Last Secret JFK Files Could Be Released Soon

“Reagan won landslides, he did not just squeak by. But it was a vote for the personality, not ideology, since his enormous votes did not translate into the Congressional elections.”

Yeah, and he also won when we had Jimmy Carter as president, and HE ended up winning over Gerald Ford earlier.

“Nixon’s last election was also a landslide and the Democrats ran an ex-bomber pilot. McGovern may have been many things but was not a traitor. Those days are nothing like now. Obama and Hillary would have been boo’ed off the stage by DEMOCRATS much less the American People.”

Actually, McGovern was of the anti-War crowd, and most of them WERE, directly or indirectly, pro-Soviet, certainly pro-Communist. And many of them don’t have ANY regret about the boat people even when that information became very apparent, OR what happened in Cambodia (though to McGovern’s credit, he did at least denounce the Cambodian Genocide when it became apparent, too bad he should have seen that coming beforehand). And just because he served as a bomber pilot for us in World War II doesn’t mean he’s pro-American. Do I really have to remind you of Howard Zinn? That guy ALSO served in World War II, as part of a bomber crew no less, and he turned out to be very anti-American (heck, I know a guy on PJMedia who indicated that Zinn only served in the Army Air Force to defend his true homeland of the USSR, and that serving America was more of a bonus).

“The Silent Coupe was perpetrated by forces we believed to be on our side: the FBI and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is where the damaging Deep Throat information came from
I also believe the CIA was involved through the revelation that there were tapes (have no proof of this, it is just an opinion). This information was HANDED to the Left.”

Some of the tapes indicated that Nixon already knew that Deep Throat was Mark Felt when it happened.

“Walter Lippmann was a columnist and he was not a communist.
He was critical of the Cold War policy of “Containment” not because he underestimated or wanted to increase the danger of the USSR. His critique of “X” proposal was correct in that it took longer than estimated to bring down the Soviet Union, over twice as long as the estimated 10-15 years. He also believed Kennan’s theory would allow the Soviets the strategic advantage while we were playing defense. So they could decide when and where conflict would occur. That appears also to be true.”

If he was truly not a communist, please explain this NSA file making clear that he was a Soviet contact: https://web.archive.org/web/20090302060655/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/venona/1944/9sep_lippman_views_churchill_roosevelt.pdf

And even Eric Altermann made it very clear that he also supplied information to the Soviets, arguably being a more valuable source of information than I.F. Stone, a confirmed KGB plant: http://prospect.org/article/stone-cold-untruths

Oh, and his own secretary, Mary Price, was a confirmed communist agent: https://web.archive.org/web/20090302034215/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/venona/1943/8jun_dir_courier.pdf

And maybe he was right about the containment policy, but it STILL doesn’t change the fact that he most certainly acted as a Soviet agent.

“Cronkite’s love of One World government was not that unusual among idealists. Heck, Wendell Wilkie advocated one world government. Many idealists also believed that nationalism had failed and produced wars and pointed to the first half of the 20th century as evidence.”

Yeah, except Cronkite also went forward with trying to paint the Vietnam War as a stalemate even when a top-ranking general actually told him America was winning and gave him a lot of evidence about it, which is STILL disgusting no matter which way you cut it, especially when he KNEW we were winning, yet deliberately told audiences that we were losing the war or at best making a stalemate.

“The AWM’s leaders were primarily concerned about domestic issues and were not pro-Soviet. It was a discredited brand. The organizations were composed of hard-core Leftists, star-struck idealists and Useful Idiots and the Leftists were not that effective or popular. They had to suppress their ideology and concentrate on the popular issues: civil rights and war. There also would never win over the majority of our population and their actions led directly to the election of Nixon. After Chicago the Democrats had no chance, had that not happened Humphrey would have slaughtered Nixon.”

Not according to Nguyen Thi Binh, she most certainly considered them allies, and don’t forget, the Vietcong were BACKED by the Soviets. See this if you don’t believe me: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/29/vietnamese-communist-leader-says-us-anti-war-activists-helped-their-victory/

And ask yourself this, if they were not pro-Soviet, please explain why they ONLY protested in front of American areas and not, say, Soviet embassies?

Also, this makes VERY clear that the Soviets definitely had at the very least infiltrated the anti-war movement in the early seventies: http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/soviet-infiltration-anti-war-movement-vvaw.html And considering a lot of the people in charge of SDS and later the Weather Underground were confirmed Communists, I’d say it’s been infiltrated even earlier than that.

Oh, and papers from Hanoi make clear that John Kerry, who during that time was an anti-Vietnam protestor, was getting orders from Hanoi, and most likely the USSR by extension: http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/soviet-infiltration-anti-war-movement-vvaw.html

And Canfield’s Comrades in Arms: How the Ameri-Cong Won the Vietnam War more than makes clear that the Communists, contrary to what was reported, had a very heavy hand in the anti-war movements, citing not only documents from the US military, FBI, and CIA, but even internal communist documents as well. You can read a skimnotes version of it here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2939112/posts

Most of those comments have little or no bearing on the fact that all the AWM people were not pro-Soviet. 90% of those participating in the marches did so because of reasons they felt were worth demonstrating for, they were overwhelmingly NOT pro-Soviet. Most were sickened by the inept political leadership and its lies and the continual widening of the war. Most were patriots concerned about the apparently endless war since was never clear to the people as to WHY it was fought. Demonstrations were held at American spots because it would have done no good to do so at Soviet facilities. They were trying to change American policy over which they believed they had some political control. Nothing strange or sinister about this.

Your excerpt shows nothing about Lippmann being a “contact” whatever that means it does not mean agent. However, Korea and Vietnam show the validity of his criticism of containment. Although there was plenty of evidence showing that we decided to fight there before the Soviets. Col. Prouty illustrates how it was started. Then, of course, is the fact that we refused to abide by the Geneva Convention which we had signed. It was clear to everyone that if an election had been held Ho Chi Minh would have been overwhelmingly elected because of his nationalist credentials and fight against the Japanese.

Altmann’s article really says nothing about Lippmann except that he met with Soviet press people and was never an agent.
His comment wrt Lippmann and Stone is on the order of “heck he got more information from WL than Stone indicating that Stone provided nothing of value even less that the staunch anti-communist Lippmann. It does not mean he provided anything of value.

You also have to remember that in 1943 the US was allied with the USSR. And McGovern was no Howard Zinn.

“Most of those comments have little or no bearing on the fact that all the AWM people were not pro-Soviet. 90% of those participating in the marches did so because of reasons they felt were worth demonstrating for, they were overwhelmingly NOT pro-Soviet. Most were sickened by the inept political leadership and its lies and the continual widening of the war. Most were patriots concerned about the apparently endless war since was never clear to the people as to WHY it was fought. Demonstrations were held at American spots because it would have done no good to do so at Soviet facilities. They were trying to change American policy over which they believed they had some political control. Nothing strange or sinister about this.”

Protesting the Soviet embassies would have at least been enough to demonstrate that they were against the Soviets’ usage of war. And besides which, according to the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War, most Americans actually SUPPORTED the Vietnam War, and the AWM if anything actually supported the Communists, if not the Soviets. Heck, George Lucas even modeled the Rebel Alliance of Star Wars after the Vietcong specifically to make a take that against American involvement in the Vietnam War and rooted for the enemy, and he implied that this was largely based on his experiences with Apocalypse Now.

“Your excerpt shows nothing about Lippmann being a “contact” whatever that means it does not mean agent. However, Korea and Vietnam show the validity of his criticism of containment. Although there was plenty of evidence showing that we decided to fight there before the Soviets. Col. Prouty illustrates how it was started. Then, of course, is the fact that we refused to abide by the Geneva Convention which we had signed. It was clear to everyone that if an election had been held Ho Chi Minh would have been overwhelmingly elected because of his nationalist credentials and fight against the Japanese.”

Yeah, and then Ho Chi Minh’d take the opportunity to make it Communist, which, BTW, most people recognized instantly during that time. In fact, the Vietcong, then known as the Vietminh, actually were doing raids against Laos as early as the 1950s. Heck, Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times actually gushed after Ho, as did David Halberstam. And he was deeply committed to communism since at least his youth in France where he learned about it by reading Theses on the National and Colonial Question by Lenin, being a card carrying member since 1921, and was personally acquainted with top Bolshevikes including Zinoviev, Bukharin, and even the likes of Stalin, and had even attended Lenin’s funeral. Heck, if anything, he considered Stalin for not being not radical enough. HCM was as much of a “nationalist” as Lenin was (ie, not even close to one). If anything, any nationalists that were in Vietnam were more likely to be wiped out by him simply so he and his communist friends had no rivals. And BTW, a lot of TV shows, movies, and books during the 1960s depicted us Americans as bumbling, reluctant, and callous soldiers, while the Vietcong and NVA were depicted as fierce, highly motivated, and wily, of which it wasn’t even close to the truth. Examples of this include Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow. And if necessary, I’ll go so far as to post exactly where in the book it is mentioned, with all the footnotes you’ll need. In fact, the media sided with the guys who called the soldiers “baby killers.” Even Eugene McCarthy’s 42% win had protest ballots in favor of a more aggressive prosecution of the war. And the Mainstream Media ignored this, as did the various Democrats and AWM, thinking they were mainstream only for Nixon to wake them up bluntly. New Yorker writer Pauline Kael even was shocked at Nixon’s victory, claiming that she didn’t know even one person who voted for him, showing just how serious the liberal echo chamber was.

And a contact is the same as an agent, since they both leaked information to the enemy. And another thing, most people WERE aware of why we were in Vietnam. If anything, they were more irritated at the guys in charge for not actually letting them do their job and win the war.

“Altmann’s article really says nothing about Lippmann except that he met with Soviet press people and was never an agent.
His comment wrt Lippmann and Stone is on the order of “heck he got more information from WL than Stone indicating that Stone provided nothing of value even less that the staunch anti-communist Lippmann. It does not mean he provided anything of value.”

The Izzy award among the Communists was named after I.F. Stone, who was a confirmed KGB agent and actually DID leak information to the Soviets. So yes, he would have provided a lot of value for them (otherwise, they wouldn’t have him on retainer for any disinformation campaigns), and if Lippmann actually provided more valuable information than even Stone, that actually makes things a whole lot more serious.

“You also have to remember that in 1943 the US was allied with the USSR. And McGovern was no Howard Zinn.”

Oh, I remember, alright (hence my comment that I heard from another about Zinn serving USSR interests over America during WWII). And as far as I’m concerned, if McGovern isn’t for stopping Communism in Vietnam, he’s against it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.