JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

[Bolo Boffin]

228. Bolo Replies to "Jim Replies"

Welcome to DU, Mr. DiEugenio.

I don't see anything I really disagree with until you get to John Newman's "masterly book." Then it all goes wonky. JFK was working both sides of the foreign policy aisle. He was allowing the Diem coup to go forward even while asking for a plan to get everyone out by late 1965. I've been talking this over with another poster here, and JFK was certainly no war-mad fool slobbering for war, but neither was he an appeaser. And on the scale between hawk and dove, he was much closer to the hawk side than the dove.

But beyond your insistence that you know JFK was withdrawing from Vietnam, something no one can say because he had not made his final decision on the matter, worse yet is making this assertion in support of the notion that the military killed him in order to stay in Vietnam. This is not true. If it had been, all they had to do was frame Castro for the crime and head right the hell into Cuba and then start cleaning house in Vietnam. But they didn't. You know why? Lee Oswald was the only one shooting in Dealey Plaza and no credible evidence has anyone putting him up to it.

You want to be mad at the military? Go ahead. You want to protest the involvement of US forces in conflicts from Vietnam to Iraq? Be my guest. You'll probably find me right next to you protesting those dumb, stupid wars. But none of that requires these assertions that go beyond evidence into mere speculation.

I hope you enjoy yourself here. When we aren't yelling at each other about JFK, we find lots of other things to agree about. Plus, we have pictures of cats every Sunday.