Martin's Musings: ON JFK: A PRESIDENT BETRAYED (Part 1 of 2)

Martin's Musings: ON JFK: A PRESIDENT BETRAYED (Part 1 of 2): I watched the documentary, "JFK: A President Betrayed," last week.  It is a 90-minute film released in 2013, produced by Co...

Martin's Musings: ON JFK: A PRESIDENT BETRAYED (Part 2 of 2)

Martin's Musings: ON JFK: A PRESIDENT BETRAYED (Part 2 of 2): On October 24, 1963, Ben Bradlee, at the time a writer for  Newsweek  and also a former neighbor of Senator Kennedy, introduced Frenc...

ON JFK: A PRESIDENT BETRAYED (Part 2 of 2)

On October 24, 1963, Ben Bradlee, at the time a writer for Newsweek and also a former neighbor of Senator Kennedy, introduced French journalist Jean Daniel to his friend, now the President of the United States. Mr. Daniel was preparing to travel to Cuba for a series of interviews with Premier Fidel Castro for L'Express.  The President, always favorable to back-channel diplomacy, asked Daniel to carry with him a message.  The message Mr. Kennedy wished passed to Castro was that the President believed there could be peaceful coexistence between capitalists and socialists, even those residing in the same Hemisphere.

In the film, "JFK: A President Betrayed," Peter Kornbluh, an analyst at the National Security Archive, discusses Daniel's meeting with Castro. It was set in motion during a meeting in the Oval Office on November 5, 1963. [Link starts at .25: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/clip.mp3 ] During the meeting, William Attwood, a Senior State Department employee who talks by phone to the President in the Oval Office, details a way to get a message to Fidel Castro stating that the President of the United States is open to discussions to end the rancorous and potentially lethal relationship between the U.S. and Cuban governments.  Mr. Attwood served as the go-between, first introducing Daniel to Bradlee.

Daniel arrived in Cuba on November 19, 1963, with a dual purpose, to conduct his interviews and to pass on the President's message. Two days later he was with Mr. Castro when they were handed the news that Kennedy was dead. "This is the end of your mission of peace.  Everything is changed," said the Cuban Premier.

It was. In the almost 51 years that have passed since that meeting, the United States still does not trade with Cuba and U.S. citizens are still banned from visiting Cuba for all save cultural and humanitarian reasons.

More importantly, however, is the political upheaval this has caused in the United States.  The Cuban people receive special immigration treatment under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.  The Act allows special access to U.S. citizenship by Cuban citizens coming to our shores. In 1995 the Act was revised providing a, "wet foot, dry foot policy."

This revised policy states that if a Cuban is caught at sea, he goes back to Cuba.  If he makes it to shore, he can stay in the United States.  No other citizen, of any other country in the world, receives this special treatment. And, when you hold up the Cuban Adjustment Act against the backdrop of our current immigration policy...or, should I say, lack of immigration policy...this Act is reprehensible.

In my opinion the only reason this law still stands today is because the Cuban community has, for the most part, supported the Republican Party and it's right-wing agenda.  Senators Marco Rubio (Rubio helped move the measure in the Senate, but has since backed away after push back from Republican Tea Party members) and Ted Cruz, along with Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, are Cuban-Americans who continue to thwart immigration reform for all in this country. This hypocrisy is ridiculous and screams for change.  In my opinion, these three legislators should be ashamed of themselves. What makes Cubans such special "Latinos?"

For those of us who think the United States would be a better place if we opened our doors to all immigrants, bringing more and more talent and skills to our shores, treating one group differently is comparable to a reestablishment of the "Jim Crow laws" of yesteryear.  Like people of different colors and genders, should not all immigrants be equal in the eyes of the law?

The film allows me to think if Kennedy had not been murdered on November 22, 1963, Americans would be sunning themselves on the beaches of Cuba everyday, while Cubans would be able to freely visit their neighbors to the north. Perhaps we would also have a more even-handed approach to immigration.

ON JFK: A PRESIDENT BETRAYED (Part 1 of 2)

I watched the documentary, "JFK: A President Betrayed," last week.  It is a 90-minute film released in 2013, produced by Cory Taylor and Darin Nellis. The film focuses on the sabotage attempted by members of President John F. Kennedy's advisory staff, which occurred throughout his presidency.

Dean Acheson, an advisor during the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, openly defied the President telling colleagues, "We have no leadership."  The former Secretary of State had been accused by many members of Congress and others of having been directly responsible for losing China to Communism during the Truman Administration. The elder statesman vowed to never again appear weak when facing down Communism.

The Air Force's top general, Curtis LeMay, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a crisis in which his only solution was an immediate surprise attack on Cuba, said to his Commander in Chief in a meeting at the White House, "You're in a pretty bad fix."  Mr. Kennedy's response was immediate, "You're in there with me."

W. Averell Harriman, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs under Kennedy, went so far as to re-write the President's message to John Kenneth Galbraith, the U.S. Ambassador to India. Galbraith had previously told Mr. Kennedy that he thought he could arrange a back-channel message to Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi to discuss peace. In a typed cable, heavily redacted in Mr. Harriman's own hand, you can see how the Assistant Secretary removed the President's direct order to begin the process of peace.  The cable became a message of obfuscation with no clear direction for Ambassador Galbraith.

All three powerful men believed the President too young and naive to attempt to broker peace with the Communist leaders in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Vietnam. The producers' use of on-camera recollections and first-hand interviews, along with the exposure and examination of previously unknown and classified documents, strengthens this incredible documentary of the 35th President's short tenure. 

Though a good deal of the documentary concerns Kennedy's dealings with Nikita Khrushchev over the division of Germany, the building of the Berlin Wall, and the Cuban Missile Crisis; the two areas of the film that struck me hardest were the revelations and discussions regarding National Security Action Memorandum No. 263, dated October 11, 1963, and a meeting held in the Oval Office with President Kennedy on November 5, 1963. In today's blog I will limit my thoughts to the former Memorandum only. Tomorrow I will discuss the latter.

NASM 263, signed by Kennedy's National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, is addressed to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  In the memorandum Bundy references a meeting held October 5, 1963, with the President, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and Army General Maxwell Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. McNamara and Taylor had just returned from a fact-finding visit to South Vietnam ordered by the President.

The memo states that without making a formal announcement the President was ordering the withdrawal of 1,000 troops from South Vietnam by the end of the year.  The film emphasizes through interviews that this was to be the first withdrawal and that Kennedy's goal was to have all U.S. troops removed from South Vietnam by 1965.

In other words, President Kennedy was ordering the beginning of the end of our military involvement in Southeast Asia.  A State Department telegram, No. 534, from Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, to Henry Cabot Lodge, the U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam, was sent the same day with details of this decision, made with the input of the National Security Council.  It clearly emphasizes, again, that no formal announcement of intentions was to be given, but did specify how to handle the relationship with the South Vietnamese government.

From my back row seat it appears that I and many of my contemporaries participated in a war that was ordered to never happen. Further, an entire nation suffered more than ten years' of pain that also tore our nation apart. Those who survived the 1960's and 1970's in America can remember the period as the closest thing to a civil war since the 1860's.

I spent the first four years' of my young life out of high school in the Marine Corps and I served in Vietnam. That service, ridiculed by many during the years I served, was unnecessary if the President's orders had been carried out. Although no one can ever recover those years given to war as a result of Mr. Johnson's decision, we have every reason to be very angry now about the horrible changes this war made in our lives. I cannot even fathom the feelings this film may cause for the almost 60,000 families that lost a loved one to a brutal death far from home.

Because of the direct affect the Vietnam War had on my entire life, long after my service, this film and the information it contains cuts my heart deeply.  It is one thing to think President Johnson was wrong headed. It is another thing to learn that his predecessor laid out a plan to end this overseas adventure, as well as provide a way to reach out to the leader of the North Vietnamese government for peace, all of which was ignored.

It seems Lee Harvey Oswald shot the wrong man in 1963. What is it about Presidents from Texas and unnecessary wars?

(Part 2 tomorrow, how close we came to a sane Cuba policy)

ON THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

On February 5th, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a scathing report regarding the Roman Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal. The report demanded that Vatican authorities immediately remove all priests and bishops who participated in sexual abuse and turn them over to civil authorities for prosecution. Additionally, all records of this abuse and its cover up should be released immediately.

I have written earlier about my Catholic school attendance during the first twelve years of my formal education.  The school names were St. Mark's in Catonsville, Maryland, a Baltimore City suburb; St. Joseph's Monastery in Irvington, a southwest Baltimore neighborhood; and Mt. St. Joseph College, a Catholic preparatory high school also located in southwest Baltimore.

Though I did not witness what I would call blatant sexual abuse beyond what would probably now be deemed inappropriate touching, the physical and psychological abuse that occurred during all twelve years of my schooling stands out in neon.  I cannot remember a day when my classmates and I spent an entire school day without someone being held to public ridicule or being thrashed by one of God's chosen black-clad rosary carriers.

Stories were told to us that were horrific in content. I remember in 4th grade Sister Mary Renilda, a nun at St. Joseph's Monastery, told us about a boy who struck his mother. She told us God struck him dead as his hand rose to pummel her. His arm had to be chopped off to fit him in the coffin, she added. This was during the study of the commandment, "Honor thy Father and thy Mother."  I think a less scary parable would have sufficed. I had nightmares for weeks on that one.

When I was five years old my younger brother set himself on fire accidentally at home.  To this day I can remember his charred body and face as he screamed in pain while we waited for my father to arrive from work to take him to the hospital. He died at age 4.  Just a couple of years later, in second grade at St. Mark's, a nun who knew my family told the story of my brother Eddie to make her point about limbo (which, evidently, does not exist anymore).  Because my brother was baptized, she said, Eddie was a fortunate baby who was in heaven now. She made me participate in this in front of about 50 classmates without even a scintilla of thought about the horrendous pain my burned brother evoked in me.  It was thoughtless and cruel, and I have never, and will never, forgiven that woman.

In high school, the Xaverian Brothers, who were mostly Irish Catholic men from either the old sod or New York, were criminal in their brutality.  In the late Spring, when windows were open because there were no fans or air conditioning, Brother Declan hit a kid in my class.  He struck Mel Frazetti with his fist with such force it knocked him back against the wide open window. Our class was on the third floor of the Tower Building. The window sill caught the back of Mel's legs and saved him from a long fall. The entire class of freshman gasped.  The good brother did this during Religion class.  Mel's sin was talking to a classmate during lecture, a sin for which he came close to death.

Mt. St. Joseph College required coats and ties be worn at all time.  After school, at detention, however, this rule was typically relaxed as the weather warmed.  I did not know that Brother Benedict was to be the "jug" (a name commonly used in Catholic schools from the Latin "jugum" meaning yoke or burden) monitor one day.  I learned this particular day that the good Brother's reputation as a bare knuckles boxer in England was more than likely true. I arrived without my jacket, which I left in my locker.  Brother Benedict called me to the front of the room as soon as he arrived and asked me to remove my glasses.  He immediately punched me with a closed fist, first in the nose and then with an upper cut to the jaw.  He then told the lot of us to quickly get our jackets and return dressed properly.

He was not the only physical abuser.  Brother Francis in my Sophomore year hit me the hardest I have ever been hit in the jaw in my entire life.  By senior year, again in Religion class, Brother Salvatore introduced me to the "noogie."  This was a closed fist, middle knuckle protruding, planted firmly in the middle of the top of the skull.  Usually from behind when you did not expect it.  It was incredibly painful and left no marks.  He also had another specialty, the "tulip" (yes, he actually named his assaults).  The tulip required you to hold your hand, fingers and thumb touching, fingertips to the sky to produce a round, flat plain.  He then used a wooden yard stick to deliver a blow to your fingers with the flat side of his measuring tool.  The pain bolted down your arm and directly into your feet, trust me.  It was like an electric bolt.

And, I am not suggesting physical abuse did not occur in grammar school.  It is where it started.  The difference was that nuns and priests handed it out. It usually came in the form of slaps or yard sticks across the bottom.  But, physical abuse seemed to be second nature to the School Sisters of Notre Dame...a sort of "spare the rod, spoil the child" sadism. Father Julius, a Passionist priest at St. Joseph's Monastery, used to make us boys kneel on our knuckles on the concrete or marble floor for punishment. He was a believer that all suffered if one sinned. So, if one boy talked during a lecture, we were all punished for his action.

To me, this abuse was horrific.  It hurt both psychologically and physically and it was uncalled for.  It was sanctioned and encouraged by my church. And, it has withstood time without punishment for any of these attacks.  The election of Pope Francis may be a start toward change, but what I am talking about is centuries old ingrained behavior.  It is not just sexual abuse that needs to be rooted out and destroyed, it is the whole righteous use of corporal punishment, which is thought to cleanse sin, that must be driven from the bosom of this institution.

[CLICK HERE FOR HOW THIS AFFECTED MY RELIGIOUS BELIEF]

ON THE GOP PROMISES OF JOBS AND OPPORTUNITY

After the State of the Union speech last week by President Obama the GOP presented a response...several of them to be exact. The Republican Party's mainstream speech came in both English (Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers) and Spanish (Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen). Not to be left out, the party's fringe wings were also heard from afterwards. Representing the Tea Party was Senator Mike Lee. For Senator Rand Paul the response was given by, well, Senator Rand Paul!  Basically, all four told us that if President Obama and the Democratic Party would just get out of the way, Americans would have lucrative jobs and a wealth of opportunity

Last week the Commerce Department issued its gross domestic product report for the 4th quarter of 2013.  Gross domestic product is the broadest measure of economic activity in the United States.  It jumped a robust 3.2%, much higher than economists had predicted, stated The New York Times.

Forbes magazine reported that Federal spending was down 12.6% in the quarter.  In the 3rd quarter spending was down only 1.5%. The Commerce Department estimated the Defense Department alone spent 14% less in the quarter ending December 31.  The Guardian reported the GOP's almost three week closure of the Federal Government, led by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was responsible for most of the drop in spending.  CBS News estimated that without those forced cuts the gross domestic product for the quarter would have been almost one percent higher. 

If they are so much in favor of helping the average American with opportunity, which they say will provide Americans with jobs, why are Republicans so intent on making sure the economy stagnates, or at least, does not grow at as fast a pace as it would without their interference?  Cutting food stamps, cutting unemployment benefits, cutting Defense spending, cutting domestic spending, all means less will be spent on agricultural products, less will be spent on clothing and housing, less will be spent supporting our troops, and less will be spent on roads and infrastructure.

I think their reasons for these cuts have nothing to do with caring for America's pocketbook or budget.  I believe the reason for these cuts is an intent to sabotage the economy in hopes the public will blame President Obama and get GOP candidates elected as an alternative.  Put a Republican in office, they say, and see how the jobs fly into the market.

No to everything is their mantra.  When is the last time you heard a new idea from this party that did not include cutting taxes, cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, cutting Social Security, cutting Obamacare, cutting money to programs that support women, or bombing a country to show how strong we are?

These are not the ways a nation builds jobs or opportunity.  Like their willingness to pass laws related to science without using scientific fact, the Grand Old Party passes laws related to our economy with no underlying economic footing.  

ON HOW THE FARM BILL WILL MAKE AMERICANS HUNGRIER

Last week the House of Representatives, by a vote of 251-166, passed a comprehensive Farm Bill that had been in negotiations for nearly two years. Yesterday, the Agriculture Act of 2014 passed the Senate on a 68-32 count.  It now goes to the President to sign. Mr. Obama has said he will do so.  According to The New York Times the bill cuts $8 Billion from the Federal Food Stamp program.

Feeding America, a food bank coalition, estimates that as a result of this bill every household affected will eat 34 fewer meals a month.  In the Times article cited above writer Ron Nixon estimates that 850,000 households will be affected, each losing about $90 per month in food purchasing power.

As Americans work hard to move beyond this crippling recession, this bill creates a tragic loss for its poorest families trying to survive day to day. Couple this with Congress' refusal to reinstate unemployment benefits for its citizens unable to find a job and you have a tsunami of bad economic news for Americans trying to continue to make it in the world's richest nation.

And, if that is not bad enough, according to a report by CBS News, this bill gives millions of dollars to businesses for the sole purpose of advertising their products. Sunkist alone will receive $1.8 million. Republican lawmakers are willing to provide large corporations with subsidies to pay for their advertising campaigns,  but cut a program that puts food in children's bellies.

The food stamp cuts in this bill will evidently also have an impact on Wall Street. The first mention of this was in a statement released last week by Walmart. The New York Times' Elizabeth Harris reported that the company announced it was cutting it's 4th quarter earnings forecast due to food stamp cuts and a harsh winter.

Ms. Harris wrote that Charles Holley, Jr., Walmart's CFO, emphasized that the reduction in the SNAP program, commonly known as Food Stamps, was, "greater than we expected."  He went on to say that Walmart customers, as a result, just had less money to spend.

These remarks were based on last year's cuts.  The new Agriculture Act adds another $8 Billion in future reductions. Walmart, which has built a huge business catering to households with low income, is smart to get this news out regarding this drop in projected income.  I think we will see this message from all food-related businesses soon, downgrading their profit projections for the coming year.  So both Wall Street giants and our poorest citizens will suffer because Republicans want less money spent on their poorest constituents.

Republicans in Congress do not seem to believe the message of organizations like Feeding America regarding the effects of their draconian cuts. After all, the poor do not have a lobbying voice in Congress. Perhaps, however, they will listen when giant American corporations begin sounding the alarm in lost earnings and profits.

In my opinion, the Tea Party wants to destroy the American economy at both the top and the bottom. Poor people are not the problem in America.  Lunacy in governance is the disease we need to focus on resolving.