline after the October meeting when JFK made the decision. In big bold letters across page one: JFK: Out of Viet by '65 (again, from memory).

The contrast between "then and now" was striking.

Jumping forward now a full decade (or more) to the truly groundbreaking research of John Newman:

I worked closely with John Newman, during the period he was doing his Ph.D thesis--back in the late 80s. John had taught a course on Best Evidence, when stationed in Hawaii, looked me up in 1985, and we spoke often, and visited. This was a good five years prior to his becoming known to those in "the movement." I am proud to count myself as someone who persuaded John to do his PhD on the issue of whether there had been a policy change after Dallas.

After John embarked on his project, we spoke frequently, sometime immediately after he had critical interviews. Often, I functioned as a sounding board, and consequently suggested we should record the conversations (which we did). John didn't just do a fine thesis--we have what amounts to an oral history of his process. John had a whole range of conversations, with a variety of people, including a significant one--with McNamara. At some point, he obtained the actual official history of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and that provided a record of McNamara, himself, saying that it was not JFK's intention to send in combat troops.

During this same period, John and I gave two "joint lectures" on the subject of Dallas and Vietnam (one in Maryland, which was mostly attended by various USG personnel, including those at NSA). When it was clear he was to be posted to China, around 1989, I was frankly concerned that something might happen and we would lose this fabulous resource. So I arranged for a professional film crew to record the state of his Vietnam research--this, during a time when he was stationed at Ford Ord.

One of the central themes that emerges from John's research is the extent to which JFK had a political problem that complicated any decision he might make. Specifically, it came down to this: whereas LBJ's problem was to disguise an escalation, JFK's was to disguise a withdrawal.

Those are two diametrically opposite scenarios, and it seems clear that both Presidents acted deceptively, but there is a major difference in the reason for the deceptive behavior in each case. As far as JFK is concerned, recognizing this "political problem" is the key to understanding, and properly interpreting, what otherwise appears to be a confusing and somewhat bifurcated record.

JFK recognized that problem and acted accordingly. He had no intention of provoking a right-wing backlash and throwing away his chance of a second term. On the other hand, the evidence seems clear he intended to disengage, even if that meant a "Laos-like" solution. Some of the best writing about JFK's intentions--admittedly difficult to fathom at times--is to be found in Ellsberg's book "Secrets," where he describes a frank and detailed discussion with RFK about the matter, circa 1967 (again, from recollection)...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9632

"Abraham, Martin and John" is a 1968 song written by Dick Holler and first recorded by Dion. It is a tribute to the memory of four assassinated Americans, all icons of social change, namely Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. It was written in response to the assassinations of King and the younger Kennedy in April and June 1968.

Each of the first three verses features one of the men named in the song's title, for example:

Has anybody here, seen my old friend Abraham -
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lot of people, but it seems the good, they die young
But I just looked around and he's gone.

After a bridge, the fourth and final verse mentions Robert "Bobby" Kennedy, and ends with a description of him walking over a hill with the other three men...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham,_Martin_and_John

Posted by Jim DiEugenio 01 September 2012 - 02:03 AM

Gaeton was a really good guy and a very fine field investigator.

He did excellent work for the Church Committee and for the HSCA under Sprague.

IMO, he probably should have resigned after Sprague left.

But at least him staying allowed him to write his book, which is clearly one of the best ever in the field. And well written on top of that.

He was a class act all the way.

Show #594
Guest: Gaeton Fonzi
Topics: JFK Assassination Research
Original airdate: September 6th, 2012 (July 26, 2001)


Play Gaeton Fonzi (1:22:32) Real Media or MP3 download

In memorium of Gaeton Fonzi who passed away on August 30th, 2012

# Gaeton worked for Philadelphia Magazine at the time of the assassination
# He read an article by attorney Vincent Salandria critiquing the Warren Report
# A local story due to Arlen Specter's work on the report, the single bullet theory
# The report was contradicted by it's own evidence, black and white contradictions
# Gaeton knew and interviewed Arlen who hemmed and hawed over explanations
# Gaeton's article, it is difficult to believe the Warren Commission Report is the truth
# Gaeton worked on the Church Committee and the HSCA
# In 1980 Gaeton wrote an article, about misinformation and decoys
# Calls from people like Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming offering to help
# A report from the Key West Airport director, Oswald and Ruby early '61 or '62
# Clare Boothe Luce admitted giving false information
# HSCA/CIA liason George Joannides and the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil
# Gaeton was hired by Richard Sprague and Bob Tannenbaum to work for the HSCA
# Sprague pressed David Atlee Phillips on Mexico City and the tapes of Oswald
# Congress could control G. Robert Blakey, interested in organized crime
# Make the Mob the fall guy, not the Agency, Blakey knew his priorities
# The acoustical evidence forced a conclusion of conspiracy as the Committee ended
# The American people have been deceived twice, by the WC and the HSCA
# David Atlee Phillips, perjury before the Committee, David Morales
# The mystery of the Kennedy Assassination, we know the truth
# The length and strength of the cover up points to the seat of power
# Salandria, the assassination was barbarous and openly arrogant
# A message to the people that their government was powerless
# David Morales, "We took care of the son of a bitch, didn't we"
# Ted Shackley ran JM/WAVE, he was not forthcoming at all
# Gerry Hemming, a likeable and very intelligent guy
# Jake Esterline, we never got to him, Ed Lansdale, not in my area
# Bloody Treason (Twyman 1997), an encyclopedic presentation, some disagreement
# The Last Investigation (Fonzi 1993), Specter didn't rebut anything
# Gaeton met Jim Garrison, liaisoned with him, straightforward honesty
# The Committee's distortion of Phillips and Valenciana testimony
# Ruth Paine was never interviewed by the Committee
# There has not yet been a valid investigation of the Kennedy assassination

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black594a.mp3

Watergate was not, as the stereotypical myth and breathless legends go, a great moment for democracy in which a corrupt president was brought down, and a great "investigation" reformed Washington. It was an inside coup d'état, and a limited hangout, that saved Nixon and his cabal from true exposure and jail time, and helped preserve—not reform—the system that made his crimes possible.

Watergate gave the naïve public a false sense of security—the fallacy that "they" (Washington) were "cleaning up"—and ushered in a new era of corruption. Gerald Ford, J. Edgar Hoover's right hand man on the Warren Commission, became president. Ford pardoned Nixon, and selected Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. The CIA learned how to do a better job covering up their activities and controlling information. America's corporate media, long infiltrated and controlled by government operatives, would be increasingly corrupted and corporatized, and made into the voices of the White House. The Washington Post, never a paragon of investigative reporting, became even worse with time. Bob Woodward became a buddy stenographer for the Bush presidents...

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=456789#p456789

John Simkin, on 21 February 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

A great book. I tried to get her to participate on the forum but unfortunately, the writing of this book has frightened her off talking about the CIA.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=17859

October 21, 2011

The timing is almost too good: a terrific Wall Street melodrama at the moment the Occupy Wall Street protests are building. We haven't seen the like since Three Mile Island had a near-meltdown a couple of days after The China Syndrome exploded into theaters. Now, Margin Call seems anything but marginal...

Margin Call is a different sort of big-business film than its best-known predecessor, Oliver Stone's Wall Street. Stone wanted to create a capitalist demon in Gordon Gekko, but ended up making him so charismatic that he became a role model. Despite the amounts of money bandied about, there's nothing in Margin Call to inspire anyone — except, of course, those fervent Wall Street occupiers. (Recommended)

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/21/141415405/margin-call-a-movie-occupied-with-wall-street

The CIA and the Media

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.

By Carl Bernstein

October 20, 1977 In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28610.htm