Episode 2: JFK - Warhawk or Peacemaker?

Was JFK just another warhawk - the same kinda thing we've had before and since - or was he planning to make peace?

Links:

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1125110/14127319

https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Camelot-Vietnam-Political-Literary/dp/0896084582

https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/629-rethinking-camelot

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1439193886

https://www.amazon.com/Plausible-Denial-Was-Involved-Assassination/dp/161608359X

Need more? You can visit the website at: https://consaracytheories.com/ or my own site at: https://saracausey.com/.

Transcript

Transcription by Otter.ai.  Please forgive any typos!

Welcome to con-sara-cy theories. Are you ready to ask questions you shouldn't and find information you're not supposed to know? Well, you're in the right place. Here is your host, Sara Causey.

Hello. Hello, and thanks for tuning in. In tonight's episode, I want to contemplate the question. Was JFK a war hawk? Same old, same old what we've had before and what we've had since? Or was he planning to be a peacemaker? Now, as you know, I cannot drink perhaps you can you might be imbibing a glass of wine or a frosty beverage of your choice. I have to settle for ginger ale yet again. Let's ride. Last year I read Noam Chomsky, his book rethinking Camelot. And I recorded an episode over on my daytime podcast titled rethinking Camelot and rough justice. Two wrongs do not equal a right. And it was the last episode of that flavor that I released over there because I knew I really need to have more of a nighttime spot where these questions can be asked, and these issues can be probed. This may be a little bit too hot for daytime TV for some people. But really, if we crystallize it down, Chomsky thesis in rethinking Camelot, is that he wants to dispel the mythology that, oh, this beautiful man and this golden era, and had he lived, we would not have had the Vietnam War as we know it. He wants to get away from the notion that JFK is quote, a shining Knight promising peace, and that he was just foiled by these pop poppers that went after him. The 1000s of people wouldn't have died in Vietnam if JFK had lived. But he takes it a step further, really? Because it's like his answer to what he perceives. Oliver Stone is saying in the movie, JFK, that a huge motivation for JFK to be taken out was because he didn't want to feed the military industrial complex, he didn't want this giant war in Vietnam. So Chomsky, his response is, well hang on, wait a minute, maybe that's not the case, after all. And when I was reading it, in the introduction, there was a place that really stuck out to me, because I'm like, Alright, if this book is not supposed to be about the Pop Pop, it's strictly about JFK is Vietnam policy, then why are we even going there? In in the introduction, Chomsky writes, In the interim, Camelot became a favorite image of liberal intellectuals entranced by the years of glory cut short, cruelly by the pop pop of JFK, just at the time when he was about to go on to marvelous achievements, murdered for that reason, according to many admirers, this book is concerned only with what actually happened, which accords poorly with the legend. It touches on the popup only obliquely, taking no stand on the culprits except negatively. The evidence is overwhelming that it was not a high level plot with significant policy consequences. The main focus here is on Vietnam, a core part of the Camelot myth is that kid and he was planning to end the war in quote, a lot going on there. I don't know necessarily that a core part of the Camelot myth is that Kennedy was planning to end the war. And as I said in the other episode, like, if your focus is not on the pop, pop, then why even bring that up? Why even add this line? The evidence is overwhelming that it was not a high level plot with significant policy consequences. No offense guy, but that sounds like propaganda to me. I mean, you're just putting it out there. And it's like, how is that even relevant to anything? If that's not what your book is about? Then why are you even saying it? But I just I immediately found that fishy. The timing as well, right, because this book is meant to be a rebuttal to Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Now, why would that even be necessary if what he presents in the film or what? Chomsky interprets as what he's presenting in the film is so stupid and so foolish? Why does it even need a response? In the Summary for rethinking Camelot on Haymarket? books.org. We read rethinking Camelot is a thorough analysis of John F. Kennedy's role in the US invasion of Vietnam and a probing reflection on the elite political culture that allowed and encouraged the Cold War. In it. Chomsky dismisses effort to resurrect Camelot and attractive American myth portraying JFK as a shining Knight promising piece, foiled only by pop poppers bent on stopping this lone hero who would have unilaterally withdrawn from Vietnam had he lived. Chomsky argues that US institutions and political culture, not individual presidents are the key to understanding us behavior during the Vietnam War in quote. I agree with the idea, personally that we have to get away from mythologizing any politician. I've said on the air on my other broadcasts many times. I don't lionize any politician. I don't get into this. Oh, camel hot. Oh, one a beautiful era. Oh, what a beautiful family, let's just all kiss their asses. I don't get into that. And I tend to think that if somebody really gets into politics and makes it a career, they probably have some level of corruption. Seems to me that the higher up the food chain, you go, the worse they stink. So for me, it's not about some sort of hero worship of JFK. In this particular episode, it's really just to ask the question, all right, is Chomsky ce point? The point that we think has the most evidence or is it not? Was JFK a war hawk? Same as it ever was? Or was he actually planning to make peace? What can we sort out about this? For me, in rethinking Camelot is a similar in some ways to see more Hirsch's book The Dark Side of Camelot. Except that Seymour Hersh, his book gets more into the sensational, the salacious, the sexual stuff. Oh, JFK was out cheating on Jackie, and he had all these women rotating revolving door of ladies that he was bossing all the time. And I'm like, I don't care. And I said this in the other episode, I don't, I don't care. I don't care what somebody does with their genitalia. When you're talking about consenting adults behind closed doors, it's none of my business. It just isn't. It becomes a societal issue when you're talking about children or you're talking about people that don't give consent, things like human trafficking, but consenting adults that want to have a sex party behind closed doors. It's not in my freakin business, okay. I don't care. It doesn't affect my life, what that man did with his junk or he didn't do sorry to disappoint you, I really don't care what he was doing. Chomsky doesn't get into that kind of salacious tabloid kind of stuff. But at times it it feels like he's dragging the guy pretty good. Basically, for all intents and purposes, Noam Chomsky is thesis is this guy. So on one side, you have Chomsky arguing that JFK was just another cold warrior, just another war monger, and even comparing the Kennedy administration to the Reagan administration, in some ways. On the other side of the spectrum, you have somebody like James W. Douglas, who has published JFK and the unspeakable, why he died and why it matters. And on the front cover, I mean, he's not varying his thesis at all. There's this attractive, yet melancholy photo of JFK standing against some water looking troubled. And the heading above that says he chose peace, they marked him for death. So when you're reading this, in juxtaposition to rethinking Camelot, you pretty much know what Douglass argument is going to be one of Chomsky arguments is that just because Kennedy issued national security action memorandum 263, which called for 1000, US military personnel to withdraw from Vietnam by the end of 1963. That doesn't mean that he was going to cancel the war altogether, or that the war wouldn't have happened that it things wouldn't have just moved in that direction. Anyway, in spite of whatever he might have been planning. I think that Douglas would disagree with that. I want to read a little bit from the section that he has at the beginning of the book called chronology, 1961 and 1963. Now he gets fairly detailed, so I don't intend to go through all of this. So hopefully, you will either purchase or check out this book for yourself because I feel like it's worth reading.

So he talks about September 28 1963. That's when a man identifying himself as Oswald returns to the Mexico City Soviet embassy, that that could certainly be its own episode, because there's some very weird chicanery that goes on with potentially more than one Oswald more than one person claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald, September 30 1963, President Kennedy reopens a secret channel of communication between himself and Nikita Khrushchev, via press secretary Pierre Salinger, and a Washington based Soviet secret police agent. He thereby circumvents a State Department he can no longer trust for his communications with the Soviet leader. This is an interesting point too, because we tend to imagine the President of the United States so often called leader of the free world, which in some ways is quite a laugh. But we we tend to think of that person as being the most powerful individual on planet Earth. And it strikes me that that's just simply not true. in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, Kevin Costner is playing Jim Garrison even though the two look nothing like him reality. And one of the things that he mentioned in that closing argument in the Clay Shaw trial in the film is Is that the President really becomes reduced to just a figurehead, a business agent who was meant to do somebody else's bidding. And I remember the first time that I watched the movie, I thought, yeah, bingo, somebody gets it. Hmm. So here we have Douglas asserting that Kennedy was having to talk to Khrushchev through a back channel, a secret back channel and go around his own administration. October 11 1963, President Kennedy issues national security action memorandum 263, making official government policy that withdrawal from Vietnam of 1000 US military personnel by the end of 1963, but he doesn't stop there. Contrary to someone like Chomsky, he also says, and by the end of 1965, the bulk of US personnel, we have Douglas making the argument that actually Kennedy did want to avoid the entire Vietnam War fiasco. I'm gonna scroll down a little bit here in the book because he gets into some other things that relate to Lee Harvey Oswald, October 24 1963, French journalist John Danielle interviews President Kennedy before Daniel's trip to Cuba to interview premier Castro. Kennedy speaks warmly of the Cuban Revolution led by Castro but asked Danielle if Castro realizes that through his fault, the world was on the verge of nuclear war in October 1962. Kennedy asked Danielle to tell them what Castro says in reply when Danielle returns from Cuba at the end of November. And they they go on. Douglas goes on to talk about further attempts between Kennedy and Castro to have these conversations through intermediaries November 19, through 20th 1963 Fidel Castro meets for six hours with John Danielle and his over Havana Hotel. To learn more about a dialogue with Kennedy after Danielle recounts Kennedy's endorsement of the Cuban Revolution and his accusation that Castro almost caused a nuclear war Castro explains the reasoning for the introduction of Soviet missiles in Cuba to deter the imminent US invasion that he feared reassessing Kennedy, he expresses the hope that Kennedy will win reelection and become the United States greatest president by recognizing that there can be coexistence between capitalists and socialists even in the Americas November 21 1963, before leaving on his trip to Texas, President Kennedy after being given a list of the most recent casualties in Vietnam, says to assistant press secretary Malcolm Kilduff, after I come back from Texas that's going to change Vietnam is not worth another American life. Then of course, we know November 22, the Pop Pop happened and November 24 Jack Ruby did a pop up on Lee Harvey Oswald. But Douglas also notes that on the afternoon of November 24, President Lyndon Johnson meets with Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge back from Vietnam Johnson tells lodge I am not going to lose Vietnam. I am not going to be the president who saw Southeast Asia go the way China went and quote the blurb on the back of the book as well as little summary provided on Amazon reads. The acclaimed book Oliver Stone called the best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance JFK and the unspeakable details, not just how the conspiracy to pop pop President John F. Kennedy was carried out but why it was done and why it still matters today. All but and and say that's one of the reasons why I wanted to set up this podcast because I just burned out on having to try to explain to people who don't get it and they're never gonna get it. Why these historical events are still relevant to us today. How past is prologue as Shakespeare wrote, we're still dealing with the ramifications of these things. At the height of the Cold War, JFK risked committing the greatest crime in human history starting a nuclear war. Horrified by the specter of nuclear annihilation, Kennedy gradually turned away from his long held cold warrior beliefs toward a policy of lasting peace, but to the military and intelligence agencies in the United States who are committed to winning the Cold War at any cost. Kennedy's change of heart was a direct threat to their power and influence. Once these dark unspeakable forces recognize that Kennedy's interests were in direct opposition to their own. They tagged him as a dangerous traitor plotted his pop pop, and orchestrated the subsequent cover up in quote, a button again and say in I think it was JFK revisited the follow up film that Oliver Stone made. It said that Allen Dulles remarked of Kennedy that Kennedy thinks he's God. And when I heard that I laughed out loud because I thought, yeah, I mean, how dare he not recognize that the Charlie Indian alpha is gone? They're supposed to run the show and run the show unimpeded. Douglas takes readers into the Oval Office during the tense days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, along on the strange journey of Lee Harvey Oswald and it is a strange journey, and his shadowy handlers into the winding road in Dallas, where an ambush awaited the President's motorcade as Douglas convincingly documents at every step along The way these forces of the unspeakable were present, moving people like pawns on a chessboard to promote a dangerous and deadly agenda and quote, also an Oliver Stone's film, JFK revisited. There's a scene that he shows he was you know, LBJ recorded all of those phone calls. And so there's the scene where he shows a telephone call that took place between LBJ and Robert McNamara. And this happened on February 25 1964. And LBJ says to Robert McNamara, I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statements about withdrawing. I thought it was bad psychologically, but you and the President thought otherwise. And I just sat silent. And anytime that I have like a corrupt politician voice in my head, it's usually LBJ because that's how he is, but you and the President thought otherwise. And I just sat silent. Like,

he sounds like somebody's playing the martyr. Oh, I thought it was bad psychologically. But you and the President thought all the while I was like,

I hear His voice. I just wanna go take a shower. So let's go back to 1961. In this chronology that Douglas has laid out in his book, June 3, and fourth 1961. At a summit meeting in Vienna, John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev agreed to support a neutral and independent Laos The only issue they can agree upon Khrushchev's apparent indifference to the deepening threat of nuclear war shocks Kennedy, July 20 1961. At a National Security Council meeting, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Charlie India Alpha director Allen Dulles present a plan for a preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions. President Kennedy walks out of the meeting saying to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and we call ourselves the human race. Let, let's let's talk about this again. Because when I first read that passage, I was like, holy shit. I have HOLY SHIT moments all the time throughout researching the JFK Pop Pop, because it is such a wellspring. It is not my intention for this podcast to just become dedicated to the JFK Pop Pop. But I can assure you we will be visiting and revisiting this topic many times because there's just so much water to draw out of this well, and just when you think you've heard it all, it can't possibly get any more convoluted. It can't get crazier, it can't get any more depraved. It always does. So let's think about this again. At a National Security Council meeting, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Charlie India Alpha director Allen Dulles present a plan for a preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions. So that's telling you they had already planned to go to war. They wanted to have a two year period of heightened tensions. Presumably they were going to get their cronies in the mass media to go along with it to foment all this conflict to get people scared to death. So then in late 1963, when they started dropping bombs, it would just feel inevitable, right? Think about predictive programming. President Kennedy walks out of the meeting saying the Secretary of State Dean Rusk and we call ourselves the human race. I believe I would be highly disgusted by that to August 30 1961, the Soviet Union resumed atmospheric testing of thermonuclear weapons exploding a 150 kiloton hydrogen bomb over Siberia, September 5 1961, after the Soviet testing of two more hydrogen bombs, President Kennedy announces he has ordered the resumption of US nuclear tests, September 25 1961, President Kennedy delivers a speech on Disarmament at the United Nations in which he states, the weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us. It is therefore our intention to challenge the Soviet Union, not to an arms race, but to appease race to advance together step by step stage by stage until General and complete disarmament has been achieved in quote. So I'm sure, like from Chomsky perspective, maybe this is just lip service. Maybe he's going out into the public, going to the United Nations saying we need to get rid of the weapons of war, but then he has ordered the resumption of new US nuclear tests. If he was really dedicated to peace. Why would he be doing that? And September 29 1961, we read Nikita Khrushchev writes a first confidential letter to John Kennedy, he smuggled it to the president in a newspaper brought by a Soviet intelligence agent to Kennedy's press secretary Pierre Salinger. In the letter Khrushchev compares their common concern for peace in the nuclear age with Noah's Ark, where both the Clean and Unclean found sanctuary, but regardless of who lists himself with the clean and who is considered to be unclean, they are all equally interested in one thing, and that is that the Ark should successfully continue its crews October 6, teenth 1961 Kennedy responds privately to cruise ship writing, I like very much your analogy of Noah's ark with both the clean and the unclean, determined that it stay afloat. whatever our differences are collaboration to keep the peace is as urgent, if not more urgent than our collaboration to win the last World War in quote, in the midst of these attempts, apparently, that Kennedy was making to talk privately to Khrushchev, and open up some dialogue with Castro and just prevent, you know, nuclear annihilation, let's say. We also see situations where the intelligence community appeared, hell bent on going around him, whatever they wanted to do whatever they wanted to accomplish. They wanted to just do it, and do it unfettered. And this is one of the points that struck me when I recorded that rethinking Camelot episode for my other podcast. In the write up, I wrote, let's assume Chomsky, his analysis is correct. And then he has no agenda of his own and writing this book, what justifies these intelligence agencies operating with no oversight, no accountability and no mercy? Even if we assume JFK was as much a war hawk as those before and after which is possible? How does that absolve these agencies from their sins? Also, how does it change the litany of people who did not like Kennedy and benefited from his absence? There is one such passage here that I find interesting. Again, I'm reading from Douglass's chronology 61 to 63 March 19 1963. At a Washington news conference, the Charlie India Alpha sponsored Cuban exile group alpha 66, announces its having raided a Soviet fortress and a ship in Cuba, causing a dozen casualties. The secret purpose of the attack in Cuban waters according to alpha six, six, incognito, Charlie India, alpha advisor, David at Lee Phillips is to publicly embarrass Kennedy and force him to move against Castro and quote, this is a theme that we see throughout JFK related history that these military industrial and military intelligence complexes we're going to try to force Kennedy's hand will kind of tell him one thing well sort of cajole him and tell him what we think he wants to hear, but then on the Snake Snake will manipulate circumstances so that he'll ultimately feel compelled to do what we want him to do. In Mark Lane's book, plausible denial was the Charlie in the Alpha involved in the pop pop of JFK, which is a very interesting book. Now he he goes down a different rabbit hole about a trial that he was involved in Hunt V. Liberty lobby. But man, he brings up some interesting things, including some topics that I had not contemplated before. I intend to record a separate episode about Poppy Bush because he even goes there talking about poppies involvement in the Charlie India alpha at a much earlier date than anybody realized and I'm like, Oh, my God, yet again. Okay, I'm sitting reading this book having further HOLY SHIT moments. I'm like, How deep does this thing go, man, this is nuts. So Mark Lane has a chronology at the beginning of his book as well. And he starts out with 1947. The Charlie India alpha is established by President Truman and of course, November 1960. JFK is elected president. April of 61. The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba fails 62 to 63. Angered by Charlie India Alpha incompetence during the Bay of Pigs JFK establishes several measures limiting the power of the agency. On October 2 JFK signs the national security memorandum 263. An order for the immediate withdrawal of 1000 US military advisors from Vietnam The document also includes a timetable for the withdrawal of all US personnel including Charlie India, alpha operatives, of course on the 22nd the Pop Pop happens on the 24th Oswald is pop pop by Jack Ruby. On the 29th Johnson established the President's Commission on the pop pop, and it was chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren 72. The Watergate break in 73 Lyndon Johnson admits in an interview that he never believed Oswald acted alone 74 In response to the growing Watergate scandal, the Freedom of Information Act is amended to provide citizens easier access to government documents while protecting individual's constitutional rights to privacy. And then he ends his chronology with September 9 1991. Claire George former head of Charlie India, alpha Covert Ops is indicted on 10 counts of obstructing federal investigations into the Iran Contra scandal. Elaine Skia Leno, in an article for The New York Times calls George's indictment the sharpest challenge yet to the culture of the agency, a culture of secrecy that for decades Gates has successfully resisted the efforts of Congress and the executive branch to penetrate and change it and quote, also plan to record an episode based on a documentary I watched from frontline about

Snowden. And the the leak that happened and what was going on with 911. And how the November Sierra Alpha claim they didn't know about it, but oh, if we had only had more power, we could have prevented it. Yeah, I would say there are a number of these people that exist in the shadows. Since David Attlee Phillips was just brought up in Douglass's book I want to read here from Mark Lane's cast of characters, which includes David Attlee, Philips, Charlie India, operative in Havana from 58 to 61. He blamed Kennedy for the failure of the Bay of Pigs, very active in Chile, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic during the 1960s. He eventually became the agency's head of the Western Hemisphere, left the agency in 1975, to establish the Association of Former intelligence officers and quote, it's interesting, too, because Mark Lane details this debate that he had with David at Lee Phillips in the 70s, I think, no, was it in the 70s? I think it was maybe in the 70s, I'd have to go back and look at the date. But there's a couple of paragraphs here that I want to call out because I feel like this says so much about the agency and the sort of shadowy underworld about being in who's who, in Havana. I mean, who's who in America, I resigned from the Charlie India alpha in 1958. I really resigned. And I went to Cuba to live to start a public relations concern because I was convinced that the dictatorship of Batista was going to be overthrown by Fidel Castro. And none of the American companies there had bothered to have public relations there. So I thought I would be on hand. So I really did resign, there was considerable laughter from the audience. As it turned out, I went back to work almost immediately for the Charlie Indian alpha because there was no public relations for me. That led to the problem in who's who in America. It's one of the problems with being a spook, you have to lead a double life. When I signed the paper to become a Scoutmaster for my boys troop. There was a thing that said occupation. What was I supposed to put down spy? Was I supposed to write to who's who and say I'm a secret agent? This is one of the parts of the moral dilemma in quote. No wonder the audience was laughing. I mean, surely that does bring up a good point. Nobody that's working as a spy or double agent is going to say Oh, I'm a spy. I'm a double agent. It's like how Roger Moore played James Bond tongue in cheek and he would laugh about how everybody knows this guy's a secret agent they know his name they know his call numbers double oh seven they even know about his martini habits. Foreign the doorbell please. As you can tell, this is a very high class expensive operation around here 1000s upon 1000s of dollars go into the production work haha. Also, going now toward the back of Mark lanes book he brings up this connection between Kennedy and Vietnam and Oliver Stone. In this he writes after the Lardner article was published, and this is a reference to an article that was published I believe, before stones movie had even come out by George Lardner Jr. All right, so after the Lardner article was published, stone wrote a letter to The Washington Post. The paper made major deletions in its own words, and then published the letter as an article on June 2 1991. The article was followed on the same page by yet another Lardner attack. The screenplay had dramatized Lyndon Johnson's decision to reverse Kennedy's policy to withdraw troops from Vietnam. Lardner had called the scene nonsense. In his second assault upon stone Lardner quoted from Johnson's national security memorandum to seven three as follows the objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of US military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2 1963, approving among other things, plans to withdraw 1000 military personnel by the end of 1963. Lardner referred to the stone film as just a sloppy mess, asserted that while the facts speak for themselves don't doesn't seem to know them, and concluded relying upon a person he identified only as historian Gibbon, that Kennedy would have done it just as Johnson did. Lardner source seems to have secured data available only through paranormal psychology. A journalist not relying on clairvoyance would have to conclude that Kennedy had ordered the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam during the last days of his life, and that he had promised that they would all be home by the end of next year. Contrast Kennedy's words and deeds with those of his successor, six months after he assumed office Johnson and a May 18 1964 message to Congress urge that there'll be an increased appropriation to to prosecute the war. In that message, he stated that 16,000 Americans were then in Vietnam. A year later on a news conference on July 28 1965. And titled, we will stand in Vietnam, Johnson announced that he had ordered more troops to Vietnam and that our fighting strength would therefore be increased from 75,000 to 125,000. Men almost immediately, Lorna must correct. The facts do speak for themselves. When Kennedy was Pop Pop, there were approximately 16,000 Americans in Vietnam before the war ended three times that number had died there and quote, yeah, so we get we get these agents that say, Well, I can't come right out and say I'm an agent. If somebody asked me what I do for a living, I can't say I'm a spy, I can't go around leaking information to everybody. That's, that's part of what I'm paid to do. The thing is, these agencies think that they can just act with complete impunity, there's no consequences. Nobody's ever going to have to face the music. By that yardstick, they can do whatever the hell they want. I would have to agree with Lane's assessment here. I mean, look at look at the juxtaposition. Get any wanted to start calling these individuals home. Whereas Johnson, increase the count from 75 to 125,000 16,000. Americans were in Vietnam when Kennedy was pop popped. But then before the war ended three times that number had died there. I just find it a little bit difficult to believe Chomsky thesis that Kennedy had absolutely no commitment to peace, and was planning to just be a cold warrior slash war hog for the rest of his administration. Something that I think could become its own episode. I don't want to go too deeply into it here. But something that Mark Lane also talks about implausible denial is this sort of character. I don't want to say Pop Pop since he was literally pop pop. But this this destruction of Kennedy's character that takes place in the media as well. This idea that maybe it's hard for me to even say it because it's so dastardly. It's so awful. The word evil is what's popping into my mind, but it's almost like, hey, we did you a favor that day, maybe you should be grateful, because he was really a bastard. And so he kind of had it coming. There is that element? And I think that needs to be its own episode, because it's just so startling and creepy. That's definitely a question we shouldn't ask and a topic we shouldn't pursue. And we're here to do the things we're not supposed to. So why not? My conclusion, after reading these books, and just looking at the record, is that, you know, was Kennedy going to be a prince of peace? Would we be living in Utopia, like the Christmas songs, Joy to the world and peace on earth? With goodwill towards men? No, we wouldn't be living in Utopia. imperfect people in an imperfect world cannot create utopia. It's just not possible. So there wouldn't have been any perfect peace. There wouldn't have been. I think Kennedy refers to it himself as a Pax Americana. We don't want a Pax Americana where American weapons are the ones keeping the peace, we want genuine peace. You're always going to have some amount of bloodshed and warfare in the world. I think that's just the way of the world people say that they want peace, but at the same time they want the engines of war to. So no, I don't think that we would be in Utopia. However, I do think that he was planning withdrawal from Vietnam. I just don't think he wanted a full scale war there. The way that LBJ and his cronies stood. Now, that's my opinion, and it could be wrong, but reading the evidence, that's where I fall on it.

How about you? What do you think? Was JFK a war hawk? Was he a wolf in sheep's clothing? Or was he actually trying to bring about some lasting peace for the world? Decide for yourself. Stay a little crazy, and I'll see you in the next episode.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to this podcast and share it with others.