Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(55,745 posts)
50. The person who wrote that, Vincent J. Salandria is a man of integrity.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:02 PM
Apr 2016

Instead of using the assassination of President Kennedy as a means of belittling me, you should learn more.

Letter to Vincent J. Salandria

April 5, 1995

by E. Martin Schotz


Look at Kennedy’s American University speech in which he tried to indicate to the American people the direction our nation needed to go in securing world peace.[31] Interestingly he could not bring himself to tell the American people about the dangerous conflict that had erupted in Washington over the direction he was taking, even though at the time his brother, the Attorney General, was sending messages to Khrushchev to cool it, because they were worried about the possibility of assassination.[32]

This American University speech is so important. As I go back and reread it, I realize how advanced Kennedy’s position was at that time, much more advanced than anything we have coming from our government today. In that speech there is an understanding very close to the position George Kennan articulates in the later essays in The Nuclear Delusion.[33]

What I am referring to is an understanding that there was something of value to the powers that be in the United States, as well as to the people of the United States, in the existence of the Soviet Union: namely that there was an organized force on “the other side” that was also interested in disarmament. When I go back and read Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika[34] today I think of where Kennedy and Khrushchev were in 1963 and the opportunity that was beginning to emerge and that was destroyed.

I know that no one seems to be interested in the McCloy-Zorin agreement.[35] Hardly anyone even knows about it any longer. And I really don’t understand why. Maybe they were just words as far as Kennedy was concerned in 1961 when it was signed. But as events developed, particularly after the Cuban Missile Crisis, I think the McCloy-Zorin agreement began to take on real significance. Because if you go back and look at that American University speech, I think Kennedy is talking about the McCloy-Zorin agreement without mentioning it by name. Khrushchev and Kennedy were talking about worldwide disarmament, conventional as well as nuclear. That is really radical. That is what Gorbachev was talking about, that you can’t settle problems with military means any longer. And the “powers that be” in this country didn’t want Gorbachev. And even the liberals were ecstatic when the Soviet Union collapsed and Yeltsin replaced Gorbachev. You read the American University speech by Kennedy and George Kennan’s later writing and you read Castro, Gorbachev, and Nelson Mandela[36] and you realize how foolishly narrow the political mind set that dominates this country is.

People are always asking how would our history be different if President Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated. For me this isn’t the question to ask. Rather ask how would history have been different if President F.W. de Klerk had been assassinated in the midst of South Africa’s transition to majority rule and the ending of apartheid. It seems to me that South Africa would still have gone through the changes it has accomplished because that society had the organized social momentum to move in that direction.

This is why I see Kennedy as a “de Klerk without an ANC.” He saw the handwriting on the wall in our situation, the way de Klerk did in his. But Kennedy didn’t have an “ANC,” an organized social movement for peaceful coexistence that could compel the society to move in that direction. So he was in a very vulnerable position.

And as in South Africa before the ascendancy of Nelson Mandela and the ANC to the government, we too in America are confronted by a “third force” which is shadowy and operates behind the scenes. You will recall that this “third force” in South African society turned out to have the clandestine backing of the government.

It seems to me that at the moment of the assassination the Kennedy forces had a choice. They could openly acknowledge to the American people what had happened. To do this might have meant to release a popular disillusionment with the military and the CIA. You understand that in such a situation these liberal leaders as well as the conservatives might lose control of the situation to popular forces. Or they could decide not to run that risk; they could accept the assassination as a brutal, heinous wound to their side, but nevertheless keep going with the people in the dark. Obviously this was the decision that was made. And in so doing they decided (perhaps unconsciously like the “innocent” parents of the anti-social teenager) that the CIA murder of the President was acceptable to American democracy. The fact that our press and universities fell into line is an indication that they too accepted American democracy as delimited by this liberal-conservative establishment.

Are the American people really any different? Do they really want to know what happened and take responsibility, as opposed to indulging themselves in endless speculation?

Warren Commission member John J. McCloy is quoted by Edward J. Epstein in Inquest as saying that the paramount importance of the Commission was to “show the world that America is not a banana republic where a government can be changed by conspiracy.”[37] Nowhere has the primary concern of the establishment been more honestly acknowledged in this case.



That was 1995. We've learned a lot since then. I reported some of it on DU, thanks to the suggestions of some of my favorite DUers.
That was strange pdsimdars Apr 2016 #1
For me, it made the yes bar longer, but did not change the number of yeses. Also strange! merrily Apr 2016 #10
You only registered as a NO BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #11
No,her sense of entitlement is horrifying. libtodeath Apr 2016 #2
I don't know if any of the current canditates do, frankly. On either side. Kinda scary. Electric Monk Apr 2016 #3
No. Too shrill, too smug, too petulant. NewImproved Deal Apr 2016 #4
Hillary's temperament nichomachus Apr 2016 #5
Cause Bernie is Mister Happy Sunshine. JoePhilly Apr 2016 #6
Lol! zappaman Apr 2016 #7
No kidding. JoePhilly Apr 2016 #9
He's Mr. Brusque But Straightforward Armstead Apr 2016 #30
Bernie speaks in such gentle, dulcet tones. JoePhilly Apr 2016 #45
No he doesn't Armstead Apr 2016 #51
They really have some nerve, don't they? Beacool Apr 2016 #43
They spin the wheel of outrage and then go where it points them ... JoePhilly Apr 2016 #46
A former failed SOS nichomachus Apr 2016 #52
Yeah, right........ Beacool Apr 2016 #58
Finger wagging? Armstead Apr 2016 #54
+1000 giftedgirl77 Apr 2016 #55
I was just going to say treestar Apr 2016 #67
Temperment, as displayed by edgineered Apr 2016 #8
1 million times better temperament than that whiny, livetohike Apr 2016 #12
LOL! Duval Apr 2016 #38
if there was a "hell no" option i would have picked it. nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #13
I'm more worried about her carelessness. Avalux Apr 2016 #14
Yeah, when Obama says someone is careless you can take it to the bank that person is careless. Autumn Apr 2016 #16
No she's paranoid and power mad. Been in the bubble too long. Cheese Sandwich Apr 2016 #15
bad question--better: "... temperament to be a GOOD president?" TheDormouse Apr 2016 #17
Does Bernie? baldguy Apr 2016 #18
He spoke his truth oldandhappy Apr 2016 #20
He obfuscated & didn't answer the question. baldguy Apr 2016 #26
Wow. Time to bring up that easily debunked claim again? bjo59 Apr 2016 #29
I have to laugh at the contrast here ... pacalo Apr 2016 #36
The cameras are always on and that will keep her OK oldandhappy Apr 2016 #19
"He's forceful, she's shrill" Retrograde Apr 2016 #21
+1 uponit7771 Apr 2016 #25
The question is fatuous creon Apr 2016 #22
Temperament? No worse than LBJ. JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2016 #23
Sec. Clinton has the temperament. She also has the brains. Octafish Apr 2016 #24
The brilliant mind that was fooled by Dubya Fumesucker Apr 2016 #27
That is a good point. Octafish Apr 2016 #28
+1 Duval Apr 2016 #39
LOL, says conspiracy guy. OK. nt Logical Apr 2016 #37
Do you think I'm sandbagging Sec. Clinton? Octafish Apr 2016 #48
"The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes" says it all! nt Logical Apr 2016 #49
The person who wrote that, Vincent J. Salandria is a man of integrity. Octafish Apr 2016 #50
Oswald did it, I know it is boring and not exciting but it is true. But keep up the drama. nt Logical Apr 2016 #57
That's what Allen Dulles and J Edgar Hoover said. Octafish Apr 2016 #62
I honestly think you are just messing with us. Nt Logical Apr 2016 #65
In the face of any form of adversity, her first instinct will be to do that which appears tough. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2016 #31
WaPo - "Men really need to stop calling women crazy" TomCADem Apr 2016 #32
They both have the temperament to be president gollygee Apr 2016 #33
One word: Greenpeace. pacalo Apr 2016 #34
When people march like I suggest to hold one's feet to the fire on issues. PyaarRevolution Apr 2016 #35
Or worse. Emmanuel called Move On members "terrorists". Duval Apr 2016 #41
Of course she has the temperament, what a nonsensical question. Beacool Apr 2016 #40
Of course she does SharonClark Apr 2016 #42
Of course she does Dem2 Apr 2016 #44
And more importantly for now ... does she have the DELEGATES? JoePhilly Apr 2016 #47
Nah, she's way too much "respect mah authoriteh" for the job tularetom Apr 2016 #53
Wrong question,imo. Ask about judgement instead. sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #56
Ambitious, ruthless, and mendacious make successful politiions. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #59
This poll tells me that there really are more Sanders supporters posting in this forum Sky Masterson Apr 2016 #60
New Yorker - "The Bernie Bro Code" TomCADem Apr 2016 #61
Or you could just be high Sky Masterson Apr 2016 #66
She was mean to that young girl Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2016 #63
This person does not have the temperament to be POTUS nor CIC. PufPuf23 Apr 2016 #64
No (nt) bigwillq Apr 2016 #68
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Does Hillary have the tem...»Reply #50