It’s so interesting that lots of the responses to our disagreements with Stone’s conspiracy thesis is “WATCH HIS MOVIE!” We have and our response is “READ A FUCKING BOOK.”
Oliver Stone is almost certainly in the employment of the CIA, which means Mr. Stone actually knows the truth. Yet his job is to continue spreading disinformation, propaganda and lies in the name of the "conspiracy religion". The sad truth is JFK's assassination was solved in the public sphere of information way back in 1992. With the release of "Mortal error: the shot that killed JFK" by Bonar Menninger. Detailing the twenty-five year investigation of Howard Donahue who was a world class expert in the field of forensic ballistics.
Just finished my Camelot thesis on two fake camelots and one real Camelot. Two phony balonie camelots to hide one Camelot. King Arthur and king Kennedy camelots are imaginary. King Disney Camelot is real. Not reel. Media's reign is called tyranny in duplicity. The cipher they use is actions over words . Same cypher used in the Bible . I read the cruxification of Christ and communion and felt sorry for a persecuted man. I followed the actions of a recipe to " serve man." To communion is to eat human. The fake Camelot coup , hides a real Disney Camelot coup. You might say , the good guys lost...
The host starts to actually talk about Oswald, showing his profound ignorance of the facts by calling Oswald a leader of the FPCC and a Marine Corps "marksman," as if that defines Oswald's military career. And then, of course, Chomsky changes the topic back to Vietnam.
Always inconvenient when people start bringing the discussion back to JFK's warmongering murderous hawkishness, isn't it. Honestly, I'll never understand people's desire for "a hero". They feel the need to manufacture one out of whole cloth.
@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 so why did he avoid the bay of pigs? Cuban middle crisis, bombing Laos, and why was he preparing to remove the 16,000 advisors (not combat troops) weeks before his death. LBJ is on a recorded call saying that he didn’t agree with Kennedy’s decision to withdraw. Kennedy did stand up to the deep state and had balls of steel for it. Unfortunately it cost him his life.
@@jananilcolonoscopu4034yikes this is vastly wrong, JFK was trying to pull out of Vietnam. He repeatedly pushed his national security advisors to enable South Vietnam to be able to handle the war on their own to set the stage for a withdrawal (which was tricky because they were strongly opposed to withdrawal), refused to send ground troops to the country and eventually signed NSAM 263 withdrawing 1000 personnel. General MacArthur once told the president "anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined," prompting the Kennedy to reply "well, now, you gentlemen, you go back and convince General MacArthur, then I'll be convinced" to requests for sending ground troops. “In 1965, I’ll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected.” - quote from the 35th President, as confided to his close friend Senator Mike Mansfield
Very interesting indeed. As an admittedly very big JFK fan, this definitely makes me color correct the rose colored glasses. One correction though at 9:45: Kennedy did not “refuse” to censure McCarthy, he was absent for the hearings and voting. You can read about it in Theodore Sorensen’s 1965 book ‘Kennedy’ or in one of Kennedy’s letters that was eventually acquired, later published by the New York Times in 1975 entitled “John Kennedy 1954 Letter Sells for $1,000”
Interesting. There's a book out there that "completely debunks" the views of a man who's written over 60 of them. I'm guessing you haven't read any of them.
@@a.champagne6238 Yes he had a bunch you have to wonder did he really believe any of these theories probably just seeking publicity anybody going on National TV and accuse the cia of killing Kennedy he later went on to be a judge in Louisiana Lol.
@@randyharris3175 read the book False Witness by Patricia Lambert. The only connection Garrison made between Clay Shaw and David Ferry was that they were both gay. He also baselessly claimed that Oswald and Ruby were. According to Garrison, their motive to kill JFK was "jealousy."
What about the Sec Def conference in Hawaii, May. 1963 where McNamara wanted to see the Vietnam schedules and chastised the officers as they weren't fast enough. This record has been released by the ARRB.
Chomsky did indeed do military contracts, for the USAF, for example, which he has openly discussed. He is also clear that MIT was more or less a wholly-owned subsidiary of the military.
look overall I agree, but one thing I think they gloss over is the matter of degree of difference of hawkishness between kennedy and the military generals there. The military generals under his command were nuts. I mean barking raving mad. They wanted to engineer several false flags as a pretense to invade cuba, they wanted to invade cuba during the cuban missile crisis (which would have definitely led to nuclear war). The bay of pigs itself was intended as a way to suck in president kennedy to make such an invasion. They did resent him, they did cover up the fact they knew about oswald, they did try to push the lone gunman theory. however, that doesn't mean that the military establishment engineered his assassination. Or that castro did. We simply don't know. One thing I find incredible about the conspiracy theorists is that on one hand they say that the military wanted him dead because they wanted him to invade cuba, but then did NOT go to the logical next step and try to blame his death on castro providing the very pretext they had so desired the years before? The only way I can square this circle is by looking at occam's razor and concluding that the generals were overall not mutinous, that they obeyed the chain of command. And hence they most likely did not kill him.
@@GreenandRedPodcast hey look I get it, you are a SME. But you are ALSO a SME who - if you are indeed arguing that Kennedy did not keep us out of thermonuclear war or out of invading Cuba - are in the minority opinion. So I'll make three assertions here and you can tell me your thoughts on them: 1. that the bay of pigs was a holdover from the Eisenhower administration, and that Kennedy resisted pressure from both the CIA and his military staff from invading Cuba in support of it. 2. that in the Cuban missile crisis, again Kennedy resisted pressure from the CIA and his military staff in invading Cuba, and because there were tactical nuclear missiles on the island, essentially prevented WWIII. 3. that he did make pretty much the only speeches that a president ever has made - post-cuban missile crisis, that actually acknowledged the soviet union for the suffering that it had faced and overcome in hitler's invasion, Khruschev reciprocated, and that he made major steps towards the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty being signed in 1966. I'm not saying that Kennedy was some pacifist, nor am I saying that he would have led us out of the Vietnam war. But I AM saying that there was a categorical difference between him and people like Curtis Le May who WOULD have actually 'gotten things over with', invaded Cuba, and we would have been annihilated in the process. I'm also not saying that the Kennedy and Kennedy's leadership wasn't largely responsible for the Cuban missile crisis, that there weren't major plots to cause Castro's downfall. (note - at the same time I think that both superpowers were busy playing chicken in this regard; with the Soviets doing there best to provocate the US in berlin). But I still think he deserves credit for this - you know saving the world bit - and I'm also sure that many people in his administration saw him as a weak, ineffectual leader both after the bay of pigs and the cuban missile crisis because they didn't get their way. I'm not convinced he was killed in a premeditated fashion because of this, but I could easily see someone in the CIA 'forgetting' to tell the secret service about Oswald.
Chomsky is right. No amount of facts will change the minds of conspiracy theorists, but 60 years later all the hard evidence we have, and there's lots of it, points to Oswald and Oswald alone.
The strange fact, is the exact opposite is actually true. The conclusions of the WC simply do not match the evidence. And you have at least half of the members of the WC came out publicly (and some privately) that , of course, they did not really believe the magic bullet theory (which was the central piece of the WC conclusions and without it all falls apart). Neither did LBJ, who says as much in a now well disseminated phone call recorded with WC dissenter Sen. Richard Russel. So the people that concocted the WC hooey, dint really believe it....but you do??? And with all the above facts being in the public domain for decades you can still make preposterous statements like the above -what do we call this kind of will-full irrationality ? I guess its a version of "its easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled".
I can't believe how close you were from asking him what maybe almost all of us wanted you to ask him and you didn't, which is, why, if he thinks Kennedy was just another violent imperialistic thug, got killed??. I can see him responding that he never really cared and that he never looked into it ( I doubt it tho, this guy reads and think about everything!)... can't believe you didn't ask that man. Thanks anyways, it is always great to have the chance to listen to Chomsky.
Do you think the why he got killed is not important or you think the reason why the host didn't ask that is because, "maybe", that wasn't important for him? Either way, I don't see how anyone who have paid even just little attention to what happened to Kennedy would not be interested in this question let alone the answer. Now, if all a person know about this guy is that he was a bad dude who got shot and killed in a car while riding with his girl, I can definitely understand why he or she could think this question is a waste of time... at the end of the day, powerful douchebag presidents get killed in this fashion all the time right?
Asterio If Oswald was solely responsible, we'll never really know the answer to your question. In any event, the assassination is so entwined with myth and speculation, and so lacking in definitive judgement, that it's impossible to come to a reliable conclusion. People don't even agree on who, much less why.
Kennedy's death had no effect on the Viet Nam war, which is obvious in view of the fact that the people running it under Johnson were the same ones who ran it under Kennedy.
I have loved reading and being inspired by Professor Chomsky's writing for 60 years. But listening to him speak now, by the time he finishes a point, I hate to say I don't even care what he's saying!
8:50 irresponsible remark. My opinion: Noam is a Scholar that doesn't want to ever be in a "cause celeb" position where he is perceived as a conspiracy theorist or acknowledging any conspiracies. So he dances around any facts or evidence which point to the truth. Researchers (like Stone) simply follow the evidence - no matter how painful.
No my comment means Noam's comment "..not one shred of evidence" is irresponsible. He's talking about withdrawal from Vietnam and goes on to repeat it and say things like "look at all the evidence, documents, listen to the people etc.." Anyway, do you're own research. It is controversial but at the time of his death it was official (made public) that he was removing 1000 troops by the end of '63. Internally it was official all troops by '65 regardless of the South Vietnamese army sufficiently trained. The detractors say " well he could have reversed that etc.." But we'll never know if that's true, but the evidence strongly suggests that he wouldn't - one of the reasons he was killed. I like Noam but he's spinning the truth on that one - or really whitewashing all the evidence with a huge brush.
@@StanKindly Evidence tells us that Diem was cooking the books. Telling the US exactly what they wanted to hear, rather than the truth. So the withdrawal was based on the 'fact' that they were already winning. And you know what happened when they discover that they've not only been had but betrayed too? They cut him to pieces. Now the whole enterprise has changed. Everything has to be secured and supported. Withdrawal is still on yes but not without victory. Total withdrawal from Vietnam, completely washing their hands of it, where is this evidence?
Very good points, but as far as the actual assassination of JFK goes, I think the pull out of Vietnam is over emphasized, the reasons are far more likely the direct attack on the power of the CIA (he and McNamara had just set up the DIA and more and more very low key documents about his plans for the CIA are bubbling to the surface) and his back channelling and peace efforts with Khrushchev . The reactionaries on both sides really saw that as treason and a year later Khrushchev is removed from power as well, by the Soviet 'right wing". "There is no mystery here..."- Vince Salandria
If Oswald was a lone gunman acting what he saw in his mind as heroically he would have done what Ruby did and most other assassins have done and used a handgun at close range. He would have stepped from the curb and fired at close range. The elaborate story about him getting into the depository is ridiculous for him as it would be for you or me. If he had miraculously found himself in the depository with a rifle he would have taken the shot with the vehicle approaching him. He would not know if he had another shot especially with the guards behind who may have blocked a going-away shot.
Both of you are so off base that it's embarrassing and shameful for Chomsky who is an intellect and brilliant man. To blame JFK for Cuba is insane. Do your homework people !
@@murrieta49 a lot of people do a lot of things. I guess when a fella spends 60 or 70 years deprogramming people from a lifetime of being manipulated and lied to by their own government, he's going to gain some appreciation from them.
You know I just re-read "rethinking Camelot" after watching this video, and for some reason I thought it was a minor work, or else Chomsky added a lot in the 2nd edition (which I doubt) but it's not a minor work at all. It's very thorough, very detailed and it's simply an excellent work, and just fascinating.
@@CWYMAN77 The thesis, which is that "JFK would not have committed troops to Vietnam, had he lived" is destroyed definitively by Chomsky and Buzzanco. JFK did commit troops while he was alive and was a notable hawk in the administration. It's very rare that we have total proof, but looking at the internal and public documentary record, that is indisputable. I'd like to still check out the book, what are it's main pieces of evidence?
@@archyology There’s a phone call somewhere on RUclips between LBJ and Bobby Kennedy I believe in March of 1964. On that call, Bobby tells Johnson the war will never be won militarily but it will be a political problem. If Bobby knew in March of 1964 that the war would never be won on the ground, why on Earth would his brother have escalated it as Johnson did? The simple answer is that he wouldn’t have. Not to mention the fact that Bobby came out publicly against the war as early as 1966. JFK never sent combat troops to Vietnam. He had 16000 “advisors” assisting the South Vietnamese and at the time of his death had ordered 1000 of those men home by Christmas 1963 and a complete withdrawal by 1965. This is documented history. Chomsky has an axe to grind with Kennedy and has willfully ignored the historical record.
The thing is, Kennedy didn't need to be a hero to be the victim of a political conspiracy. Around the same time De Gaulle avoided a similar attempt, not because he was a hero but because he was considered too soft. Chomsky is great but he doesn't study covert warfare, which is fine, he doesn't need to know everything
Exactly, and more than one attempt on De Gaulle with Khrushchev being removed less than a year after JFK. The two most powerful men in the world (who were back channelling) removed in a year and the number 4th or 5th coming dangerously close.
He really shows his insight here into political history once again. Nice to see him talking on other topics. His book on JFK is called Revisiting Camelot.
To take down Stone once and for all, attention must be given to the real.Jim Garrison who was nothing like the Capraesque hero portrayed by Kevin Costner. He was the overzealous prosecutor who would stop at nothing and even break the law to get a conviction no matter if the person was innocent or guilty. To Garrison, the assassination was a "homosexual thrill killing" and he relied on Clay Shaw's sexuality to try to get a conviction. It took less than an hour for a jury to acquit Shaw on all charges.
Check out on RUclips: "JFK speech to UN General Assembly (Sept. 25, 1961)." It's astounding to listen to considering Castro had just taken over Cuba and just after the Eisenhower Administration.
Excellent interview. Thank you. Please tell Noam to go to a Skin Doctor to have his skin on his right side checked for Cancer! I'm concerned because of experience.
Chomsky is admirable in other areas, but he is utterly untrustworthy on this subject. The “no evidence” claim is the opposite of the truth. He cannot debate James diEugenio, Peter Dale Scott, James Douglas, John Newman, or any serious historian of the period. This is an appalling performance.
You're a clown. Everything Chomsky and I have done is based on archives and documents. Not wishes and anecdotes. Serious historians, of which I'm one, overwhelmingly think the idea that JFK was some kind of dove seeking global peace is simply laughable. You people are no different than QAnon, but luckily not violent.
@Green and Red Podcast - so.. do you agree with my assessment of kennedy or not? In your mind was Kennedy fundamentally better than people like Curtis LeMay or no? If not, why not? These things MATTER, and in my mind you need to make these points in your podcasts. Why? Because if we rewound the tape again, went back to 1960 and played it again with Nixon in office, we probably would no longer be here. Nixon would have either invaded Cuba early, russia would have invaded Berlin, and there would have been WWIII. Or he would have gone all in in a nuclear crisis like the Cuban missile crisis. If we had George Wallace instead of Lyndon Johnson, I'm convinced he would have used nukes in Vietnam, Again we WOULDN'T BE HERE Yet I can't help but think if a large portion of your audience was there, they'd do something braindead like support the socialist Eric Hass in a swing state in very close election, perhaps inflicting Nixon on us at a point where our nuclear weapons had no controls and where our nuke policy was one-size-fit-all - where if we did nuke russia, we'd go ahead and nuke china pre-emptively. And you know this isn't a theoretical question. I had the opportunity to talk to Ralph Nader in person about the 2000 election and BEGGED him to dropout because I was worried about the spoiler effect and knew firsthand that Bush was an idiot from his tenure in Texas. I could tell by his response that he was completely in it for the ego. No doubt about it though - if he had bowed out and told his supporters to back Gore, Gore would have won. If Gore won, we would have had a decent chance of preventing 9/11. If we prevented 9/11, no second gulf war, probably no great recession and probably no Trump. By neglecting these facts and not pointing out the obvious you are essentially an accelerationist. Well, guess what - one shitty president in W led in large part to the epic screwup the world is in today, with knock off effects that may just end democracy in our country for decades to come. I'm not sure how much more accelerationism we can take.
@@mssimon1634 ok sure, but that just makes my point. If Nader HAD bowed out, the judicial coup d'etat would no longer have been possible because it would have been bloody obvious that Gore had won. If Gore won, 9/11 would likely have never happened - I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have told the FBI and the CIA that they had successfully 'covered their asses' when they brought it up to him that bin laden was bound and determined to strike again in the US. I'm pretty sure that with continuity of government - and the fact that Gore was competent - would have meant that we would have found the plot and stopped it. Not only that - but I'm pretty sure that we would have embedded the fight against climate change into our governmental policies, and may have just prevented the great recession of 2008. Gore was the consequential president for the good we never had. Bush was the disastrous consequential president we got. Yet if you asked @Green and Red Podcast, he'd probably dismiss all of this because his view that presidents are all the same at heart. Or at least I'm assuming that. After all he never DID actually address my points.
@@gregmattson2238 Well said, and with Gore we would have started to make progress on climate change at a crucial point in history - during the economic boom (so much less painful), before climategate (& the consequent rise of the Tea Party) and before social media divided us.
It’s so interesting that lots of the responses to our disagreements with Stone’s conspiracy thesis is “WATCH HIS MOVIE!”
We have and our response is “READ A FUCKING BOOK.”
... And the best books to read are by Edward J Epstein and Ion Pacepa ☝️
Oliver Stone is almost certainly in the employment of the CIA, which means Mr. Stone actually knows the truth. Yet his job is to continue spreading disinformation, propaganda and lies in the name of the "conspiracy religion". The sad truth is JFK's assassination was solved in the public sphere of information way back in 1992. With the release of "Mortal error: the shot that killed JFK" by Bonar Menninger. Detailing the twenty-five year investigation of Howard Donahue who was a world class expert in the field of forensic ballistics.
@@user6008 wrong dum dum
All the CIA people hate Oliver Stone because he is a Russian disinformation agent, just like Mark Lane before him ☝️
Just finished my Camelot thesis on two fake camelots and one real Camelot.
Two phony balonie camelots to hide one Camelot.
King Arthur and king Kennedy camelots are imaginary.
King Disney Camelot is real.
Not reel.
Media's reign is called tyranny in duplicity.
The cipher they use is actions over words .
Same cypher used in the Bible .
I read the cruxification of Christ and communion and felt sorry for a persecuted man.
I followed the actions of a recipe to " serve man."
To communion is to eat human.
The fake Camelot coup , hides a real Disney Camelot coup.
You might say , the good guys lost...
@@kxkxkxkx then all of USA media's rule is tyranny in deception .
Thanks to god JFK wasn’t from the community, otherwise he’d been talking about a second holocaust.
The host starts to actually talk about Oswald, showing his profound ignorance of the facts by calling Oswald a leader of the FPCC and a Marine Corps "marksman," as if that defines Oswald's military career. And then, of course, Chomsky changes the topic back to Vietnam.
Oswald was a good shot.
Well, Oswald was with the CIA, posing as a quasi defector to the soviet Union. That has been common infiltration tactics in the 50s and 60s
Always inconvenient when people start bringing the discussion back to JFK's warmongering murderous hawkishness, isn't it. Honestly, I'll never understand people's desire for "a hero". They feel the need to manufacture one out of whole cloth.
@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 so why did he avoid the bay of pigs? Cuban middle crisis, bombing Laos, and why was he preparing to remove the 16,000 advisors (not combat troops) weeks before his death. LBJ is on a recorded call saying that he didn’t agree with Kennedy’s decision to withdraw. Kennedy did stand up to the deep state and had balls of steel for it. Unfortunately it cost him his life.
@@jananilcolonoscopu4034yikes this is vastly wrong, JFK was trying to pull out of Vietnam. He repeatedly pushed his national security advisors to enable South Vietnam to be able to handle the war on their own to set the stage for a withdrawal (which was tricky because they were strongly opposed to withdrawal), refused to send ground troops to the country and eventually signed NSAM 263 withdrawing 1000 personnel. General MacArthur once told the president "anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined," prompting the Kennedy to reply "well, now, you gentlemen, you go back and convince General MacArthur, then I'll be convinced" to requests for sending ground troops.
“In 1965, I’ll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected.” - quote from the 35th President, as confided to his close friend Senator Mike Mansfield
Very interesting indeed. As an admittedly very big JFK fan, this definitely makes me color correct the rose colored glasses. One correction though at 9:45: Kennedy did not “refuse” to censure McCarthy, he was absent for the hearings and voting. You can read about it in Theodore Sorensen’s 1965 book ‘Kennedy’ or in one of Kennedy’s letters that was eventually acquired, later published by the New York Times in 1975 entitled “John Kennedy 1954 Letter Sells for $1,000”
The pertinent part of JFK's speech to the UN starts at 9:00 into the video and goes to 14:00 in.
I bet he thinks Allan Dulles was just misunderstood.
Noam uses easy words to inform the masses....BUT, all, almost all, are ASLEEP!
John Newman's book on Vietnam completely debunks Chomsky's views.
Interesting. There's a book out there that "completely debunks" the views of a man who's written over 60 of them. I'm guessing you haven't read any of them.
@@dreamingrightnow1174 Oh I have. That's why I pointed out Newman's book. Thanks for playing.
@@squatch545 Sounds like "one book for all " is your motto. I'm sure you feel the same about religion.
@@dreamingrightnow1174 So because Chomsky wrote 60 books, Newman’s book doesn’t or can’t debunk Rethinking Camelot?
@@miguelmurill1 Derp comment
I remember Homer Simpson saying "it's on the internet so it must be true"
Chomsky’s view simply does not tally with the post assassination records review boards findings. He is way out of date.
Yea fact check this guy.
Well that shoots down Garrison conspiracy theory
@@randyharris3175 you mean the "homosexual thrill killing" theory?
@@a.champagne6238 Yes he had a bunch you have to wonder did he really believe any of these theories probably just seeking publicity anybody going on National TV and accuse the cia of killing Kennedy he later went on to be a judge in Louisiana Lol.
@@randyharris3175 read the book False Witness by Patricia Lambert. The only connection Garrison made between Clay Shaw and David Ferry was that they were both gay. He also baselessly claimed that Oswald and Ruby were. According to Garrison, their motive to kill JFK was "jealousy."
Chkmsky everyday showing now that he's been part of the controled oposition
I think he’s just old. When you get old enough and you’ve done as much as Noam has you’re entitled to not give a fuck
You're nuts
What about the Sec Def conference in Hawaii, May. 1963 where McNamara wanted to see the Vietnam schedules and chastised the officers as they weren't fast enough. This record has been released by the ARRB.
The records of the Hawaii conference were available in the 1990s when I wrote my dissertation.
@@GreenandRedPodcast and?
@@simoncroston4581 And they all ignore the facts that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam by 1965.
@@CWYMAN77 you forgot the words "after victory".
@@jananilcolonoscopu4034You need to read before making stupid comments.
Chomsky worked his entire life for a defense contractor, MIT.
Chomsky made his work too theoretical so that it couldn't be applied in real life for the military
@@cheeto8960 I don't mean that Chomsky himself did military contracting, just his employer, MIT.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a KGB agent, along with his wife Marina and best friend George 🇺🇸
Chomsky did indeed do military contracts, for the USAF, for example, which he has openly discussed. He is also clear that MIT was more or less a wholly-owned subsidiary of the military.
look overall I agree, but one thing I think they gloss over is the matter of degree of difference of hawkishness between kennedy and the military generals there. The military generals under his command were nuts. I mean barking raving mad. They wanted to engineer several false flags as a pretense to invade cuba, they wanted to invade cuba during the cuban missile crisis (which would have definitely led to nuclear war). The bay of pigs itself was intended as a way to suck in president kennedy to make such an invasion. They did resent him, they did cover up the fact they knew about oswald, they did try to push the lone gunman theory.
however, that doesn't mean that the military establishment engineered his assassination. Or that castro did. We simply don't know. One thing I find incredible about the conspiracy theorists is that on one hand they say that the military wanted him dead because they wanted him to invade cuba, but then did NOT go to the logical next step and try to blame his death on castro providing the very pretext they had so desired the years before?
The only way I can square this circle is by looking at occam's razor and concluding that the generals were overall not mutinous, that they obeyed the chain of command. And hence they most likely did not kill him.
Yeah, what would I know about any of this stuff? www.amazon.com/Masters-War-Military-Dissent-Politics/dp/0521599407
@@GreenandRedPodcast hey look I get it, you are a SME. But you are ALSO a SME who - if you are indeed arguing that Kennedy did not keep us out of thermonuclear war or out of invading Cuba - are in the minority opinion.
So I'll make three assertions here and you can tell me your thoughts on them:
1. that the bay of pigs was a holdover from the Eisenhower administration, and that Kennedy resisted pressure from both the CIA and his military staff from invading Cuba in support of it.
2. that in the Cuban missile crisis, again Kennedy resisted pressure from the CIA and his military staff in invading Cuba, and because there were tactical nuclear missiles on the island, essentially prevented WWIII.
3. that he did make pretty much the only speeches that a president ever has made - post-cuban missile crisis, that actually acknowledged the soviet union for the suffering that it had faced and overcome in hitler's invasion, Khruschev reciprocated, and that he made major steps towards the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty being signed in 1966.
I'm not saying that Kennedy was some pacifist, nor am I saying that he would have led us out of the Vietnam war. But I AM saying that there was a categorical difference between him and people like Curtis Le May who WOULD have actually 'gotten things over with', invaded Cuba, and we would have been annihilated in the process.
I'm also not saying that the Kennedy and Kennedy's leadership wasn't largely responsible for the Cuban missile crisis, that there weren't major plots to cause Castro's downfall. (note - at the same time I think that both superpowers were busy playing chicken in this regard; with the Soviets doing there best to provocate the US in berlin).
But I still think he deserves credit for this - you know saving the world bit - and I'm also sure that many people in his administration saw him as a weak, ineffectual leader both after the bay of pigs and the cuban missile crisis because they didn't get their way. I'm not convinced he was killed in a premeditated fashion because of this, but I could easily see someone in the CIA 'forgetting' to tell the secret service about Oswald.
@@GreenandRedPodcast Not much.
@@CWYMAN77 maybe, but he appears to know more than you.
@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 He really doesn’t. Read JFK and Vietnam and get back to me.
Chomsky is right. No amount of facts will change the minds of conspiracy theorists, but 60 years later all the hard evidence we have, and there's lots of it, points to Oswald and Oswald alone.
The strange fact, is the exact opposite is actually true. The conclusions of the WC simply do not match the evidence. And you have at least half of the members of the WC came out publicly (and some privately) that , of course, they did not really believe the magic bullet theory (which was the central piece of the WC conclusions and without it all falls apart). Neither did LBJ, who says as much in a now well disseminated phone call recorded with WC dissenter Sen. Richard Russel. So the people that concocted the WC hooey, dint really believe it....but you do??? And with all the above facts being in the public domain for decades you can still make preposterous statements like the above -what do we call this kind of will-full irrationality ? I guess its a version of "its easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled".
I can't believe how close you were from asking him what maybe almost all of us wanted you to ask him and you didn't, which is, why, if he thinks Kennedy was just another violent imperialistic thug, got killed??. I can see him responding that he never really cared and that he never looked into it ( I doubt it tho, this guy reads and think about everything!)... can't believe you didn't ask that man. Thanks anyways, it is always great to have the chance to listen to Chomsky.
Do you think the why he got killed is not important or you think the reason why the host didn't ask that is because, "maybe", that wasn't important for him?
Either way, I don't see how anyone who have paid even just little attention to what happened to Kennedy would not be interested in this question let alone the answer. Now, if all a person know about this guy is that he was a bad dude who got shot and killed in a car while riding with his girl, I can definitely understand why he or she could think this question is a waste of time... at the end of the day, powerful douchebag presidents get killed in this fashion all the time right?
yes very good question he didn't ask.
He does the same with 9/11, where he actually goes with tbe narrative, he just try to spin it with a long answer, that is tipical of him
Asterio If Oswald was solely responsible, we'll never really know the answer to your question. In any event, the assassination is so entwined with myth and speculation, and so lacking in definitive judgement, that it's impossible to come to a reliable conclusion. People don't even agree on who, much less why.
Kennedy's death had no effect on the Viet Nam war, which is obvious in view of the fact that the people running it under Johnson were the same ones who ran it under Kennedy.
I have loved reading and being inspired by Professor Chomsky's writing for 60 years. But listening to him speak now, by the time he finishes a point, I hate to say I don't even care what he's saying!
Firewind II If you've been at this for 60 years, your attention span may need some shoring up.
@@vestibulate Fair enough.
8:50 irresponsible remark.
My opinion: Noam is a Scholar that doesn't want to ever be in a "cause celeb" position where he is perceived as a conspiracy theorist or acknowledging any conspiracies. So he dances around any facts or evidence which point to the truth. Researchers (like Stone) simply follow the evidence - no matter how painful.
Does this comment, that Stone doesn't "dance around", mean you haven't seen his interview of Vladimir Putin? You must be unfamiliar.
No my comment means Noam's comment "..not one shred of evidence" is irresponsible. He's talking about withdrawal from Vietnam and goes on to repeat it and say things like "look at all the evidence, documents, listen to the people etc.." Anyway, do you're own research. It is controversial but at the time of his death it was official (made public) that he was removing 1000 troops by the end of '63. Internally it was official all troops by '65 regardless of the South Vietnamese army sufficiently trained. The detractors say " well he could have reversed that etc.." But we'll never know if that's true, but the evidence strongly suggests that he wouldn't - one of the reasons he was killed.
I like Noam but he's spinning the truth on that one - or really whitewashing all the evidence with a huge brush.
@@StanKindly Evidence tells us that Diem was cooking the books. Telling the US exactly what they wanted to hear, rather than the truth. So the withdrawal was based on the 'fact' that they were already winning. And you know what happened when they discover that they've not only been had but betrayed too? They cut him to pieces. Now the whole enterprise has changed. Everything has to be secured and supported. Withdrawal is still on yes but not without victory. Total withdrawal from Vietnam, completely washing their hands of it, where is this evidence?
Very good points, but as far as the actual assassination of JFK goes, I think the pull out of Vietnam is over emphasized, the reasons are far more likely the direct attack on the power of the CIA (he and McNamara had just set up the DIA and more and more very low key documents about his plans for the CIA are bubbling to the surface) and his back channelling and peace efforts with Khrushchev . The reactionaries on both sides really saw that as treason and a year later Khrushchev is removed from power as well, by the Soviet 'right wing". "There is no mystery here..."- Vince Salandria
If Oswald was a lone gunman acting what he saw in his mind as heroically he would have done what Ruby did and most other assassins have done and used a handgun at close range. He would have stepped from the curb and fired at close range. The elaborate story about him getting into the depository is ridiculous for him as it would be for you or me. If he had miraculously found himself in the depository with a rifle he would have taken the shot with the vehicle approaching him. He would not know if he had another shot especially with the guards behind who may have blocked a going-away shot.
Both of you are so off base that it's embarrassing and shameful for Chomsky who is an intellect and brilliant man. To blame JFK for Cuba is insane. Do your homework people !
I agree with Chomsky on a number
of his positions, but he's provably wrong on a number of his statements regarding Kennedy's positions and actions.
which ones?
Noam taught me that it's silly to have heroes, especially Presidents. The office of the Presidency seems to demand criminality.
@@CapnSnackbeard what’s ironic is there are a lot of ppl who virtually worship Noam
@@murrieta49 a lot of people do a lot of things. I guess when a fella spends 60 or 70 years deprogramming people from a lifetime of being manipulated and lied to by their own government, he's going to gain some appreciation from them.
@@murrieta49 I sure appreciate him. It doesn't hurt that he is right about almost everything I hear him talk about (which is a fairly confined scope)
You know I just re-read "rethinking Camelot" after watching this video, and for some reason I thought it was a minor work, or else Chomsky added a lot in the 2nd edition (which I doubt) but it's not a minor work at all. It's very thorough, very detailed and it's simply an excellent work, and just fascinating.
Now read JFK and Vietnam by John Newman.
@@CWYMAN77 The thesis, which is that "JFK would not have committed troops to Vietnam, had he lived" is destroyed definitively by Chomsky and Buzzanco. JFK did commit troops while he was alive and was a notable hawk in the administration. It's very rare that we have total proof, but looking at the internal and public documentary record, that is indisputable.
I'd like to still check out the book, what are it's main pieces of evidence?
@@archyology There’s a phone call somewhere on RUclips between LBJ and Bobby Kennedy I believe in March of 1964. On that call, Bobby tells Johnson the war will never be won militarily but it will be a political problem. If Bobby knew in March of 1964 that the war would never be won on the ground, why on Earth would his brother have escalated it as Johnson did? The simple answer is that he wouldn’t have. Not to mention the fact that Bobby came out publicly against the war as early as 1966. JFK never sent combat troops to Vietnam. He had 16000 “advisors” assisting the South Vietnamese and at the time of his death had ordered 1000 of those men home by Christmas 1963 and a complete withdrawal by 1965. This is documented history. Chomsky has an axe to grind with Kennedy and has willfully ignored the historical record.
@@CWYMAN77 I think you should read Chomsky's book on the topic, if you're interested.
@@archyology His thesis is that JFK was a hawk that was escalating the Vietnam War. That is historically not factual.
Oliver stone
The thing is, Kennedy didn't need to be a hero to be the victim of a political conspiracy. Around the same time De Gaulle avoided a similar attempt, not because he was a hero but because he was considered too soft. Chomsky is great but he doesn't study covert warfare, which is fine, he doesn't need to know everything
Exactly, and more than one attempt on De Gaulle with Khrushchev being removed less than a year after JFK. The two most powerful men in the world (who were back channelling) removed in a year and the number 4th or 5th coming dangerously close.
Excellent interview/discussion!
He really shows his insight here into political history once again. Nice to see him talking on other topics. His book on JFK is called Revisiting Camelot.
Rethinking Camelot
Noam Chomsky Wow! when did the interview take place?
When I hold a looking glass at the reel shooter.
I see the real shooter.
I don't see Os on 6 shooting JFK.
I do see A z at knoll shooting JFK.
thats what I have been saying .
Lol
@@randyharris3175 media's rule is tyranny in duplicity.
KGB . NBC .FBI , ABC ,Cia PBS...
The guy who turned me on to Chomsky said “Chomsky is God”
You have a new subscriber, thanks for sharing your insight. Hope you can put more out there for us :)
Chomsky is great. But his takes on JFK and 9/11 seem incorrect.
Brilliant and helpful as always.
To take down Stone once and for all, attention must be given to the real.Jim Garrison who was nothing like the Capraesque hero portrayed by Kevin Costner. He was the overzealous prosecutor who would stop at nothing and even break the law to get a conviction no matter if the person was innocent or guilty. To Garrison, the assassination was a "homosexual thrill killing" and he relied on Clay Shaw's sexuality to try to get a conviction. It took less than an hour for a jury to acquit Shaw on all charges.
Check out on RUclips: "JFK speech to UN General Assembly (Sept. 25, 1961)." It's astounding to listen to considering Castro had just taken over Cuba and just after the Eisenhower Administration.
Excellent interview. Thank you. Please tell Noam to go to a Skin Doctor to have his skin on his right side checked for Cancer! I'm concerned because of experience.
He's had that for decades, I'm sure he's aware.
Very interesting conversation, thank you for this.
Now I gotta read Bob Buzzacano's books
Great interview!
Subtítulos inglés o castellano, please.
Chomsky is admirable in other areas, but he is utterly untrustworthy on this subject. The “no evidence” claim is the opposite of the truth. He cannot debate James diEugenio, Peter Dale Scott, James Douglas, John Newman, or any serious historian of the period. This is an appalling performance.
You're a clown. Everything Chomsky and I have done is based on archives and documents. Not wishes and anecdotes. Serious historians, of which I'm one, overwhelmingly think the idea that JFK was some kind of dove seeking global peace is simply laughable. You people are no different than QAnon, but luckily not violent.
@@GreenandRedPodcastfucking joke, calling yourself historian.
@Green and Red Podcast - so.. do you agree with my assessment of kennedy or not? In your mind was Kennedy fundamentally better than people like Curtis LeMay or no? If not, why not?
These things MATTER, and in my mind you need to make these points in your podcasts. Why? Because if we rewound the tape again, went back to 1960 and played it again with Nixon in office, we probably would no longer be here. Nixon would have either invaded Cuba early, russia would have invaded Berlin, and there would have been WWIII. Or he would have gone all in in a nuclear crisis like the Cuban missile crisis. If we had George Wallace instead of Lyndon Johnson, I'm convinced he would have used nukes in Vietnam, Again we WOULDN'T BE HERE
Yet I can't help but think if a large portion of your audience was there, they'd do something braindead like support the socialist Eric Hass in a swing state in very close election, perhaps inflicting Nixon on us at a point where our nuclear weapons had no controls and where our nuke policy was one-size-fit-all - where if we did nuke russia, we'd go ahead and nuke china pre-emptively.
And you know this isn't a theoretical question. I had the opportunity to talk to Ralph Nader in person about the 2000 election and BEGGED him to dropout because I was worried about the spoiler effect and knew firsthand that Bush was an idiot from his tenure in Texas. I could tell by his response that he was completely in it for the ego. No doubt about it though - if he had bowed out and told his supporters to back Gore, Gore would have won. If Gore won, we would have had a decent chance of preventing 9/11. If we prevented 9/11, no second gulf war, probably no great recession and probably no Trump.
By neglecting these facts and not pointing out the obvious you are essentially an accelerationist. Well, guess what - one shitty president in W led in large part to the epic screwup the world is in today, with knock off effects that may just end democracy in our country for decades to come. I'm not sure how much more accelerationism we can take.
@@mssimon1634 ok sure, but that just makes my point. If Nader HAD bowed out, the judicial coup d'etat would no longer have been possible because it would have been bloody obvious that Gore had won.
If Gore won, 9/11 would likely have never happened - I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have told the FBI and the CIA that they had successfully 'covered their asses' when they brought it up to him that bin laden was bound and determined to strike again in the US. I'm pretty sure that with continuity of government - and the fact that Gore was competent - would have meant that we would have found the plot and stopped it.
Not only that - but I'm pretty sure that we would have embedded the fight against climate change into our governmental policies, and may have just prevented the great recession of 2008. Gore was the consequential president for the good we never had. Bush was the disastrous consequential president we got.
Yet if you asked @Green and Red Podcast, he'd probably dismiss all of this because his view that presidents are all the same at heart. Or at least I'm assuming that. After all he never DID actually address my points.
@@gregmattson2238 Well said, and with Gore we would have started to make progress on climate change at a crucial point in history - during the economic boom (so much less painful), before climategate (& the consequent rise of the Tea Party) and before social media divided us.
Yep that as exactly what happened.i don't think lbj did it I know he did it.
Great to learn of your organization.
Regan THATCHER FRIEDMAN SPIT ROASTING NEO CONS