• Registrati su FlightAware (Perché registrarsi?)
  • Accedi
  • US Flag IT Flag 
15:06 EDT


 

Tracking/info aeroporto


-o-


 

Novità e InfoJFK Furious Over Pan Am Concorde Order In Declassified Phone Calls (Audio)

Back to Squawk list

JFK Furious Over Pan Am Concorde Order In Declassified Phone Calls (Audio)

Aggiunto
 
In 1963 Pan Am's legendary Juan Trippe did something that made John F Kennedy really, really mad (airchive.com) Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Steve1822
Steve1822 11
It's interesting to note in listening to this audio of the conversation between JFK and Dillion, his Treasury Secty, that Dillion says he didn't know Juan Tripp was buying Concordes. He continues this responses to JFK. But then JFK says the AP wire reports Tripp is buying. Then all of a sudden the Treasury Secty tells Kennedy Tripp isn't buying the Concordes, but rather options. JFK then says, "that's not what the AP wire report says...as JFK reads". Doug Dillion then replies that the AP wire is incorrect.......that he read the contract last week. Tripp merely placed options to buy. Wait a minute........earlier in the audio he said he didn't know about Tripp and Pan Am annoucing an option to buy 6 Concordes. Bottomline, the Secty did have knowledge. he lied. I see nothing has changed in Washington from 1963 to today. Bureaucrats can't tell the truth if their life depended on it.
preacher1
preacher1 4
One of the chief jobs of any subordinate is to keep the boss from being blindsided. Dillon failed miserably. Kennedy was probably more upset at reading it in the paper first. What is not on the recording is that he probably came to the same conclusion you did about Dillon, in that he was lying.
Steve1822
Steve1822 2
Correct preacher1. I believe they also call it "plausble deniability".
darseyfa
ROGO Plausible Deni ability means Unelected Officials Making Decisions that are not theirs to make. Inevitably they are always are controversial enough to keep from the men they serve, and from the people they effect. The punishment for this crap of "slapping of the hand" doesn't prevent it from repeatedly occurring either... is also an insult. At some Point..when a Leader, regardless of who he is or the Office he holds, has this Occur multiple times..it speaks poorly for their leadership style, and points to corruption within their ranks for their subordinates to act thinking this is what their leader REALLY wants. These ideas come from somewhere, and when it happens so many times it becomes a JOKE, people need to take a serious look at the agenda that is being pushed whether it is being Ordered from top down or nay...either way it is usually getting done either way.
CricketDOP
Hear, hear!
skylab72
skylab72 4
I find it a little distressing so many of the postings on this aviation based forum seem to be as naive about the airline business, as Kennedy was showing himself to be. Any posting about Viet Nam is a red herring, at the time of this call, it was already a historical inevitability due to errors in foreign policy ever since WWII, JFK was only one player. This sequence of events (before after and during, yet all related to the development and demise of the Boeing 2707 program) had some significant Washington contributors, but was at it's core, a continuation of the dual to the death mentality between Juan Tripp, Howard Hughes, C.R.Smith, and Eddie Rickenbacker (Sorry guys I know picking on war heros is taboo. If it is any comfort I went to Viet Nam wearing crew wings). Those four men, set in stone a style and domain for airline competition, that has done grave damage to the airline industry, the aircraft manufacturing industry, and the public safety. Washington and the defense industry were all too eager to help, but the four horsemen of the airlines did it to themselves. Kennedy can rant all he wants, Juan was not paying attention. His focus at that time was on beating back C.R.Smith, finishing off Howard Hughes, and keeping Eddie in retirement. He firmly believed owning the fastest scheduled airliners in existence was the formula.
jshhmr
josh homer 2
That is an incredibly astute and accurate summation. When I was a teen, I checked out books at the library about the pioneers. It was business. It was competition. That's it.
jshhmr
josh homer 2
On a related note, CR Smith desperately wanted the land that AA's flight academy and training center is now on off of FAA Road and Hwy 360. The owner of the land would never sell, despite CR's price. He put the land on the table as a poker bet. CR won :-)
CricketDOP
You're exactly right. Business IS business & EVERY TIME the gov gets it's camel nose under the tent, it's a spoil!
skylab72
skylab72 1
DOPE, Capitalism is an Unknown Ideal. The 'business' you so staunchly idolize, is not, nor has it ever been, true capitalism. The camel nose under the tent began well before Chicago and New York were linked by rail (Oh, you don't read history, [read?, hell you don't even Google history], I am referring to the period between 1830 and 1850. The Pennsylvania RR published their first formal routes Chi-NYC in late Jan 1853). We live in a 'mixed' economy. So put your hand back in your pants and keep your rants to your self, unless your are willing to educate yourself first.
CricketDOP
Skylab72,

Look at the amount of LAND that was GIVEN to each of these RR's for each mile of track set down AFTER that period. Look at how some companies took clear advantage by charging the gov't for mountain tracks that were laid down in valleys. Nothing has changed. It's still all bribes & kick backs and the company with with the best lobby wins because that's the way our 'leaders' want it. However, with the invention of prohibition, we got a nice hefty personal income tax that we ALL have to pay whether we want to or not to fund these projects for the 'common good' even if they result in mass murder. Ever run into a Poor politician?

Look at what our GOV't did to the native peoples of this country & to the Chinese immigrants that were there long before Yankees by the thousands started heading West & tell me that gov't is good.

Why don't you head over to the VA & see the effects of AGENT ORANGE on men your age.

What YOU fail to understand is that government is supposed to be an UNbiased ARBITRATOR when it comes to free enterprise. Not a 'mixed economy' as you put it. But by adopting a the handle of Skylab, it looks as if you say that it's OK if gov't is IN the competition. No company can compete with an entity that has the Federal Reserve printing money faster than they can spend it. How much of YOUR paycheck goes to MEN hauling garbage into space?

If you want to talk history, you might look to Rome to see that too many ticks on a dog will kill the dog & that's the the state this country is in now. Realize that we now have a Hungarian man behind the green curtain and there's nothing you or I can do about it.

And your Skylab, Shuttle, & most of all the STANDING ARMY that George Washington ranted so much against is one of the reasons this country is in the state it's in.

Baby boomers your age that retire on the backs of young people paying into a SS Ponzi scheme that makes Madoff look like Mother Teresa is yet another example.

As far as my rants, maybe YOU need to take off your rose colored gov't issued sunglasses & realize that what you're really seeing is not factual history but the insides of your own colon.
skylab72
skylab72 1
Well still the DOPE, I see.

You have a talent of spouting random points, but lack the intellect to tie them into a coherent idea.

Paragraph#1 You have no idea what I said, nor do you understand that much of this paragraph supports my point.

Paragraph#2 I have heard this before. What is your point? Do you expect me to defend govt as it is?

Paragraph#3 Been there. Done that. Got the pictures. The VA is my health care provider of choice.

Paragraph# 4 What you fail to understand, is that the govt is NOT what you think it is 'supposed to be'. There exists no UNbiased ARBITRATOR, especially when it comes to free enterprise. I would suggest the reality of our govt might be better described as a modestly biased arbitrator of the status quo. You may not like it, but the economic system under which you live is more accurately described as a mixed economy, your preferences do not change facts.
By adopting the handle Skylab on an aviation forum I signal my pride in having been a member of the Skylab Mission Team from beginning to end. In 1971, when I joined the space program, there was no private enterprise alternative. I would have happily gone to work for Space-X or anyone else working on leaving earth. But I was employed by a govt contractor and was delighted to be part of the team sending men to the moon. When the Apollo Program was canceled, I was similarly happy to assist in the support of mankind's first space station. To this day, I greatly value both the experience, and the accomplishment. "The earth is the cradle of a mind, but one cannot live forever in a cradle." Tsiolkovsky >You got garbage you want hauled in space? I'm your man, resource reclamation and operational sustainability are my watch words.<

Paragraph#5 I am familiar with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, it is a bitch being part of an empire in decline. What's your point? Got a remedy? How will it work?

Paragraph#6 govt spending seems to upset you. Have any solutions?

Paragraph#7 Aw, you break my heart. What makes you think I will ever get out of the "SS ponzi scheme" any more than I put into it? Again what are you going to DO about it?

Paragraph#8 Personal attack is the last resort of a weak mind. I know full well when I am looking at my own colon. Because of that, I know mine is currently free of polyps. Thank you for not asking.

It is my opinion that you have not understood anything I have said, you have no idea to what degree I may disagree or agree with your talking points, and that there is no point in my indulging you by allowing you to waste any more of my time. It is unlikely I will read your posts going forward, and you will have to get a lot smarter before I would be tempted to respond.

My sincerest apologies to the rest of the forum for this aberration, I know better. For my opinion on Kennedy's rant see my other posts… :}
zennermd
Was it really that big of a deal? They make it sound like it was the end of the world.
monstrok
John Clark 2
Airline operations were very different back then. Prior to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, there was no "free market" for US airlines operating on international routes. Fares, routes and schedules were set by the government and at that time, international jet travel was still in it's infancy. To have (what was essentially) a US Flag carrier order the ultimate in jet technology from Europeans was shocking. But I believe Tripp was leveraging his position to get a bargain deal on the Boeing SST's by having options in the Concorde production firing order. He was sending a shot across the bow by sending a press release that left out a few important facts. Tripp knew how to manipulate the media and tweak the noses of people that stood in his way.
skylab72
skylab72 2
Kind of, see John Clark post below, JFK made good on his threat in various ways, and by the time Airline Deregulation occurred AA was the only one of the original big four, (Eastern, TWA, PanAm, and American) able to survive that turmoil in addition to the jet transition. Had Juan understood JFK's commitment to US aviation technology, and or had he gotten over the speed-race mentality, PanAm might have lasted longer. One cannot lay blame for the 2707 demise at Juan's feet, but he played a part. The real issue was/is physics vs economics. Is it worth the extra cost to travel some given amount faster. I always wondered why given the money, risk and effort Tripp was willing to put into the SST concept, why he did not buy a few Republic Rainbow aircraft in the early post war years.
tbgaus
Terry Gaus 1
"In a recently declassified phone call with Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon ..."

Why in the world did this stuff have to wait 50 years to be declassified? Regardless of the content of the call(s), the process is what has me baffled.
moniker01
Bob Manske 1
This will be the only response I make to you. I'm sick of talking to people like you. I do not find you to be very well read and not at all personally remotely honest in your evaluations of people, history. And that's the real reason why I'm not to going to respond in the future. You seem to a person who reads with a slant to your views. You don't seem to be interested in truth as much as you are interested in interpreting things to support your preconceived positions. You make up, make up, that is: produce out of thin air, sweeping generalities and try to pass them off as truth. In other words, you are not reliable in these instances. So this is it. Whether you respond or not, we're through.

Your opening statement contained errors, and far as I can tell, lies throughout. Here are just some examples;

Your statement: JFK was a clueless little rich boy
Truth: He was quite well educated and regarded as quite intelligent. by everyone who dealt with him, even his political opponents. So this statement of yours could be categorized as an outright lie, certainly as a case of unsupported character assassination.
Challenge: Prove that JFK was clueless. It's not going to work just to say that you don't agree with his policies. You have to prove how he was clueless (and consequently: how you are not). You don't get to be President of the United States by being clueless. For example, I'm not a fan of George W. Bush but he wasn't clueless. I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton's either. But he wasn't clueless. Show that just because you don't like someone's policies that when you say they're clueless that they really are clueless and it's not just a personal opinion you're trying to spread around as fact.

Your statement: JFK's daddy bought him the presidency
Truth: The American people voted for him. But by your standards we agree that the influence of money on politics must be abolished. And most of the money that is being spent on politics is coming from the people you favor: big business.
Challenge: Campaign for the removal of corporation status as “legal persons”, the removal of the definition that “money is political speech”, and elimination of or meaningful limitations to campaign donations. That would end the influence of “JFK's daddy” and all other people like him.
Challenge: For you to have the guts, the decency, and the honesty to accept the challenge above. I don't think you do.

Your statement: bootleg whiskey money.
Truth: We've heard that one before. I'm not a person who likes the old man who very much, in fact I don't like him at all, but, lacking a conviction for bootlegging, the proof that he was a bootlegger is up to you. The truth is that he did have a license to distribute Scotch whiskey, becoming the exclusive agent for Dewar's and also for Gordon's Gin, among others. This was all after the repeal of prohibition. He did at times use insider information in some of his business dealings, but that was perfectly legal at the time. In fact, Joe Kennedy himself, later appointed to the SEC by Roosevelt, initiated legislation which made some of his prior acts illegal going forward. I wonder if you would ever have been so forthright.
Challenge: Identify instances of proven illegal activity on his part. Not just stories, proof. We're still waiting.

Your statement: President Johnson was corrupt.
Truth: I don't know what he did to gain office in Texas before he ran for national office in 1960. I've seen indications that his behavior was not exemplary but there is no indication that I'm aware of that would indict him as vice president or president. Back to any perceived instances of illegal activity while engaged in Texas politics, I suppose, if it were true (and I'm not denying it) a defense could be made, as it often is in such cases, that “everyone was doing it”. That's not a defense, that's an excuse. A failed excuse.
Challenge: Show that Mr. Johnson was convicted of such activity, otherwise shut your mouth. I'll even provide a little help: his biographer, Robert Caro said of him that his drive for power was uncommonly ambitious and that he paid little, if any, attention to ideology, philosophy, or principles. This should be an easy challenge for you.

Your statement: MM said he even sucked in bed.
Truth: Neither you know nor I know the truth of that statement, which in any event would be a personal judgment which cannot be verified.
Challenge: Show how your statement indicates anything that's truthful or in any way applies to whether or not JFK was a good or bad man. In other words, this is relevant to what?


Your statement: This was also the beginning of an era of big unions killing good companies.
Truth: Labor/management issues have always impacted the bottom line. There was nothing special about this particular era. When a business fails, its management likes to blame everyone - except themselves. Unions are a particular whipping boy, but the fact is that contracts are entered into voluntarily, maybe not happily, but certainly voluntarily. To enter into a agreement which causes your business to fail is a failure of management, not the union.
Challenge: Prove that prior to this time there was not a single complaint that unions had caused a business failure. We don't care if the complaints were valid or not. Just show that there was no such complaint.


Your statement: Viet Nam was a loss. No definitive victory since WWII. Gulf of Tonkin a lie.
Truth: Gulf of Tonkin a lie? I thought so at the time but it seems that whatever happened was interpreted to meet certain pre-existing political stances, something which you seem to do much of the time. I agree, the American effort in Viet Nam failed. That is a loss, particularly of all the people who were lost. As to “no definitive victory”, not so true. The conquest of North Korea was not a stated goal of that war, although I fault the Truman administration for permitting MacArthur to continue his advance across the 38th parallel if it did not have such a policy. It strikes me as being opportunistic rather than well thought out. In Viet Nam the policy eventually became one of providing help until the ARVN could handle the war by itself. This is not a viable militarily achievable goal. The U.S. military tried, but the impetus had to come from the people themselves and by and large the South Vietnamese people preferred, right or wrong, not the government in Saigon nor the foreigners who were helping prop it up. Nixon, in order to gain the presidency, appears to have interfered with the progress of peace talks while he was a candidate. Afterwards, once he was president, he prosecuted and expanded the war. In neither case, Korea or Viet Nam, was there a clear, viable definition of victory which the military could achieve. That is a political failing.
In the first Gulf War there was such a definition, it was the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. That was achieved, and President Bush (the father of the later president) called for a halt. His action was completely proper. The war was run professionally and well at both military and political levels and achieved its goals.
In the second Gulf War, run by the son, which was a war of aggression (yes, Saddam Hussein was a corrupt, murdering bully, there are many others in other countries and the U.S. hasn't attacked them), the definition of victory was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Which was accomplished. Again, Rumsfeld aside, the war was run professionally by the military, less so on the political side. But it did accomplish it goals.
In Afghanistan, another war run by the son, the American response was legitimate, an attack on a government which knowingly had provided assistance to al Qaida for it attacks on America. The military succeeded in driving the Taliban from office and forcing al Qaida to relocate.
So your claim that there have been no definitive victories since WWII is seen as quite untrue, and personally, I think it's a deliberate untruth on your part.
But to continue: In both Iraq and Afghanistan “nation building” efforts have failed miserably. In one short sentence the major reason is that there really are no such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan. They are collections of people with differing religious and ethnic backgrounds forced to live within boundaries that were drawn by other people from other countries with interests other than those of the inhabitants in mind.
Challenge: Make a statement that is actually factual.


Your statement: skyrocketing debt.
Truth: The budget was balanced by the end of the Clinton administration. Since then two wars, one of them justified as far as the military response was concerned, and the economic downfalls in and around 2006- 2008 have impacted this greatly.
Challenge: Provide a reasonable scenario for relief, not one that is politically skewed to your sentiments nor one to the other side. Become a statesman or stateswoman, produce a solution which is a solution yet one in which everyone gains and loses.

Your statement: Why does this MF gov't, etc., have it's hand in everything?
Truth: It doesn't have its hand in everythig.
Challenge: Remove the cussing from your pathetic diatribes. Using “MF” proves that you're a gutless bore.

Your statement: brainwashing about fossil fuels
Truth: Fossil fuels are constantly being produced, unfortunately they take millions of year to produce and our consumption exceeds the rate of replenishment. That last part is what is non-renewable in this context.
Challenge: Tell the truth.


Your statement: One Air Force one should have been a Concorde
Truth: There are, for many reasons dealing, among others, with backup and security, at least two Air Force Ones. To have only one would be a security violation. So you would need at least two.
Challenge: Show just exactly what Britain being an ally has to do with the type of aircraft flown as Air Force One, and, keep in mind: the name “Concorde” was chosen because it was a collaborative effort between two countries.
Challenge: You've only named one of the countries which developed the Concorde. Name the other. My thinking is you have neither the guts nor the honesty.

Statement: Government needs to get its paws out of everything that is free enterprise.
Truth: Laissez-faire capitalism, which is what you're proposing, was the cause of revolutionary unrest across America and Europe throughout the 19th and into the 20th centuries. Now you're going to say, see this person is against capitalism. No, I'm not. I'm profiting from it. But untrammeled capitalism produces rioting, death, and violent overthrow of governments. It is fair to say that it was a primary cause of the Russian revolution. In Europe, rioting and revolt flashed across the continent, not just in 1848, but throughout the century. The English aristocracy, to its credit, recognized the problem and reformed, ended laissez-faire capitalism, and avoiding revolution. In some cases it seems the reform went too far, but on the whole, it's been very successful.
Challenge: Read your history without prejudice. No one here said that capitalism of and by itself is bad or evil. It isn't. But it needs to be tempered. Karl Marx grew up in and personally benefitted from laissex-faire capitalism, but recognized its dangers and evils and wrote Das Kapital in response. It wasn't a good response. Marx, for all his research, knew little that was useful about history or economics and especially failed in his understanding of what motivates humans. He knew much more than you do but his knowledge was, in the end, much more harmful than good (and whatever good he might have produced was betrayed by Lenin and Stalin). And that leaves you personally very little room to squirm around in.


General challenge to you: Prove that any of this has anything to do with Juan Trippe which is what the original article was about in the first place.

So yes, DOPE, the truth does hurt: you.

Good bye and good luck.
erniekovacs
How do we stop out sourcing. The answer is very very simple if and when the people of the USA will force the pooiticians, to create laws that would punish the outsoucing company. Just because something is overseas with an American business name label it does not make it an American product................. TAX THE HELL OUT of off shore made products regardless what the labels are in it, on it. Problem solved.
CricketDOP
The reason Terry is the same reason MLK's stuff will be classified until 2027. This gov't lies to us because there's no reason to tell the Sheople the truth.
gruntusmc
And who will pay this tax? We will, the consumer. SOP is to pass along any added expenses to the consumer. Best bet is to yank every tax shelter and special deal they have out from under them. Start sending inspectors in to examine everything from tax returns to equipment to environmental damages.
Moviela
It was the desire of the Kennedy clan and their supporters to embargo the juicy details until they were all dead.
CricketDOP
Can't stop outsourcing until you BUST CORRUPT UNIONS! Labor costs are too high in this country. We've priced ourselves out of millions of jobs. Now $17T debt. Game over unless something drastic happens.
CricketDOP
Bob,

Vous avez pris l'appât. Merci beaucoup.

Check your blood pressure. 😜
Useless
As it seems most thing made in the world including America come from China America would be taxing itself!
skylab72
skylab72 1
Geehrter Herr, Ihre Franzosen ist ernsthaft schwach. Eher wie Ihr Verstand.
CricketDOP
enni a szart
SWEATINTHSWAMP
Glad to see some inside on JFK. I was led to believe that Nixon was the only one who used profanity and threats.
skylab72
skylab72 1
Oh my goodness, the list of profanity using POTUS very likely has 44 members at this time. You need to read more history. You shoulda heard LBJ up close...
preacher1
preacher1 1
Word is that JFK was no angel
gruntusmc
You can't be both.
skylab72
skylab72 1
POTUS and Angel?
CricketDOP
JFK Concorde

JFK was a clueless little rich boy whose daddy bought him the presidency with bootleg whiskey money. He's martered because he was assassinated leaving us with a corrupt Johnson. According to MM, he even sucked in bed!

This was also the beginning of an era of big unions killing good companies.
After reading other comments, wake up! I don't care what people think. Viet Nam was a LOSS. This country hasn't had a definitive victory since WW2! The Gulf of Tonkin scenario was a LIE! We keep getting into these co$tly wars for not and now we have a skyrocketing $17T accelerating DEBT.

Also, If Boeing couldn't get its sh&$ together, that's too bad. The Russian Tu-144 was a failure also. Why does this MF gov't have to have its MF hand in everything???

This country is so damn brainwashed into believing there's not enough fossil fuel that we will sabatoge almost any project. One of the Air Force One's should have been a BAC Concorde with air refueling capabilities. After all, Britain is our ally!

We could not afford Apollo & Viet Nam. So why did we continue in VN? Because for some unknown reason, the JFK, Johnson & Nixon administrations believe that sacrificing our young boys is worth pumping up the economy. The exact same thing happened with Bush 2 & now the village idiot. The guy who got a PEACE PRIZE sanctioned a military surge.

Lesson: GOV't is TOO DAMN BIG and needs to get its paws out of everything that is free enterprise. Gov't is the turd in the capitalistic punch bowl.
moniker01
Bob Manske 1
You keep forgetting how to spell your name. Don't forget that final E. It's Cricket DOPE, which explains why you have to translate everything into a cheap, disgusting, America-hating political regurgitation. DOPE is exactly the right word for you.
moniker01
Bob Manske 1
I apologize to everyone except DOPE. It's been very pleasant reading everyone's comments on the article and I've gained a lot of insights into the airline wars which is fascinating stuff, and then this kind of jerk has to come along with every stupid, deliberately wrong, smear. I know, we all know DOPE's crud is just that, but it really angers me that that kind of thoughtless crud is out there. I guess it's the thoughtlessness and the trivialities and the endless personal smears which are totally irrelevant to the conversation that make me see red.

So again, I apologize. And thank you to everyone else who has had a decent, instructional, and relevant comment to make on the issue at hand.
CricketDOP
Bob, tell that to your great grand kids. Whoops! Unless you speak Mandarin, you might not be able to.

Amazing that you don't have a definitive explanation of why you don't like my posts. Is it because you've been DUPED into believing this and every other administration since Truman could really give a damn about the American people. Or have you been brainwashed into believing that raising the debt limit is GOOD for this country?

Why don't you spell out line by line what you don't like. Sorry that I'm not buying the propaganda this gov't is selling. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Be a man & point out my lies. We've been waiting since Saigon fell in '75.
Moviela
You can see from this phone call that Kennedy was not from Camelot, and you can understand better why he started the ball rolling in Viet Nam that ended up killing more than 50,000 young men for no good reason.

Juan Trippe contributed to America. JFK disgraced it.
smoki
smoki 3
It's hardly a revelation that a former U.S. wartime sailor used some profanity when he was pissed. The whole Camelot thing was a worship image manufactured by the media. Father Kennedy was a booze runner and an east coast mafia king pin of the Irish Catholic variety which was resented by the Cosa Nostra. That's hardly the stuff of Camelot. The only thing that cleaned up Jack was his marriage to Jacquelin Bouvier who was of the genuine high society debutante mold. Even so, he managed to screw that up in his relatively short time in the WH.

As far as Vietnam is concerned, Jack was dead set against any buildup. He correctly saw that the South Vietnamese were unwilling to put forth the commitment, the fight, necessary to secure their own freedom. His view in that regard proved prophetic. Accordingly he had already ordered a draw down with the first 1000 American advisers to be home by Christmas 63 when he was assassinated on Nov 22nd. He and McNamara had already agreed on the draw down. It was JFK's successor, the incomparable crook Lyndon Baines Johnson, whom JFK vehemently disliked and intended to dump from the ticket in '64 who countermanded JFK's withdrawal order immediately upon assuming the presidency following JFK's assassination. It was LBJ as the new CnC with the power to do so who was behind the buildup following the phony "Gulf of Tonkin incident" which was used as the excuse to begin what would be a huge buildup of American forces in South Vietnam who basically assumed complete control of a war not of our making nor a threat to American security interests. It pleased the CIA leadership which had disliked Kennedy and his handling of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba to oust Castro and no doubt pleased some if not many among the U.S. military industrial complex.

The rest is history, a sad and tragic history. Our current SoS, who is "unfit to command" anything, managed to sneak into the Vietnam war just long enough to write himself up for some medals that would benefit his future political career and sneak back out to begin his slanderous and traitorous false accusations about our conduct of the ground war there. That only served to prolong the suffering on both sides especially for our POWs. But for a few brief upticks along the way, America has been in a steady decline ever since the Vietnam War with the incline of the slope steepening sharply during the past 5 years. Admittedly JFK was no saint but he never disgraced America, that was accomplished in spades by those who followed him including present company. Without his instigation there would likely have been few if any of the great NASA accomplishments the benefits of which are still being counted.
CricketDOP
Paul, I have to agree on almost all of your points EXCEPT JFK not wanting us in Vietnam. If he knew more about Korea, and also how the French got their asses kicked there, in January of 1961, he would have high tailed it OUT! He was sucked in like the rest.

Bushy 2 was also a man who knew no history. What was he doing in '79 to '89 when the Russians were getting their asses kicked by the Afghans?

Now we have a communist who approves surges in a place where we are going to leave billions of dollars worth of equipment.
Moviela
A thoughtful and accurate recounting of the Kennedy machine. I would question JFK and RSMc taking the advisors out as simply a threat against Diem to get concessions of tungsten coveted by RSMc for pals at Ford and GE. It was Kennedy and McNamara that wrote the script for Tonkin, LBJ simply ran with the play.

The NASA work would have occurred with Nixon or Goldwater too, as there was a national cry to show America was better in space than the USSR. We were, and the trip to the moon ended the discussion.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
He was the first in an almost unbroken chain of dismal leadership that threw common sense out the window to chase unreal utopian ideals, personal gain/power, and other agendas that have put America into a flat spin now being flown by a student pilot.
Moviela
-"...into a flat spin now being flown by a foreign student pilot."


Fixed.
gruntusmc
Well said, Paul.
Vectorer
Vectorer 2
Incorrect: Truman "started the ball rolling" in 1950. MAAG. Various estimates claim upwards of 3,000,000 people died during our war of choice (The Second Indochina War). Vietnamese, Americans, Thais, Laotians, Cambodians, Aussies, South Koreans, Filipinos, New Zealanders, etc. For no good reason, I agree.
Moviela
Please, The Truman Troops were advisors to supervise American military gear and teach the French not to surrender at the first sign of trouble. In the decade until Kennedy took over we lost more men in Texas bar fights than Viet Nam. Then Kennedy and Diem (both "good Catholics") conspired to create a 'Pearl Harbor' to draw the Americans into the Viet civil war. It was called The Gulf of Tonkin incident. It was as staged as a performance of South Pacific on Broadway in New York.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -2
"For no good reason"------my wife bought me a pair of Columbia insulated boots at Dick's Sporting Goods. They say "made in Vietnam ". When I was there I didn't see any snow or anyone in boots except the military. High priced freakin boots if you ask me.
sunnsea
Joe Russo 1
Made by Vietnamese but created and designed in America. The American corporate BS is that you would pay more if they were made here. Not necessarily true. They are just increasing their profit margin by having them made in Vietnam. Prices are set in the marketplace not always at the factory floor.

Vietnam is starting to take the place of China as the manufacturer of choice among American corporations.
sunnsea
Joe Russo 1
Gulf of Tonkin and its resolution was staged by Johnson not Kennedy. JFK issued an order in November '63 to begin withdrawal of troops by the end of 1964.

Also, JFK is speaking very strongly here and he knows that America must maintain international competitiveness if for no other reason than maintaining "balance of payments." Of course he had to be removed from office in order for the predatory capitalists to begin dismantling the American economy and have us all become debtors to pay them interest in the new economy created by the "neo-Liberals" Carter, Reagan, Deng, Thatcher, Clinton, Bushes, Obama. JFK was a leader and perhaps the last truly American president.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -3
58000 dead AND a welfare system that has ruined millions. Thx.
captainjman
I'm torn on the whole issue. On the surface I would like a free market system- where business can do whatever it needs or sees fit - because we are a free democracy. (supposedly)

On the other hand - I am very patriotic and think that companies should be more patriotic as well. Keeping the money flowing within our economy and not spent over-seas seems like a good idea. A huge trade deficit is never a good thing for those loving right here in the US...

The answer - there is no right or wrong answer. But I can tell you that other nations are very concerned about outsourcing jobs and goods from other nations - taxing OUR exports to them heavily so that we don't have a fair chance to sell them items as well - so what you have is a system where we keep on showing the world how free a system we are - and they keep showing us how unfair they can be.

I am sure there are specific instances where this is not true- but for the most part our goods and services are heavily taxed when imported to other nations so that their own nations goods and services have an upper hand - and yet we do not - we keep allowing people to sell nearly anything - including things that are manufactured illegally, by companies who employ children slave workers, toxic chemicals that are pumped into the earths water systems (like mercury, lead, arsenic, etc etc. With no disregard.... and yes, when they don't have to spend billions to properly handle toxic waste they can and are much cheaper to buy in the long run...

I think MOST of us agree that Carbon Dioxide is not a big deal - but I am sure we do agree that allowing heavy metals to flow out to sea is a horrible thing... right?

Eventually, as more and more jobs are off shored - and more and more products are purchased from over-seas- the common american will no longer be able to buy those things that we are trying to sell them. And that is a problem. Companies have got to realize that there is more to life than pure profit- because what is profitable in the short term is not what is profitable in the long term. And all people seem to care about is short term financial gain - without realizing the long term consequences.

And I am a believer in a free market! The question is, how do we entice our corporations to think long term, and to think of America is a permanent home rather than just a place they currently reside. It's as if these companies don't really care where they are located- and once it's no longer worth while to be in the USA- they will simply pack up and move to where it is favorable. And when the US is poor and desolate - and people are willing to work for 20 cents a day - they will offshore jobs back here? IS that what it will take for us to keep jobs within the US?

There used to be a time where employers were proud to see their workers living a good life, proud to have high paying jobs, proud to sell their goods as "made in USA" - now I think they just don't care- and they have full control over our government to boot.

Neither extreme is a good thing - having the president dictate who can buy what is not the right answer - but I would like to know why an american company can feel that it's perfectly okay to shit where you eat either.
W4XKE
"The question is, how do we entice our corporations to think long term, and to think of America is a permanent home..."

Corporations are driven by the stock market. As a G.M. spokesperson said, "We are a multi-national corporation and we have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. Our only obligation is to generate the highest dividend that we can to our stockholders."

Indeed, if the stockholders don't see a lucrative return on their investment every 90 days, they will sell the shares and buy another stock that promises the greatest return in the shortest amount of time. That's the way it works.

I was in a meeting at G.M. and the director said, "Our goal is to report the highest possible profit every quarter."

There was a fellow there who asked, "Who is G.M. going to sell $30,000 cars to when most U.S. citizens are working at Burger King?"

The response: "You're absolutely right to ask that question and we have considered it. We intend to continue to strive for maximum short term profitability, and yes, there may well be a time when customers here cannot afford to buy our products. That is not our problem. That will be the problem of the person who is sitting in the big chair when that happens. I'm sure he will have some hard decisions to make. Maybe G.M. will stop producing automobiles and start manufacturing can openers but that will be his decision. Right now, our decision is to make maximum profit every quarter."

So the stockholder doesn't care if his profits come from Westinghouse or from King Feng Fu. He is only concerned about the price of his shares at closing. That makes it difficult for manufacturing to establish long term goals and so often they don't.

It would be nice if investors would take pride of ownership in the companies they pursue and would stay for the duration out of a sense of patriotism but the name of the game is maximum money every 90 days or it goes on the block tomorrow morning.
CricketDOP
Johnny this is what you should do next time you think this:

"The question is, how do we entice our corporations to think long term, and to think of America is a permanent home..."

Go ask a 20 or 30 something American and see the crap answers you get from a youth that was indoctrinated by the public school & university system. Then you'll get a clear answer.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Another good reason GM should have been chapter 7. That said, any corporation earning money elsewhere is entitled to do so. For that money to flow to US investors it does/ should get taxed. Any parts imported to go into US autos should be subject to import taxes in order to keep jobs here (autos used as an example). Thus the reason for my comment about government selling out to big corporations. NAFTA was bought and pAid for. US and China governments disagree on almost everything but where do our corps import the most from? Duh. So the real problem isn't the greedy, heartless corps, but your friendly, caring politicians. And from an investment standpoint, the average citizen prospers very little if at all. Your 401 is a joke compared to what the insiders make. Corps didn't take an oath to serve the people but you know who did. Lol
captainjman
I agree with you that many stocks are traded short term - and that people want to see results or they sell and move on. But lets not forget that there are plenty of stocks that do not offer dividends. It used to be that stock prices would be a multiple of P/E - but thats not really the case anymore. Today stock prices aren't really connected to anything. It's all speculation. It's all about news, scandals, etc. The entire stock market is over-inflated. A stock can miss it's EPS by a penny and plummet the stock price 5 or 10 percent. It's all speculative. If you went back in time and looked at the stock prices they were not as speculative... and they weren't anywhere near as over-inflated. Now that so many people day trade and Hedge funds - and so much trading on margin - a single entity can sway the price of the stock artificially. A CEO being sick could make the stock price plummet even on a good quarterly report, and vice versa. It's all BS - it always was BS - but now it's Piled High and Deep, or as I like to call it, PHD in BS.

So there is more to life than profits - because if a company did something fantastic they would see excellent stock prices because it's all about public perception and not really tied to anything solid. If it were we would see stock prices adhering to a multiple of PE or some other technical - but some companies trade at a fraction and some at 30x PE... and some will for no reason swing from 3 to 20 times P/E with no real change at the company. Proof of this is seen when a stock like FedEx that had horrific Q report that same day, missing by a huge amount, not just pennies - ended up closing significantly higher because the Fed is rumored to not raise the rate. Does the rate have an impact on business, SURE - but missing the mark by 50 cents or more should not only neutralize the positive, it should have sank the strike price all together.

So I don't buy it. I know that the CEO's and boards believe it, and because they do it drives the corps to act in a certain way, but int reality it has very little to do with it. A company can have a long term view - act accordingly and still have good stock prices. It happens. The only reason it doesn't happen more often is because people are stuck in that paradigm and can't see the forest for the trees.

It is a relatively new concept that the corporations only concerns are those of profitability. The company has other obligations including the fair and ethical treatment of it's workers, to the environment, to taxes, to the local area which they physically reside in, to their vendors to which they buy raw materials from, to it's customers in the form of warrantied products and safe products as well, human rights, etc etc etc. These corporations may really want the reality to be that their only concern is to the bottom line- but it just isn't true. Period.

But the corporations DO have obligations to the nation, to the people that work for it - and they have been trying to excuse some very bad behavior on their part, but it isn't true... no matter how much they try to justify some pretty horrific behavior, they do have a responsibility to it's employees, environment and country. There are some companies that choose to act properly and I wish to god that the others followed suit, because it's hard to justify using and abusing everything around you for short term profit.

You know, I hate liberal BS - but the ultra-rich are no better. Both extremes of the spectrum are insane, and saying "thats just the way it is" and "life isn't fair" is not good enough - we can do better. Life doesn't have to be this bad with government over control on one side, and K street's lobbyists paid for by corporations getting every law they want passed. If we decide to act like humans to one another we can get rid of all those crazies once and for all.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Points well taken. Putting America first in government and business is the start. At this point business has bought government and that is why we do nothing about trade imbalances; even with our enemies. Yes, our biggest imbalance is with an enemy.
sunnsea
Joe Russo 1
You can believe in the "free market" all you want but there is no free market and you just outlined all the reasons why there is not. Only in the US do we have a such a large number of persons who do not know how international business really works. All other countries have mechanisms to ensure domestic competitiveness: VAT of 7 to 20% on all imports along with single-payer, not corporate based, health insurance. VAT is exempt on exports turning countries that have them into one big trade zone, everyone learns to export. Why? Because when we run a trade deficit, as JFK well understood, we might as well stand on the beaches of America and throw dollars out to sea. We need to earn foreign currency through exports through meeting international demand.

We could do this, bear the momentary pain of increased taxes on domestic spending on consumer goods but benefit by having imports including those products of American corps. made in China, Vietnam, etc., we would have a chance of increasing manufacturing here and level the market for made in America products.

Medicare is our single-payer system for seniors and should be extended to all persons with a flat monthly fee slightly higher than seniors pay now: around $10 per month. Not have this and relying solely on private insurance whether with or without the ACA makes made in American less competitive.
Once the VAT and single-payer systems are in place the global market will be made fairer and perhaps then we can have a "free market."
captainjman
Thats just it, we are at war - just not with bullets. And when China keeps their currency artificially low - it is in a sense a war crime that violates the Geneva Conventions LOL
blucenturion
damn right, what was that dickhead, Trippe, thinking?
addison2
Juan Trippe was a U.S. Aviation pioneer. Pan Am contributed greatly to the U.S. WW2 effort and got screwed in return. Pan Am had to compete. Period.
skylab72
skylab72 1
Smith, Hughes, and Rickenbacker, were also U.S. Aviation pioneers and contributed greatly to the U.S. WW2 effort. But none of them got screwed, they did it to themselves.