RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Kennedy writes: "On November 22nd, 1963, my uncle, president John F. Kennedy, went to Dallas intending to condemn as 'nonsense' the right-wing notion that 'peace is a sign of weakness.' He meant to argue that the best way to demonstrate American strength was not by using destructive weapons and threats but by being a nation that 'practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice,' ..."

President John F. Kennedy at work in the Oval office in 1962. (photo: George Tames)
President John F. Kennedy at work in the Oval office in 1962. (photo: George Tames)

John F. Kennedy's Vision of Peace

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Rolling Stone

21 November 13


On the 50th anniversary of JFK's death, his nephew recalls the fallen president's attempts to halt the war machine.

n November 22nd, 1963, my uncle, president John F. Kennedy, went to Dallas intending to condemn as "nonsense" the right-wing notion that "peace is a sign of weakness." He meant to argue that the best way to demonstrate American strength was not by using destructive weapons and threats but by being a nation that "practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice," striving toward peace instead of "aggressive ambitions." Despite the Cold War rhetoric of his campaign, JFK's greatest ambition as president was to break the militaristic ideology that has dominated our country since World War II. He told his close friend Ben Bradlee that he wanted the epitaph "He kept the peace," and said to another friend, William Walton, "I am almost a 'peace at any price' president." Hugh Sidey, a journalist and friend, wrote that the governing aspect of JFK's leadership was "a total revulsion" of war. Nevertheless, as James W. Douglass argues in his book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, JFK's presidency would be a continuous struggle with his own military and intelligence agencies, which engaged in incessant schemes to trap him into escalating the Cold War into a hot one. His first major confrontation with the Pentagon, the Bay of Pigs catastrophe, came only three months into his presidency and would set the course for the next 1,000 days.

JFK's predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had finalized support on March 17th, 1960, for a Cuban invasion by anti-Castro insurgents, but the wily general left its execution to the incoming Kennedy team. From the start, JFK recoiled at the caper's stench, as CIA Director Allen Dulles has acknowledged, demanding assurances from CIA and Pentagon brass that there was no chance of failure and that there would be no need for U.S. military involvement. Dulles and the generals knowingly lied and gave him those guarantees.

When the invasion failed, JFK refused to order airstrikes against Castro. Realizing he had been drawn into a trap, he told his top aides, David Powers and Kenneth O'Donnell, "They were sure I'd give in to them and send the go-ahead order to the [U.S. Navy aircraft carrier] Essex. They couldn't believe that a new president like me wouldn't panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong." JFK was realizing that the CIA posed a monumental threat to American democracy. As the brigade faltered, he told Arthur Schlesinger that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

The next confrontation with the defense and intelligence establishments had already begun as JFK resisted pressure from Eisenhower, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA to prop up the CIA's puppet government in Laos against the communist Pathet Lao guerrillas. The military wanted 140,000 ground troops, with some officials advocating for nuclear weapons. "If it hadn't been for Cuba," JFK told Schlesinger, "we might be about to intervene in Laos. I might have taken this advice seriously." JFK instead signed a neutrality agreement the following year and was joined by 13 nations, including the Soviet Union.

His own instincts against intervening with American combat forces in Laos were fortified that April by the judgment of retired Gen. Douglas MacArthur, America's undisputed authority on fighting wars in Asia. Referring to Dulles' mischief in Southeast Asia during the Eisenhower years, MacArthur told JFK, "The chickens are coming home to roost, and [you] live in the chicken coop." MacArthur added a warning that ought to still resonate today: "Anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined."

About six months into his administration, JFK went to Vienna to meet Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev with high hopes of beginning a process of détente and mutual nuclear disarmament. Khrushchev met his proposals with bombast and truculent indifference. The Joint Chiefs and the CIA, which had fulminated about JFK's notion of negotiating with the Soviets, were relieved by the summit's failure. Six weeks later, military and intelligence leaders responded by unveiling their proposal for a pre-emptive thermonuclear attack on the Soviet Union, to be launched sometime in late 1963. JFK stormed away from the meeting in disgust, remarking scathingly to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, "And we call ourselves the human race."

As JFK's relationship with his military-intelligence apparatus deteriorated, a remarkable relationship with Khrushchev began. Both were battle-hardened war veterans seeking a path to rapprochement and disarmament, encircled by militarists clamoring for war. In Kennedy's case, both the Pentagon and the CIA believed war with the Soviets was inevitable and therefore desirable in the short term while we still had the nuclear advantage. In the autumn of 1961, as retired Gen. Lucius Clay, who had taken a civilian post in Berlin, launched a series of unauthorized provocations against the Soviets, Khrushchev began an extraordinary secret correspondence with JFK. With the Berlin crisis moving toward nuclear Armageddon, Khrushchev turned to KGB agent Georgi Bolshakov, a top Soviet spy in Washington, to communicate directly with JFK. Bolshakov, to the horror of the U.S. State Department, was a friend of my parents and a frequent guest at our home. Bolshakov smuggled a letter, the first of 21 declassified in 1993, to JFK's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, in a folded newspaper. In it, Khrushchev expressed regret about Vienna and embraced JFK's proposal for a path to peace and disarmament.

On October 27th, Gen. Clay made an unauthorized armed threat to knock down the Berlin Wall using tanks equipped with dozer plows, seeking to provoke the Soviets into some action that would justify a nuclear first strike. The Kremlin responded with its own tanks, which met Clay's forces at the border crossing known as Checkpoint Charlie. A 16-hour face-off ensued. Through my father, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and Bolshakov, JFK promised that if Khrushchev withdrew his tanks within 24 hours, the U.S. would pull back 20 minutes later. Khrushchev took the risk, and JFK kept his word. Two weeks later, with tensions still running, Khrushchev sent a second letter to JFK: "I have no ground to retreat further, there is a precipice behind [me]." Kennedy realized that Khrushchev, too, was surrounded by a powerful military and intelligence complex intent on going to war. After the confrontation, Gen. Clay railed against JFK's unwillingness to "face the risk of nuclear war" against the Soviets.

One year later, on October 16th, 1962, Kennedy saw aerial photographs proving that the Soviets had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba capable of reaching much of the eastern U.S. seaboard. The next 13 days were the most perilous in mankind's history. From the outset, the Pentagon, the CIA and many of JFK's advisers urged airstrikes and a U.S. invasion of the island that, as a Soviet military commander later revealed, would have triggered a nuclear war with the Soviets. JFK opted for a blockade, which Soviet ships respected. By October 26th, the standoff was de-escalating. Then, on October 27th, the crisis reignited when Soviet forces shot down a U.S. reconnaissance plane, killing its pilot, Maj. Rudolf Anderson. Almost immediately, the brass demanded overwhelming retaliation to destroy the Soviet missile sites. Meanwhile, Castro pushed the Kremlin military machine toward a devastating first strike. In a secret meeting with Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, my father told him, "If the situation continues much longer, the president is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power." U.S. marshals appeared at our house to take us to government bunkers in western Virginia. My brother Joe and I were anxious to go, if only to see the setup. But my father, who'd spent the previous six nights at the White House, called to say that we needed to be "good soldiers" and show up for school in Washington. To disappear, he told us, would cause public panic. That night, many people in our government went to sleep wondering if they would wake up dead.

On Monday, October 29th, the world moved back from the brink. An artfully drafted letter my father wrote with Ted Sorensen pledging that the U.S. would not invade Cuba - plus JFK's secret agreement with Khrushchev to withdraw obsolete Jupiter missiles from Turkey - persuaded the Kremlin to back down.

My father was not exaggerating to Dobrynin the fragility of White House control over the military. During the 13 days, the president's hold on power became increasingly tenuous as spooks and generals, apoplectic at JFK's reluctance to attack Cuba, engaged in dozens of acts of insubordination designed to trigger a nuclear exchange. CIA spymaster William Harvey screamed at the president and my father during a White House meeting: "We wouldn't be in such trouble now if you guys had some balls in the Bay of Pigs." Defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who years later leaked the Pentagon Papers, reported, "There was virtually a coup atmosphere in Pentagon circles." Incensed brass were in a state of disbelief at what they considered bald treason by the president. Spoiling for a war to end all wars, Gen. Curtis LeMay, the man who pioneered the use of napalm against civilians in Tokyo during World War II, found consolation by allowing himself to believe all was not lost. "Why don't we go in there and make a strike on Monday anyway?" LeMay said, as he watched the crisis subside.

Khrushchev said afterward that Kennedy had won his "deep respect" during the crisis: "He didn't let himself become frightened, nor did he become reckless.?.?.?.?He showed real wisdom and statesmanship when he turned his back on the right-wing forces in the United States who were trying to goad him into taking military action against Cuba."

Today it's fashionable to view the quagmire of Vietnam as a continuum beginning under Eisenhower and steadily escalating through the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations. But JFK was wary of the conflict from the outset and determined to end U.S. involvement at the time of his death.

JFK inherited a deteriorative dilemma. When Eisenhower left office, there were by official count 685 military advisers in Vietnam, sent there to help the government of President Ngo Dinh Diem in its battle against the South Vietnamese guerrillas known as the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese soldiers deployed by Communist ruler Ho Chi Minh, who was intent on reunifying his country. Eisenhower explained that "the loss of South Vietnam would set in motion a crumbling process that could, as it progressed, have grave consequences for us." Ho Chi Minh's popularity in the south had already led Dulles' CIA to sabotage national elections required by the Geneva Accords, which had ended France's colonial rule, and to prop up Diem's crooked puppet government, which was tenuously hanging on to power against the Communists. Back at home, Republican militarists were charging JFK with "losing Laos" and badgering him to ramp up our military commitment.

In JFK's first months in office, the Pentagon asked him to deploy ground troops into Vietnam. JFK agreed to send another 500 advisers, under the assumption that South Vietnam had a large army and would be able to defend itself against communist aggression. He refused to send ground troops but would eventually commit 16,500 advisers - fewer troops than he sent to Mississippi to integrate Ole Miss - who were technically forbidden from engaging in combat missions. He told New York Times columnist Arthur Krock in 1961 that the United States should not involve itself "in civil disturbances created by guerrillas."

For three years, that refusal to send combat troops earned him the antipathy of both liberals and conservatives who rebuked him for "throwing in the towel" in the Cold War. His critics included not just the traditionally bellicose Joint Chiefs and the CIA, but also trusted advisers and friends, including Gen. Maxwell Taylor; Defense Secretary Robert McNamara; McNamara's deputy, Roswell Gilpatric; and Secretary of State Rusk. JFK's ambassador to South Vietnam, Frederick Nolting Jr., reported a "virtually unanimous desire for the introduction of the U.S. forces into Vietnam" by the Vietnamese "in various walks of life." When Vice President Lyndon Johnson visited Vietnam in May 1961, he returned adamant that victory required U.S. combat troops. Virtually every one of JFK's senior staff concurred. Yet JFK resisted. Saigon, he said, would have to fight its own war.

As a stalling tactic, he sent Gen. Taylor to Vietnam on a fact-finding mission in September 1961. Taylor was among my father's best friends. JFK was frank with Taylor - he needed a military man to advise him to get out of Vietnam. According to Taylor, "The last thing he wanted was to put in ground forces. And I knew that." Nevertheless, Taylor was persuaded by hysterical military and intelligence experts across the Pacific, and had angered JFK when he came back recommending U.S. intervention. To prevent the fall of South Vietnam, Taylor suggested sending 8,000 U.S. troops under the guise of "flood relief" - a number that McNamara said was a reasonable start but should be escalated to as many as "six divisions, or about 205,000 men." Later, Taylor would say, "I don't recall anyone who was strongly against [sending troops to Vietnam] except one man, and that was the president."

Frustrated by Taylor's report, JFK then sent a confirmed pacifist, John Kenneth Galbraith, to Vietnam to make the case for nonintervention. But JFK confided his political weakness to Galbraith. "You have to realize," JFK said, "that I can only afford so many defeats in one year." He had the Bay of Pigs and the pulling out of Laos. He couldn't accept a third. Former Vice President Richard Nixon and the CIA's Dulles, whom JFK had fired, were loudly advocating U.S. military intervention in Vietnam, while Asian dominoes tumbled. Even The New York Times agreed. "The present situation," the paper had warned, "is one that brooks no further stalling." This was accepted wisdom among America's leading foreign-policy gurus. Public sympathies in the summer of 1963 were 2-to-1 for intervention.

Despite the drumbeat from the left and right, JFK refused to send in combat troops. "They want a force of American troops," JFK told Schlesinger. "They say it's necessary in order to restore confidence and maintain morale. But it will be just like Berlin. The troops will march in, the bands will play, the crowds will cheer, and in four days everyone will have forgotten. Then we will be told we have to send in more troops. It's like taking a drink. The effect wears off and you have to have another."

In 1967, Daniel Ellsberg interviewed my father. Ellsberg, a wavering war hawk and Marine veteran, was researching the history of the Vietnam War. He had seen the mountains of warmongering memos, advice and pressure. Ellsberg asked my father how JFK had managed to stand against the virtually unanimous tide of pro-war sentiment. My father explained that his brother did not want to follow France into a war of rich against poor, white versus Asian, on the side of imperialism and colonialism against nationalism and self-determination. Pressing my father, Ellsberg asked whether the president would have accepted a South Vietnamese defeat. "We would have handled it like Laos," my father told him. Intrigued, Ellsberg pressed further. "What made him so smart?" Three decades afterward, Ellsberg would vividly recall my father's reaction: "Whap! His hand slapped down on the desk. I jumped in my chair. 'Because we were there!' He slapped the desk again. 'We saw what was happening to the French. We saw it. We were determined never to let that happen to us.'"

In 1951, JFK, then a young congressman, and my father visited Vietnam, where they marveled at the fearlessness of the French Legionnaires and the hopelessness of their cause. On that trip, American diplomat Edmund Gullion warned JFK to avoid the trap. Upon returning, JFK isolated himself with his outspoken opposition to American involvement in this "hopeless internecine struggle."

Three years later, in April 1954, he made himself a pariah within his own party by condemning the Eisenhower administration for entertaining French requests for assistance in Indochina, predicting that fighting Ho Chi Minh would mire the U.S. in France's doomed colonial legacy. "No amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy that is everywhere and at the same time nowhere?.?.?.?[or an enemy] which has the sympathy and covert support of the people."

By the summer of 1963, JFK was quietly telling trusted friends and advisers he intended to get out following the 1964 election. These included Rep. Tip O'Neill, McNamara, National Security adviser McGeorge Bundy, Sen. Wayne Morse, Washington columnist Charles Bartlett, Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson, confidant Larry Newman, Gen. Taylor and Marine Commandant Gen. David M. Shoup, who, besides Taylor, was the only other member of the Joint Chiefs that JFK trusted. Both McNamara and Bundy acknowledged in their respective memoirs that JFK meant to get out - which were jarring admissions against self-interest, since these two would remain in the Johnson administration and orchestrate the war's escalation.

That spring, JFK had told Montana Sen. Mike Mansfield, who would become the Vietnam War's most outspoken Senate critic, "I can't do it until 1965, after I'm re-elected." Later that day, he explained to Kenneth O'Donnell, "If I tried to pull out completely from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy Red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I'm re-elected." Both Nelson Rockefeller and Sen. Barry Goldwater, who were vying to run against him in 1964, were uncompromising Cold Warriors who would have loved to tar JFK with the brush that he had lost not just Laos, but now Vietnam. Goldwater was campaigning on the platform of "bombing Vietnam back into the Stone Age," a lyrical and satisfying construct to the Joint Chiefs and the CIA. "So we had better make damned sure I am re-elected," JFK said.

The Joint Chiefs, already in open revolt against JFK for failing to unleash the dogs of war in Cuba and Laos, were unanimous in urging a massive influx of ground troops and were incensed with talk of withdrawal. The mood in Langley was even uglier. Journalist Richard Starnes, filing from Vietnam, gave a stark assessment in The Washington Daily News of the CIA's unrestrained thirst for power in Vietnam. Starnes quoted high-level U.S. officials horrified by the CIA's role in escalating the conflict. They described an insubordinate, out-of-control agency, which one top official called a "malignancy." He doubted that "even the White House could control it any longer." Another warned, "If the United States ever experiences a [coup], it will come from the CIA and not from the Pentagon." Added another, "[Members of the CIA] represent tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone."

Defying such pressures, JFK, in the spring of 1962, told McNamara to order the Joint Chiefs to begin planning for a phased withdrawal that would disengage the U.S. altogether. McNamara later told an assistant secretary of defense that the president intended to "close out Vietnam by '65 whether it was in good shape or bad."

On May 8th, 1962, following JFK's orders, McNamara instructed a stunned Gen. Paul Harkins "to devise a plan for bringing full responsibility [for the Vietnam War] over to South Vietnam." Mutinous, the general ignored the order until July 23rd, 1962, when McNamara again commanded him to produce a plan for withdrawal. The brass returned May 6th, 1963, with a half-baked proposal that didn't complete withdrawal as quickly as JFK had wanted. McNamara ordered them back yet again.

On September 2nd, 1963, in a televised interview, JFK told the American people he didn't want to get drawn into Vietnam. "In the final analysis, it is their war," he said. "They are the ones who have to win or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment. We can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam."

Six weeks before his death, on October 11th, 1963, JFK bypassed his own National Security Council and had Bundy issue National Security Action Memorandum 263, making official policy the withdrawal from Vietnam of the bulk of U.S. military personnel by the end of 1965, beginning with "1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963." On November 14th, 1963, a week before Dallas, he announced at a press conference that he was ordering up a plan for "how we can bring Americans out of there." The morning of November 21st, as he prepared to leave for Texas, he reviewed a casualty list for Vietnam indicating that more than 100 Americans to date had died there. Shaken and angry, JFK told his assistant press secretary Malcolm Kilduff, "It's time for us to get out. The Vietnamese aren't fighting for themselves. We're the ones doing the fighting. After I come back from Texas, that's going to change. There's no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life."

On November 24th, 1963, two days after JFK died, Lyndon Johnson met with South Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, whom JFK had been on the verge of firing. LBJ told 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." Over the next decade, nearly 3 million Americans, including many of my friends, would enter the paddies of Vietnam, and 58,000, including my cousin George Skakel, would never return.

Dulles, fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs, returned to public service when LBJ appointed him to the Warren Commission, where he systematically concealed the agency's involvement in various assassination schemes and its ties to organized crime. To a young writer, he revealed his continued resentment against JFK: "That little Kennedy?.?.?.?he thought he was a god."

On June 10th, 1963, at American University, Kennedy gave his greatest speech ever, calling for an end to the Cold War, painting the heretical vision of America living and competing peacefully with Soviet Communists. World peace, he proposed, would not be "a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war." He challenged Cold War fundamentalists who cast the world as a clash of civilizations in which one side must win and the other annihilated. He suggested instead that peaceful coexistence with the Soviets might be the most expedient path to ending totalitarianism.

And he acknowledged that now, "above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either humiliating retreat or nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy - or a collective death wish for the world." In the nightmare reality of nuclear war, he said, "All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours."

JFK went on to paint the picture of a world where different ideologies were allowed to flourish, supplanting the immoral and destructive Cold War with productive competition that, instead of "devoting massive sums to weapons," would divert them "to combat ignorance, poverty and disease." And, he added, "if we cannot now end our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity."

He concluded by proposing a blueprint for bringing the Cold War to an end. "Our primary long-range interest," he said, was "general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms." He announced unilateral suspension of atmospheric nuclear weapons and proposed immediate disarmament talks with Moscow.

It's hard to understand today how heretical JFK's proposal for coexistence with the Soviets sounded to America's right wing. It was Cold War boilerplate that any objective short of complete destruction was cowardice or treachery. In his bestselling 1962 diatribe Why Not Victory? Barry Goldwater proclaimed, "Our objective must be the destruction of the enemy as an ideological force.?.?.?.?Our effort calls for a basic commitment in the name of victory, which says we will never reconcile ourselves to the communist possession of power of any kind in any part of the world."

Despite opposition to the treaty from the generals and Republican leaders, including liberals like Nelson Rockefeller, Kennedy's words electrified a world terrified by the prospect of nuclear exchange. JFK's recognition of the Soviet point of view had an immediate salving impact on U.S.-Soviet relations. Khrushchev, deeply moved, later told treaty negotiator Averell Harriman that the American University address was "the greatest speech by an American president since Roosevelt."

Knowing that America's military-industrial complex would oppose him, JFK had kept the text of his speech secret from the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department. His call for a unilateral test-ban treaty shocked his own National Security and his military and diplomatic advisers.

Worse, in the month leading up to the speech, he had secretly worked with British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to arrange test-ban negotiations in Moscow. Khrushchev embraced JFK's proposal, agreeing in principle to end nuclear testing in the atmosphere and water, and on land and in outer space, and proposed a non­aggression pact between NATO and the Soviet satellite countries of the Warsaw Pact. Kennedy supervised every detail of the negotiation, working at astounding speed to end-run his adversaries in the Pentagon. On July 25th, 1963, JFK approved the treaty. The next day, he went on TV, telling America, "This treaty can symbolize the end of one era and the beginning of another - if both sides can, by this treaty, gain confidence and experience in peaceful collaboration." Less than a month later, they both signed the treaty. It was the first arms-control agreement of the nuclear age. Historian Richard Reeves wrote, "By moving so swiftly on the Moscow negotiations, Kennedy politically outflanked his own military on the most important military question of the time."

Caught off guard, the military-intelligence apparatus quickly mobilized to derail the treaty, which still needed to be ratified by the Senate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had announced months earlier that they were "opposed to a comprehensive ban under almost any terms," joined CIA director John McCone in lobbying against the agreement in the Senate. The Pentagon tried to sabotage its passage by hiding information about the ease of detecting underground tests.

The right-wing propaganda machine found plenty of arable ground in the American national consciousness to fertilize with fear. Initially, congressional mail ran 15-1 against the treaty. JFK believed the chances for passage in the Senate was "about in the nature of a miracle." He ordered his staff to pull out every stop to mobilize the population, saying that he was determined to get the treaty passed, even if it cost him the 1964 election.

By September, a monumental grassroots White House campaign had flipped public opinion to support the treaty by 80 percent. On September 24th, 1963, the Senate ratified the treaty 80-19. As Ted Sorensen noted, no other single accomplishment in the White House "gave the president greater satisfaction."

On October 10th, after signing the atmospheric-test-ban treaty, Khrushchev sent JFK the last of his personal letters. In that missive, Khrushchev proposed the next steps for ending the Cold War. He recommended the conclusion of a nonaggression pact between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations, and a number of steps to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and prevent their use in surprise attacks. JFK would never see the letter. State Department officials hostile toward Khrushchev intercepted it.

Khrushchev had already secretly proposed to his own government radical reductions in the Soviet military, including the conversion of missile plants to peaceful purposes. After JFK's death, Kremlin war hawks viewed Khrushchev's plan as a treasonous proposal for unilateral disarmament. Less than a year after Dallas, Khrushchev was removed from power.

JFK, at the time of his death, was planning his own trip to the Soviet Union, knowing nothing would do more to end the Cold War. Forty years later, Khrushchev's son Sergei wrote that he was "convinced that if history had allowed them another six years, they would have brought the Cold War to a close before the end of the 1960s.?.?.?.?But fate decreed otherwise, and the window of opportunity, barely cracked open, closed at once. In 1963, President Kennedy was killed, and a year later, in October 1964, my father was removed from power. The Cold War continued for another quarter of a century."

JFK's capacity to stand up against the national-security apparatus and imagine a different future for America has made him, despite his short presidency, one of the most popular presidents in history. Despite his abbreviated tenure, John F. Kennedy is the only one-term president consistently included in the list of top 10 presidents made by American historians. A 2009 poll of 65 historians ranked him sixth in overall presidential performance, just ahead of Jefferson. And today, JFK's great concerns seem more relevant than ever: the dangers of nuclear proliferation, the notion that empire is inconsistent with a republic and that corporate domination of our democracy at home is the partner of imperial policies abroad. He understood the perils to our Constitution from a national-security state and mistrusted zealots and ideologues. He thought other nations ought to fight their own civil wars and choose their own governments and not ask the U.S. to do it for them. Yet the world he imagined and fought for has receded so far below the horizon that it's no longer even part of the permissible narrative inside the Beltway or in the mainstream press. Critics who endeavor to debate the survival of American democracy within the national-security state risk marginalization as crackpots and kooks. His greatest, most heroic aspirations for a peaceful, demilitarized foreign policy are the forbidden­ debates of the modern political era. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+80 # wantrealdemocracy 2013-11-21 10:40
The murder of John F. Kennedy was our coup de'tat. Our democracy died on that day -- and so did Kennedy's plan for world peace and prosperity for our citizens. We now suffer austerity to pay for the endless wars and the illegal and immoral behavior of the banksters. Our only hope of realizing the dreams and asperations of J.F.K. is to mount a major resistance and rebellion against the current government of the United States of America.
+29 # ReyHinckley 2013-11-21 11:00
Quoting wantrealdemocracy:
... Our only hope of realizing the dreams and asperations of J.F.K. is to mount a major resistance and rebellion against the current government of the United States of America.

Amen to that. Unfortunately the government will not allow us to do this nonviolently.
+6 # Marieke 2013-11-21 17:52
I wish I knew how! There is no movement to do so, no leader. You see what happened to the Occupy movement because of lack of leadership.
+11 # Rita Walpole Ague 2013-11-22 07:38
Yes, wantrealdemocra cy, a coup d'etat it was and is.

Great truthteller/peo ple server, Robt. F. Kennedy, Jr., needs to be heard, here and across the globe. And, dear family and friends in the Emerald Isle, please note well: not all of us Yanks are sooooooo naive. For example, my dear Grandmother, born and raised in County Mayo then living in the U.S., told me and many others firmly, exactly fifty years ago, that who was responsible for JFK's (precious, peace and justice martyr's) death, were those who were bound to keep profits from war, war, war and control over all rolling in.

And today, thank God, more and more of us Yanks are finally catching onto the reality, then and now, of what Irish grandma said at the tragic time of JFK's slaughter: what's war for - $$$ for the evil, greed and power addicted villainaires. And, destroy any and all who dare to interfere with the evil ones.
+11 # MidwesTom 2013-11-21 10:50
Kennedy, like Ron Paul, was opposed to the Federal Reserve System, where we must pay interest to bankers for the currency that we use. Kennedy had the Treasury issue $5 Billion in US Treasury Notes and put them in circulation, currency that did not cost us interest. Immediately after he was killed the Treasury notes were withdrawn from circulation.
+23 # ReyHinckley 2013-11-21 10:57
Great article, Bobby. I was in 8th grade when John Kennedy was assasinated and was horribly shaken. I feared for the U.S.

I have had the feeling that something was wrong in the reports of how JFK was killed and why.

A few years after I left the seminary, I became a conscientious objector to all wars based on what I beleived to be the teachings of Jesus, the Christ.

I believe that the media has great power to enlighten and hide the truth. Keep up the good work, Junior.

Rey Hinckley Jr.
+29 # angelfish 2013-11-21 11:40
Justice and equity were murdered along with John F. Kennedy on that Fall day in Dallas. The vision that he had for us to remain Leaders in keeping Peace as a Major Commitment of the U.S. died along with him. Too many "Arm Chair" War Mongers have finagled their way into our Hallowed Halls of Congress, reaching even further, into our White House. (see: G.W. Bush's Administration) . Aggression and Greed are the Mantra of the TeaTHUGlicans who want, not only to rule the World, they want to grind down the 98% of us here in America, who aren't Billionaires, under their Boots as well! In these desperate (for the 98% of us, any way) times, all they do is beat the drum for more and MORE austerity ALL PAID FOR by the Poor and disadvantaged! WHEN do the Mega-Wealthy Masters EVER pick up the Tab for the Pollution, Death and Misery THEY are causing? Our Political Leaders (?) who have left Government Service after authoring some of the most severe and inane policies, go into the Private Sector where they reap the Profits of what they had sown while in Government! This is NOT to be borne and we MUST get MORE Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanders into our Government to FIX the damage caused by the "ME Firsters"! God Bless and SAVE this, once great, Country and help us bring her back to sanity and reason!
-62 # Dale 2013-11-21 11:44
What a grossly deceptive rewriting of history. JFK was in fact responsible for the Bay of Pigs, the near nuclear war with the Soviet Union over the Missles being placed in Cuba to protect them against American military invasion, and the start of what is now a 50 year embargo of all things Cuban. He was a fierce anti-communist and carried out all sorts of Cold War policies throughout the world. He initiated the intervention in Vietnam which Johnson then carried out. The Alliance for Progress was a cover for numerous interventions in Latin America and military training programs provided Latin American military officers the will and know-how to instigate violent coups that marked the region from the 1960s onward.

JFK was as bad as they come, before or since, at least up to George Bush.
+30 # tedrey 2013-11-21 13:26
Dale: Are you denying the numerous quotes in the article, which at least cast deep doubt on your own interpretation, or do you perhaps simply refuse to consider that you yourself may have been believing deceptive rewriting of history?
+20 # suzyskier 2013-11-21 17:35
Dale it is so disturbing to read your remarks. The embargo against Cuba to this day is not the fault of President Kennedy! How could it be, he has been dead for 50 long years. He has no power to carry that out! It's fine if you don't like Kennedy but some of your fantasies are way out there.
+36 # reiverpacific 2013-11-21 12:05
First off, the Dulles Brothers were ruthless fascists who instigated the invasion and overthrow of many countries on behalf of their corporate clients, beginning with Guatemala in 1954 for United Fruit (now Chiquita -blood-bananas) and JFK's death.
I have read extensively on this subject and just listened to an interview with David Talbot, author of "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years." He is a journalist, founder, former CEO and editor-in-chief of "Brothers" details JFK's efforts to keep the country out of war and Bobby Kennedy's quest to solve his brother's murder. Talbot postulates that RFK might have been the victim of the same plotters he suspected of killing his brother. Also that the government and the New York Times are still lying to us.
The three leaders involved inextricably together at this time, JFK, Kruschev and Castro had arranged a meeting to be held after the Dallas trip to discuss unilateral peace and when Castro heard about the assassination, he said something like "It's all over now".
Instead of prattling on, I'd invite anybody who still wants to get into the depths of this to read the book "JFK and the UNSPEAKABLE (why he died and why it matters) by James W. Douglass -if you can handle it!
I had a friend in Lexington KY, formerly on nuclear submarine patrol during the Cuban Missile Crisis, who broke down in relating "You have NO idea just HOW close we came to WW11 times then. We were all on a hair-trigger-st ress alert".
+1 # reiverpacific 2013-11-21 18:45
Quoting reiverpacific:

------I have read extensively on this subject and just listened to an interview with David Talbot, author of "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years." He is a journalist, founder, former CEO and editor-in-chief of "Brothers" details JFK's efforts to keep the country out of war and Bobby Kennedy's quest to solve his brother's murder. Talbot postulates that RFK might have been the victim of the same plotters he suspected of killing his brother. Also that the government and the New York Times are still lying to us.
The three leaders involved inextricably together at this time, JFK, Kruschev and Castro had arranged a meeting to be held after the Dallas trip to discuss unilateral peace and when Castro heard about the assassination, he said something like "It's all over now".
Instead of prattling on, I'd invite anybody who still wants to get into the depths of this to read the book "JFK and the UNSPEAKABLE (why he died and why it matters) by James W. Douglass -if you can handle it!
I had a friend in Lexington KY, formerly on nuclear submarine patrol during the Cuban Missile Crisis, who broke down in relating "You have NO idea just HOW close we came to WW11 then. We were all on a hair-trigger-stress alert".

I meant WW111 of course -'scuse fucked-up typing.
+7 # tomo 2013-11-23 18:18
I greatly appreciate your reference to Douglass's book. It looks like RFK, Jr., takes it seriously, too. The post missile-crisis relationships Douglass describes with Thomas Merton, Khrushchev, and Castro have to be accommodated by any historian attempting to take the measure of Kennedy. Douglass's presentation of these can't be written off as ideological or as rumor-mongering ; there were intermediaries and documents--hard evidence that can't be manufactured; and there was the confirming context provided by Kennedy at American University.

Had Kennedy sometimes played the Cold-Warrior card? Absolutely he had. Had he, in fact, sometimes played the Cold Warrior? Yes, again. Mongoose. Recruitment of mountain people in Laos. A romantic admiration for Green Berets--and for James Bond, of all things!

What the historian must sort out is Kennedy's uniqueness--and it wasn't in these things. Had they been, perhaps he'd still be around--a wizened but respected elder statesman, presiding over the Kennedy Foundation. What is most helpful in Douglass's book is the painstaking examination of Oswald's life before 11/22/63. Once that's absorbed, it's clear that Kennedy didn't die from some madman's solitary hatred. He was removed from office by the ruthless complex Eisenhower warned against--which Kennedy's nephew here argues was no figment of Eisenhower's imagination, but a complex which grew in righteous indignation and hatred throughout Kennedy's thousand days.
+30 # Working Class 2013-11-21 12:23
Dale writes "What a grossly deceptive rewriting of history. JFK was in fact responsible..."
Dale where do you get your history? The quotes and sources used by RFK Jr. are there for the reading. The history you are promoting is nothing more than a rationalization promoted by those who were, and still are, opposed to the vision JFK had for our nation and the world. The military industrial complex cannot tolerate the idea of a world without war. Nor can the military or CIA, who carry the water for the corporate interest that profit from armed conflict, accept that humanity would be better off if we could redirect resources to bettering the state of mankind through peace and following the teachings that call for charity and fair treatment of "the least of these".
+15 # James Marcus 2013-11-21 12:39
Dale proves how mis-informed some still are….

The Same GANG that offed JFK still 'Run This America'.
Forget ''The Operatives': CIA, Mafia, Mossad, DHS, NSA, etc
These guys just 'Do The Dirty Work', what they are told
And 'The Poly's', too: Johnson, Ronny, Bushes Both, Obama, (not Carter)
All…..'Hit Men' for THE BIG MONEY;.. deliberately 'low- profile', filthy-rich Financiers, you almost never see in the news. They ('Only') 'Make Phone Calls' and Transfer Funds…to Make-It-All-Hap pen; War after War . Murder after Murder. Spend The Money….while….
Embezzling everything in their expenditure path; sharing shards with these Perps , lest no-one 'Co-Operate', (until they, too, are 'no longer 'Needed')
eg Oswald lasted just long enough to figure it out, and blurt, on National TV, 'I'm just the Patsy'……
So are They All…..
Patsies for 'The Money'.
...and Our Kids keep 'Falling For it'; showing up to 'serve' in the Army, and Police, CIA etc to kill, and die for, this Huge Money SHAM.
Keep The People... Frightened and Ignorant.
They will then do 'anything',... for a nickel
+21 # dittoschild 2013-11-21 13:51
Thanks so much for printing this article. I lived through all that Robert Jr. writes....but although an Adult, I lacked the experience and background to understand the implications of the warmongers and shadow government Zeitgeist of the time. Now, today, as a Senior Citizen, I face fear and uncertainity, re: the constant attempts to destroy the Social Security system and the right to vote, while children of middle class are being priced out of higher education and lured into the military service as an alternative method of earning a living.
+7 # Khidr 2013-11-21 16:33
I strongly feel bucking the Federal Reserve Board is what got J.F Kennedy assasinated. Remember Abraham Lincoln refused to pay the huge amount of interest rates to the bankers and printed his own war bonds etc etc.
+4 # E-Mon 2013-11-22 06:40
Quoting Khidr:
I strongly feel bucking the Federal Reserve Board is what got J.F Kennedy assasinated. Remember Abraham Lincoln refused to pay the huge amount of interest rates to the bankers and printed his own war bonds etc etc.

I'm with you on this. Do the research. Google "Executive Order 11110.... Very interesting! Here's an excerpt from one site.....

Executive Order 1110 gave the US the ability to create its own money backed by silver. ...

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
+8 # reo100 2013-11-21 21:31
I was 4 years old and can still remember the day JFK was killed. Watching it unfold on TV and how it affected both my parents. Something all of us have imbedded in the back of our minds.
This article resonates those memories and our proud respect for one of the last great presidents America ever had. Thank you RFK Jr. for reminding us all just how special he was!
+6 # PABLO DIABLO 2013-11-21 23:57
R.F.K. --- PLEASE run for president. The economy goes up and down. Politics goes right and left, but the environment is going to Hell. You are a leading environmentalis t and could (hopefully) turn this around. Plus, you have name recognition and enough political experience to get the job done. In an ideal world, you could pick Elizabeth Warren as Vice President and tackle our economic problems and take the corporate stranglehold off the necks of our current government. And, THANK YOU for your outspoken writings over the past many years.
+1 # karenvista 2013-11-23 22:21
R.F.K. --- PLEASE run for president. The economy goes up and down. Politics goes right and left, but the environment is going to Hell. And, THANK YOU for your outspoken writings over the past many years.

The Kennedys don't get the same pass to build a dynasty that the Bushs do. If a Kennedy runs for president, or, like JFK Jr. even thinks about it he or she will get assassinated. The Bush's get to hide their crimes forever and continue to show their faces in public and even become presidents. We've got another one running for high statewide office in Texas again....ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGHHHHHHHHH!

They've suffered enough and decency wouldn't be allowed to survive in this political and economic cesspool we have now.

Don't ask them to sacrifice for us again. Honestly, we don't deserve it until we clean up this mess.
-16 # barbaratodish 2013-11-22 01:16
Excuse me, Robert F.Kennedy, Jr., but how can you or anyone be sure that: 1, it WAS a smuggled letter and 2, that it actually was written by Kruschev? And how could state department officials intercept one letter from Kruschev (on or about) October 10,1963, but allow the previously "smuggled" letter from "Kruschev" to reach JFK?
Also, it takes one to know one, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., because it is hypocrisy to call Dulles out on his agencies' invovlment in organized, etc., crime without acknowledging the bootlegging, etc., of the patriarch, Joe Kennedy. Regardless of Kennedy charisma, etc., unless and untill we ALL share the HIGH ANXIETY of awareness of our HUMAN inter-connected neness, we are ALL hypocrits:
"I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind
that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then,
and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and
while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a
soul in prison, I am not free"
Eugene Victor Debs
+3 # karenvista 2013-11-23 22:42
Barbara- I would say that we know that those letters were from Khrushchev because,if they weren't-WE'D ALL BE DEAD!

Also, you need to read at least something about the period so you'll know who to question. So JFK wasn't up to your standards like Eugene Debs. Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Are you pissed off about something that's not in the article because it sure sounds like you have an unstated, or
or perhaps, unrecognized hostility here.

If your problem is the bootlegging, how about the little problem with Nazism that our other great families had like the barons of Wall Street and Industry with names like Dulles, Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, du Pont, Hearst and Bush?
+3 # wilson 2013-11-22 03:32
Nobody mentions that JFK wanted to abolish the Fed, and return to debt-free money; and he wanted Israel to end it's nuclear bomb program in the Dimona desert. He was no shabbat goy. Throughout history, a group,who are now known as Zionists, have used others to do their killing, or blamed others for their own crimes--- "to exert irresistible pressure on the international politics of the present." -Leon Pinsker (1903). Since Woodrow Wilson, U.S. has been increasingly controlled by Zionists, who are currently using our military to depopulate the Muslim world, while they loot and destroy of nation from the inside, every institution: Govt; Media, Military; Money, Religion; Education, Entertainment.. .. has been infiltrated.
+13 # John Escher 2013-11-22 13:21
This article is by far the greatest human discourse to come out of the fiftieth anniversary of President Kennedy's death.
+3 # Edwardp201 2013-11-24 18:05
In 1962 I went to Thailand with my Army Signal unit to install military communications all along the Mekong River border with Laos. I spent much time traveling through northeast Thailand re conning and selecting sites for remote communications sites. I entered many homes of local residents. Much of the population was Vietnamese because so many had come into Thailand to escape war during the French Indochina War. I could tell the nationality of my hosts from the picture on the mantel in the living room. If they were Vietnamese there was a picture of Ho Che Min. If they were Thai, there was a picture of the King of Thailand. Ho Chi Min was considered a total nationalist, not a Communist. I fully supported JFK in his efforts to keep us out of Vietnam. I had decided to make a career of the Army because of what I thought JFK would do with the Army, use it to supports nation building in the 3rd world countries. This article has convinced me that I was right at the time. My whole life changed when JFK died.
+1 # tpmco 2013-11-26 02:13
Powerful story there man. I'm gonna remember edwardp201. Hope you'll tell us more as time goes on. Those changes haunt us forever.
+1 # tpmco 2013-11-26 02:20
Thanks, Mr. Kennedy, for giving us this summary. It's a milestone in clarifying what we lived through. Thanks to all three your uncles, and your dad, USA is still there.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.