Posted on 12/15/2021 10:06:14 AM PST by DFG
More than 1,500 previously classified JFK assassination files have today been made public, including documents about killer Lee Harvey Oswald's contact with a KGB agent two months before the shooting.
The files were released at noon on Wednesday by the National Archives, after months of delays by Biden who had promised to make them public but then stalled, claiming COVID backlogs was the reason.
They include memos detailing anonymous phone calls to the US embassy in Canberra, Australia, a year before the shooting, where the caller said the Soviet Government was plotting to kill Kennedy, and details of Oswald's meeting with a KGB agent at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City two months before the shooting.
Another call was placed on November 24, two days after the shooting, claiming the Russians were behind it.
Oswald's wife Marina, who was was Russian, is referenced throughout the files. One details how a Moroccan student contacted the CIA after the shooting and claimed he had been her boyfriend. The relevance of that to the investigation is not known.
In September 1963, Oswald met with Consul Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov, a KGB agent. The meeting has been referred to in previous documents but new details emerged today. It's unclear who initiated the meeting.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Until you learn of their dark lives and history. JFK was probably one of the worst people ever elected to the office. His father was a criminal who was never caught, probably because of his connections to the government.
Virtually everyone writing a history book has a bias. Usually the bias is towards what the Northeastern elites want to believe.
“After what we’ve seen with the CIA and FBI recently, Do you really believe they were honest back then?”
*****
I’m wondering if the “months of delays” was for them to fabricate this stuff to blame Russia.
If he hated Communists, he’d have done something about it in Cuba when the rubber met the road. That was not incompetence, sir, that was treason and cowardice.
It’s hard to apply a lot of our present day politics, ideologies, et al, to that period. That’s why I tend to cite 1896 as the point at which most of what we recognize today as Socialism in America being blatant in one party (Dems) vs. the normals (GOP).
But I do summarily reject, as I did before, that Lincoln was some type of Socialist/Marxist. I believe even the “mercantilist” claim would’ve been a foreign/alien concept at the time in America.
As for the ultra-rich, some are sane, some are not, when it comes to ideology. If they want to get rich and play generous benefactor for causes (such as Carnegie and libraries) that are actually beneficial, good for them. But some start to believe they are gods themselves for their good fortune and success and think they know better than not only the people, but the one true God. Those people, and we know who they are, are as malevolent as Satan.
The 1960 election was as big a fraud as ever seen in this country... until 2020. JFK no more won in 1960 than Plugs the Pedo did (but unlike Plugs, JFK could at least attract people to his campaign events).
I find it odd that you pick 1896 as the inflection point. I also find it odd that you characterize the Democrats as socialist while ignoring the blatant socialist tendencies in the Republican party of that time.
The progressive era was full of Republican socialists.
I believe even the “mercantilist” claim would’ve been a foreign/alien concept at the time in America.
"Mercantilism" was the official name of the philosophy of Henry Clay, who was Lincoln's mentor in politics. "Mercantilism" believes that government should serve to help industry make profits because it increases the economic activity for the nation. American policy from this era was very much about helping large industries make money.
As for the ultra-rich, some are sane, some are not, when it comes to ideology.
I now believe that an excessively easy life engenders a liberal/socialist mindset in the benefactors of a life of ease, especially in the subsequent generations from those who created the initial wealth.
I believe this is a characteristic of human nature and is inherent in mankind.
In other words, wealth tends to make people "insane" or "nuts." We have to have economic pressure on us to keep us sensible.
I know. The Corrupt Kennedy machine won the game in corrupt Chicago.
there is something to the SS in the follow-up car, accidently fired the shot. some ballistic expert and later a forensic detective. believe this is what happen. don’t remember the name of the book, was a show on history channel a few weeks ago.
JFK got rolled in Cuba.
He did, but that's not how world headlines portrayed the encounter. According to the world wide news reports, Kennedy humiliated the Russians by making them back down.
In reality he traded our bases in Europe for them removing their missiles out of Cuba, but that was kept on the down low.
We will never agree.
That is OK, reasonable persons often disagree.
That is OK, reasonable persons often disagree.
Very reasonable of you. Too often do people take a disagreement and let it color their view of other people. Reasonable men do not need to regard people who disagree with them as foes.
Salute.
https://www.csmonitor.com/1991/1119/19182.html
Reston on Who’s to Blame for Vietnam
November 19, 1991
By Godfrey Sperling Godfrey Sperling Jr. is the Monitor’s senior Washington columnist.
NO one has provided more persuasive evidence that it was President John F. Kennedy who got the United States into the Vietnam war than James Reston in his recently published memoir, “Deadline.”
Describing his interview with Mr. Kennedy following the young president’s summit with Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, Mr. Reston has this to say: “I remember that Saturday morning very well. He (Kennedy) arrived at the US embassy (in Vienna) over an hour late, shaken and angry at having been delayed by an unexpected extra meeting with the Soviet leader. He was wearing a hat - unusual for him - and he pushed it down over his forehead, sat down on a couch beside me, and sighed. I said it must have been a rough session.
Much rougher than he had expected, he said.” Kennedy then told Reston that Mr. Khrushchev had threatened him, warning that if the US did not agree to communist control over access to Berlin, the Soviet Union would proceed unilaterally to dominate the routes from Western Europe to Berlin. Kennedy said that he replied that the US would fight to maintain access to its garrison in Berlin if necessary.
Kennedy then went on to tell Reston that he felt sure that Khrushchev thought that anybody who had made such a mess of the Cuban invasion had no judgment. “Khrushchev,” writes Reston, “had treated Kennedy with contempt, even challenging his courage, and whatever else Kennedy may have lacked, he didn’t lack courage. He felt he had to act.” Soon thereafter Kennedy sent more advisers to the battlefront in Vietnam.
“This, I thought,” Reston continues, “was a critical mistake. Once Kennedy had over 15,000 ‘advisers’ engaged not only in giving advice but also in giving support on the battlefield. US power and prestige were thought by many officials in Washington and in Asian capitals to be committed.” And here is Reston’s assessment of the “who done it” argument that still is being waged - of who it was that got the US into what became a winless war that killed many Americans and finally sapped morale on the homefront: “No doubt, as President, Johnson was more responsible for commiting the US to that struggle (he eventually had 500,000 Americans in the war), but in my view Kennedy started the slide.” Defenders of Kennedy on this issue usually point to Robert Kennedy’s denial that his brother had any intention of going to war in Vietnam.
Reston writes: “Robert Kennedy, eager to protect his brother from blame, always denied that the President intended to increase the nation’s commitment to Vietnam, and also denied that the Kennedy-Khrushchev meeting in Vienna had anything to do with it. But he didn’t hear what his brother said to me in the Vienna embassy, and I did.” This is not just another reporter telling us of how something important happened. This is James Reston, one of the most respected men in American journalism.
I pick 1896 because that is specifically the point at which you can clearly identify where the parties went in the modern sense. Prior to that, it becomes foggier. That Cleveland, the last center-right Democrat to be elected (all left to ultra-left since), was all but forced out from being able to run again with the party being taken over by radical leftists (Bryan and Altgeld), was really the last time the party was run by sane individuals from the top. Beginning with William Jennings Bryan, who, although a devout Christian, tried to marry it with economic Socialism, led the party down the primrose path. The GOP, despite having its own left-wingers, generally kept away from going that direction (indeed, the Silverite Republicans bolted the party and became Democrats in the 1890s) at the top of the ticket. Cleveland was much more comfortable with having the Presidency pass from him to McKinley than to Bryan, who would've been a fiasco.
"The progressive era was full of Republican socialists."
Never said it wasn't. But other than in 1904 with Theodore Roosevelt, the party didn't nominate one after another as the Dems did. Not for lack of trying.
""Mercantilism" was the official name of the philosophy of Henry Clay, who was Lincoln's mentor in politics. "Mercantilism" believes that government should serve to help industry make profits because it increases the economic activity for the nation. American policy from this era was very much about helping large industries make money."
Forgive me, I was momentarily thinking of the British model. The Clay model was not really an "out there" hardcore Socialist economic method at a time when it made sense to employ every reasonable method to grow the country. I probably would've supported it at the time - to an extent. This is why it's difficult to compare economic methods of that era to ours today. I'm not a strictly "free market" person, anyway. That method, as we saw, did nothing in the past decades but to send jobs and industries out of the country.
"I now believe that an excessively easy life engenders a liberal/socialist mindset in the benefactors of a life of ease, especially in the subsequent generations from those who created the initial wealth. I believe this is a characteristic of human nature and is inherent in mankind. In other words, wealth tends to make people "insane" or "nuts." We have to have economic pressure on us to keep us sensible."
That's why I have no qualms about confiscatory-level taxation on rich leftists. They want Communism ? They pay for it. 100% taxation on all assets acquired above, say, the national income average. I'm not joking, either.
Illinois alone was not able to swing the election, which a lot of folks misunderstand. JFK took the college by 84 EVs, IL had just 27. Texas (with 24) was also needed, and was “delivered” (despite the fact that even with LBJ on the ticket, there was no way the state was going to vote for a Catholic Socialist from the Northeast), even left-wing media at the time had Nixon carrying Texas ahead of the election. Other highly dubious states included in the fraud were NV, NM, HI, NJ, MN, MO, MI, SC, NC, WV & PA. But the combined totals from IL & TX would’ve turned a 303D-219R EV into a 260R-252D for Nixon.
Maybe your assumption is correct but he wasn’t ready, trouble with gun etc. and ll he was left with was a head shot.
Death of Stalin is great. And, banned in Russia today because it offends the real Putin loving holdovers who dream of the glory days of the wonderful Stalin. Real whackos in other words.
The HBO movie “Chernobyl” is well done, and is also banned in Russia- because the other Chernobyl reactors are all still in dangerous operation, with a whole new reconstructed larger sarcophagus cap in place over the still burning molten reactor (the so called “foot” mound of radioactive molten core). So well acted and so exposes the utter incompetence of the Soviet system.
And then there is the tolerating of the murder of the Diems in Vietnam-—engineered to help the Communists and Ho Chi Minh (whom earlier intel ignored when he approached US). Repeat performance.
It is as silly as Ernest Hemingway an “author” who was sent to watch Castro in Cuba. Yeah... right, just as he informed London about what Kim Philby was doing in the Spanish Civil War— which would have kept Philby long earlier out of Brit Intel internal espionage. It took a Rothschild (literally a real one) to expose PHilby much later.
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.