I’ve read it. I’m not. But my opinion of Seymour Hersh is revised—as he tosses the obligatory “Russia started it” crap into all of his monetized column. He’s turned into the very people he used to criticize.
If your comment is intended to refute my implied point that the Kennedys were not the heroes that the media and many boomers have suggested, I don’t think Prouty invalidates my point. The fact that the CIA probably murdered JFK doesn’t prove that JFK was a righteous representative of the public interest. JFK may also have been trying to normalize relations with Russia, and that again isn’t evidence that he was a beacon of beneficence.
I haven’t read Prouty, but I think that he may have had a romantic perspective of “the American Century.”
I'm looking at this on my phone, and one of the deficiencies of Substack is that when you look at Comments in the Activities list, you are unable to go to the context and see what people are replying to. So from memory I would say that my comment was not intended to refute your implied point. I tend to avoid direct disputation, since usually people are pretty resistant to having their mind changed, but it may have been offering an opportunity that you MAY have been unaware of to add some nuance to your existing opinion.
It sounds as if I wasn't very helpful in directing you to the relevant part of what Prouty said. But if you listen on YouTube to the long interview with him for example, there are 3 or 4 revelatory points that are difficult to find elsewhere.
Sorry I can't be more helpful at this juncture, but Prouty was in such a rare position to be well informed about a great deal that was going on, at the highest level, for many years, that it's worth listening to EVERYTHING he said. E.g. how many people know that preparations for a war in Vietnam were under way in 1945; or that the the mechanism the US used for starting that war was to displace over a million North Vietnamese to the South of South Vietnam, after traumatising them?
You might find interesting the parts where Prouty discusses the records of the official policy discussions which are revealing about JFK's attitudes and actions, which are not referred to by several popular accounts of the events, and which directly refute them.
Thanks for sharing. It’s a bit of a shock to hear that the U.S. was sizing up Vietnam for a makeover in 1945, the same year that FDR died. The Security State was in the wings until the money’s front man, Harry Truman, legitimated murder for empire.
I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel Archemedes Patti, who wrote a book titled Why Vietnam? in the 1980’s when he was a guest lecturer in my political science class. His humanity was at odds with the cold detachment of the generals who prosecuted the illegal war, and he wrote with warmth and sincerity about his friend, Ho Chi Minh.
The scary thing is that JFK was killed for having plans to do that very thing.
If you read Seymour Hersh’s The Dark Side of Camelot, your opinion of the Kennedys is liable to be revised.
I’ve read it. I’m not. But my opinion of Seymour Hersh is revised—as he tosses the obligatory “Russia started it” crap into all of his monetized column. He’s turned into the very people he used to criticize.
Read and listen to Fletcher Prouty
If your comment is intended to refute my implied point that the Kennedys were not the heroes that the media and many boomers have suggested, I don’t think Prouty invalidates my point. The fact that the CIA probably murdered JFK doesn’t prove that JFK was a righteous representative of the public interest. JFK may also have been trying to normalize relations with Russia, and that again isn’t evidence that he was a beacon of beneficence.
I haven’t read Prouty, but I think that he may have had a romantic perspective of “the American Century.”
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I'm looking at this on my phone, and one of the deficiencies of Substack is that when you look at Comments in the Activities list, you are unable to go to the context and see what people are replying to. So from memory I would say that my comment was not intended to refute your implied point. I tend to avoid direct disputation, since usually people are pretty resistant to having their mind changed, but it may have been offering an opportunity that you MAY have been unaware of to add some nuance to your existing opinion.
It sounds as if I wasn't very helpful in directing you to the relevant part of what Prouty said. But if you listen on YouTube to the long interview with him for example, there are 3 or 4 revelatory points that are difficult to find elsewhere.
Sorry I can't be more helpful at this juncture, but Prouty was in such a rare position to be well informed about a great deal that was going on, at the highest level, for many years, that it's worth listening to EVERYTHING he said. E.g. how many people know that preparations for a war in Vietnam were under way in 1945; or that the the mechanism the US used for starting that war was to displace over a million North Vietnamese to the South of South Vietnam, after traumatising them?
You might find interesting the parts where Prouty discusses the records of the official policy discussions which are revealing about JFK's attitudes and actions, which are not referred to by several popular accounts of the events, and which directly refute them.
Thanks for sharing. It’s a bit of a shock to hear that the U.S. was sizing up Vietnam for a makeover in 1945, the same year that FDR died. The Security State was in the wings until the money’s front man, Harry Truman, legitimated murder for empire.
I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel Archemedes Patti, who wrote a book titled Why Vietnam? in the 1980’s when he was a guest lecturer in my political science class. His humanity was at odds with the cold detachment of the generals who prosecuted the illegal war, and he wrote with warmth and sincerity about his friend, Ho Chi Minh.
https://vietnamnet.vn/en/american-intelligence-officer-a-special-witness-to-national-day-1945-671714.html
Thanks very much: an interesting article.