In the aftermath of the tirade at the White House among President Trump, Vice-President Vance, and Ukrainian President Zelensky, both conservatives and liberals (i.e., “progressives” or leftists) are going ballistic over Trump’s friendly attitude toward Russia. They are pointing out that since at least the end of World War II, the official attitude of the U.S. government has always been that Russia is to be considered a threat to U.S. “national security” as well as an official enemy, rival, opponent, or competitor of the United States. They say that Trump’s positive overtures to Russia are unprecedented.
For example, consider a March 2 article in the New York Times entitled “Trump Is Doing Real Damage to America” by David French, which states that after World War II, “both parties saw the Soviet Union as the grave national security threat it was. For decades, both parties were more or less committed to a strategy of containment that sought to keep Soviet tyranny at bay.” French also suggests that America’s “fundamental identity” lies to this very day in a continued commitment to NATO and a continuous antipathy toward Russia.
French’s mindset is pretty much mirrored in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in a March 3 article entitled “Trump’s Embrace of Russia Rocks NATO Alliance” by Daniel Michaels. The article states: “The American president’s embrace of Russia, an adversary that has worked for years to undermine U.S. global leadership, runs counter to decades of Western policy. The U.S. and its allies founded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 75 years ago as protection against Soviet Russia.”
There is one notable omission from both articles, however, an omission that occurs in other articles along these same lines in the mainstream press. That omission is President John F. Kennedy and, specifically, Kennedy’s move toward peaceful, friendly, and normal relations with Soviet Russia and, for that matter, with the rest of the communist world.
Why would members of the mainstream press fail to point out this one important exception to the official policy of perpetual hostility and antipathy toward Russia? After all, they have to be familiar with Kennedy’s June 10, 1963, commencement address at American University — a speech that became known famously as Kennedy’s Peace Speech.
My hunch is that the reason the mainstream press omits this major exception to its official anti-Russia historical narrative is twofold: (1) It would cause them to have to explain why Kennedy was trying to change America’s direction, something that the mainstreamers would prefer not to do and (2) It would cause them to have to address the uncomfortable subject of the JFK assassination, something the mainstream press has always been loathe to do.
By the time JFK delivered his speech, he had achieved a “breakthrough’ that enabled him to see that the Cold War was just one great big racket, one that was not only extremely dangerous but also one that was being used to justify the conversion of the federal government from its founding system of a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a totalitarian type of system in which the federal government wields omnipotent powers, including assassination, torture, and indefinite detention. He had achieved this breakthrough after experiencing the national-security establishment’s perfidy in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, its advocacy of a surprise first-strike nuclear attack on Russia, its infamous Operation Northwoods proposal, and its highly dangerous and irresponsible actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
To get a sense of the dramatic and revolutionary shift JFK was taking America, it is necessary to read or listen to the entire speech, which can be done here. To get a sense of why there was so much anger, hatred, and distrust for Kennedy within the U.S. government and the mainstream press, consider the following excerpts from his speech:
I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude–as individuals and as a Nation–for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward–by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable–that mankind is doomed–that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade–therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable–and we believe they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal….
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union….
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements–in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland–a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago….
I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.
First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history–but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.
While JFK did not formally declare an end to the Cold War, every official within the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — as well as their Operation Mockingbird assets within the mainstream press — fully understood that that was the import of his Peace Speech. Thus, it is not difficult to see why U.S. officials deemed Kennedy to be a grave threat to “national security.” The president who they considered to be a naive, incompetent, traitorous womanizer was not only taking America down a road to communist defeat in the Cold War, he was also implicitly challenging the need for a totalitarian-like national-security state for America. JFK’s Peace Speech was effectively a declaration of war by the executive branch of the U.S. government against the national-security branch.
JFK’s Peace Speech left the national-security establishment with what a deeply discomforting choice: Sit back and let Kennedy take the country down or keep America “safe” by eliminating Kennedy. See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board and JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass. Also see The Kennedy Autopsy and An Encounter with Evil by Jacob Hornberger.
Do you see why the mainstream press would prefer to airbrush John Kennedy’s decision to end the Cold War racket and move America toward peaceful and harmonious relations with Russia out of America’s history? If they include that major exception in their official historical narrative, they would have to explain the reasons for Kennedy’s decision as well as delve into the national-security establishment’s motive for eliminating him. They then have to explain how his assassination restored things to “normal” — with the continuation of the Cold War, the war in Vietnam, which ended up sacrificing more than 58,000 American men for nothing, the never-ending support of the Cold War dinosaur known as NATO, and the perpetual anti-Russia mindset that pervades America today.
