"I had been dispatched to Trinidad by the U.S. State Department to conduct a two-day seminar on investigative reporting for local journalists (your tax dollars at work!)..."
That's an interesting statement by David Corn. I am assuming this is a different person than David Korn.
zena.secureforum.com
I agree with you - he is way too establishment-ish to be a critic of the establishment. However, overall I don't like what I see at that website. For example, I read that:
<<< Anyone today who was around in the ‘60’s will tell you that the Kennedys, King, and Malcolm X electrified the political debate, not so much because of their (considerable) oratorical powers, but because they were winning. On the issues of economic justice, withdrawal from Southeast Asia, civil rights, a more reasonable approach to the Third World, and a tougher approach to the power elite within the U.S., they and the left were making considerable headway. >>>>
So, according to this guy, Kennedy was making headway on withdrawal from SE Asia. On the contrary, Kennedy escalated the war in SE Asia. He didn't start it, of course. But he escalated the conflict, in response to the worsening conditions, just as Johnson did, just as Nixon did. Furthermore, the idea that Kennedy "electrified" debate over Vietnam is laughable. During the Kennedy years there was essentially no debate. It only became a big issue during the Johnson years.
Tom |
