The Real Robert F. Kennedy (Pt. 1) - Ending the Vietnam War
Originally recorded 07/04/24 as the outro for Episode 66 – Jeff Hays: The Real RFK Jr.
Happy Independence Day, & God bless America.
Podcast Version: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6
Essay Version: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6
In Episode 66, the Real RFK Jr., Jeff Hays and I discussed the media’s coverage of members of the Kennedy family endorsing Joe Biden for president. For example, here’s a video featuring members of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s (RFK Jr.) family - his nephew Joe, his sisters Kerry, Rory, & Kathleen, and his brother Chris:[1]
Joe Kennedy, nephew: “My name is Joe Kennedy.”
Kerry Kennedy, sister: “I’m Kerry Kennedy.”
Rory Kennedy, sister: “Rory Kennedy.”
Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend, sister: “Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend.”
Chris Kennedy, brother: “Chris Kennedy.”
Joe Kennedy: “And I’m here to proudly endorse Joe Biden.”
Kerry Kennedy: “Joe Biden.”
Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend: “Joe Biden.”
Joe Kennedy: “Our future is on the ballot in a way in which we haven’t seen in generations.”
Kerry Kennedy: “The only way to win this election is for everybody to go out and vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.”
Chris Kennedy: “When I think of modern politicians in our country in this century, I think Joe Biden is the RFK of his generation.”
Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend: “Believes in democracy, believes in human rights, believes in the freedoms.”
Rory Kennedy: “This is a president who embodies the Kennedy legacy.”
Bobby’s sister, Kerry Kennedy, would emphasize that, “there are only two candidates with any chance of winning” the 2024 race. She went on to describe the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, as an “antidemocratic” candidate who “spews dangerous conspiracy theories on climate change, vaccines, windmills, and voter fraud”.[2] She said her father, Robert F. Kennedy, Sr. (RFK), would have been “horrified” by Trump. His sister Rory called Bobby’s campaign “dangerous”, therefore, because he risks siphoning votes from Joe Biden.[3]
That concern resonates with the Left’s conspiracy theory that RFK Jr. is a spoiler, a Nationalist plant meant to throw the election in favor of that Fascist - Donald J. Trump. Which is ironically similar to the Right’s conspiracy theory that RFK Jr. is a spoiler, a Marxist plant meant to throw the election in favor of that Communist - Joseph R. Biden, Jr. But is it possible that neither theory is true?
Bobby’s brother, Chris Kennedy, said in that video, ‘Joe Biden is the RFK of his generation’. Jeff Hays and I disagreed with his assessment. But it doesn’t matter what the three of us think. I’ll put the question to the audience – which politician do you think embodies the Kennedy legacy, representing the RFK of this generation?
To answer that, it’s helpful to first understand Robert F. Kennedy – a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it. Saw suffering and tried to heal it. Saw war and tried to stop it.
What were the political priorities of RFK? What were the circumstances that caused the Democratic Senator of NY to campaign for president in 1968? How would RFK have viewed the crazy idea proposed by his son in 2024? That having a third candidate from which to choose could strengthen our constitutional republic, rather than weaken it?
Table of Contents
The 1968 Presidential Campaign
Robert F. Kennedy announced his presidential campaign in March 1968. Senior’s candidacy was also fraught with controversy, as his entrance in the Democratic primary was a direct challenge to the reelection of the sitting Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ).
RFK chose to skip the first primary in New Hampshire. However, Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota had challenged President Johnson in that contest, winning a shocking 42% of the popular vote and 20 of the 24 delegates.
Exhibit 1[4]
Four days after New Hampshire, Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. Kennedy and Johnson had a longstanding rivalry, for reasons which are worthy of investigation. Kennedy claimed he sat out New Hampshire because the press would have minimized his campaign as just a personal quarrel with Johnson.
However, Kennedy argued, Senator McCarthy’s strong performance in the primary had independently verified that the Democratic party was fractured. That President Johnson’s policies were disastrous and wildly unpopular. That the Democratic party and its leadership only had themselves to blame for the disapproval of the president.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Here is Robert Kennedy’s campaign announcement from March 16, 1968. RFK announced from the Senate Caucus room on Capitol Hill. His brother, John F. Kennedy (JFK), had announced his own presidential campaign from the same room eight years earlier:[5]
Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY): “I am announcing today my candidacy for the presidency of the United States. I do not run for the presidency merely to oppose any man, but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course, and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done. And I feel that I am obliged to do all that I can.
I run to seek new policies. Policies to end the bloodshed in Vietnam, and in our cities. Policies to close the gaps that now exist between black and white, between rich and poor, between young and old. In this country and around the rest of the world.
I run for the presidency because I want the Democratic party and the United States of America to stand for hope, instead of despair. For reconciliation of men, instead of the growing risk of World War. I run because it is now unmistakably clear that we can change these disastrous, divisive policies only by changing the men who are now making them.
For the reality of recent events in Vietnam has been glossed over with illusions. The report of the Riot Commission has been largely ignored. The crisis in gold, the crisis in our cities, the crisis in our farms and in our ghettoes have all been met with too little, and too late. No one who knows what I know about the extraordinary demands of the presidency can be certain that any mortal can adequately fill that position.
But my service on the National Security Council during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Crisis of 1961 and 1962 and later, the negotiations in Laos, and on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, have taught me something about both the uses and the limitations of military power. About the value of negotiations with allies and with enemies. About the opportunities and the dangers which await our nation in the many corners of the globe to which I have traveled.
As a member of the Cabinet and a member of the Senate, I have seen the inexcusable and ugly deprivation which causes children to starve in Mississippi. Black citizens to riot in Watts. Young Indians to commit suicide on their reservations because they lack all hope, and they feel they have no future. And proud and able-bodied families to wade out their lives in empty idleness in eastern Kentucky.
I have traveled and I have listened to the young people of our nation and felt their anger about the war that they are sent to fight. And about the world that they are about to inherit. Through private talks and in public, I have tried in vain to alter our course in Vietnam before it further saps our spirit and our manpower. Further raises the risks of wider war and further destroys the country and the people it was meant to save. I cannot stand aside from the contest that will decide our nation’s future and our children’s future.
The remarkable New Hampshire campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy has proven how deep are the present divisions within our party and within our country. Until that was publicly clear, my presence in the race would have been seen as a clash of personalities rather than issues. But now that that fight is won over policies which I have long been challenging, I must enter that race. The fight is just beginning, and I believe that I can win.
I have previously communicated this decision to President Johnson. And late last night, my brother Senator Edward Kennedy [D-MA], traveled to Wisconsin to communicate my decision to Senator McCarthy. I made clear through my brother to Senator McCarthy that my candidacy would not be in opposition to his, but in harmony.
My aim is to both support and expand his valiant campaign in the spirit of his November 30th statement. Taking one month at a time. It is important now that he achieves the largest possible majority next month. In Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania, and in the Massachusetts primaries. I strongly support his efforts in those states, and I urge all my friends to give him their help and their votes.
Both of us will be encouraging like-minded delegates to the National Convention. For both of us want above all else an open Democratic convention in Chicago, free to choose a new course for our party and for our country. To make certain that this effort will still be effective in June, I am required now to permit the entry of my name into the California primary to be held in that month. And I do so in the belief which I will strive to implement that Senator McCarthy’s forces and mine will be able to work together in one form or another. My desire is not to divide the strength of those forces seeking a change, but rather, to increase it.
Under the laws of Oregon and Nebraska, this decision requires the Secretary of State in each of these states to place my name on the ballot. But in no state will my efforts be directed against Senator McCarthy. Both of us are campaigning to give our forces and our party an opportunity to select the strongest possible standard bearer for the November election. To ensure that my candidacy must be tested beginning now, five months before the Convention, and not after the primaries are over. I think that is the least that I can do to meet my responsibilities to the Democratic party and to the people of the United States.
Finally, my decision reflects no personal animosity or disrespect toward President Johnson. He served President Kennedy with the utmost loyalty. And he was extremely kind to me and members of my family in the difficult months which followed the events of November of 1963. I often commended his efforts in health and in education, and in many other areas. And I have the deepest sympathy for the burden that he carries today.
But the issue is not personal. It is our profound differences over where we are heading, and what we want to accomplish. I do not lightly dismiss the dangers and the difficulties of challenging an incumbent president. But these are not ordinary times, and this is not an ordinary election.
At stake is not simply the leadership of our party and even our country. It is our right to the moral leadership of this planet. I thank you.”
After RFK announced, the press challenged his decision and campaign strategy:[6]
Reporter: “There has been speculation, Senator, that this is opportunism on your part. That McCarthy had the courage to go into New Hampshire, but you hesitated. Now that (indiscernible).”
Robert F. Kennedy: “Well, first as I’ve said, I don’t believe that I could have…”
Audience: “We can’t hear the question!”
Kennedy: “You mean that I have to repeat that? There were a lot of nasty things involved. The question was whether - the charge has been raised about the question of whether this is opportunistic. Of my coming into the contest at this time, after Senator McCarthy had gone into the New Hampshire primary.
As I said, I’ve spoken on these issues and these questions for a number of years, and how I feel about them. I felt, and I think it was generally accepted, that if I had gone into the primary in New Hampshire – whether, if I had won the primary in New Hampshire or if I had done well in the primary in New Hampshire. It would have been felt at that time that this was a personal struggle, it would have been written in the press that this was a personal struggle.
Every time I have spoken on Vietnam over the period of the past several years, every time I have spoken on what I think needs to be done as far as the cities are concerned. It’s been put in the context of a personal struggle between myself and President Johnson.
Therefore, we would get away from what the issues are which divide this country. I think the New Hampshire primary established that the division that exists in this country, the division that exists in the Democratic party are there. That I haven’t brought that about. That what has brought that about is what President Johnson, the policies that are being followed by President Johnson.
Now, as far as what is happening at the moment. I can’t believe that anybody thinks that this is a pleasant struggle from now on. Or that I’m asking for a free ride. I’ve got five months ahead of me as far as the Convention is concerned. I’m going to go into primaries. I’m going to present my case to the American people. I’m going to go all across this country.
Now, if you look at the history of the United States, just in the last few years, or down through our history. Many people, many of those who have been candidates, have gone into no primaries whatsoever. A number have gone into some primaries and then dropped out, as we saw with Governor [George] Romney [R-MI] just recently. Others have felt that they shouldn’t go into primaries and have come in at the time of the convention.
I believe in that system. Of going in and having oneself tested before the American people. I’m willing to do that. And I’m going around this country, and I’m going in the primary states. And then the people will be able to judge. I’m not asking for a free ride. I’m putting my candidacy, and what I believe that I can do for the future of this country. And what needs to be done for the future of this country to the American people.”
Reporter: “If Senator McCarthy had gotten 5% of the vote, would you be here today?”
Kennedy: “He didn’t get 5% of the vote.”
Reporter: “But what if he had?”
Kennedy: “I just don’t – that’s a hypothetical question. As I said, what the New Hampshire primary established was the fact that there was this deep division within the country that had nothing to do with me. That had to do with the following of various policies. The fact is that he did not receive 5%, I’m going to have to proceed on the basis of what he did receive.”
Reporter: “Mr. Senator, Senator some analysts are already saying that your decision will so divide the Democratic party – moderates and slightly to the left of middle. That it will virtually assure the nomination of President Johnson. Something which one infers you manifestly oppose unless he radically changes his policies?”
Kennedy: “That is correct.”
Reporter: “And second. That it is likely to make it easier for a Republican to win in November. How much did those considerations get cranked into your computer of decisions?”
Kennedy: “Well, obviously those are all matters that I considered very deeply. I think first, we have to understand that in order to win the nomination, you’re going to require, I think, 1312 votes. If you won all of the primaries, you wouldn’t come anywhere near the 1312 votes that are required. So, even if one individual went in and won all of the primaries, that in and of itself is not going to win the nomination.
What is involved really is the fact that the Democratic party and those that are going to go to the Convention accept the fact that the policies that are being followed by the United States. And by the government at the present time are a mistake.
I think I broaden that. I don’t think that I narrow it. I think that I broaden it. I think Senator McCarthy has certain strengths. I think I add. I think I have certain strengths. And together, that we add to the opposition that presently exists. It will further give an opportunity for the Democratic party to select at the convention the strongest possible candidate.
So, I don’t, it’s not just a question of winning the primaries. I don’t think that the significance of New Hampshire was the fact that Senator McCarthy won 22 of the 24 delegates, or 26 delegates. The fact is that what vote he got, and the opposition that was demonstrated by the people of New Hampshire to the policies that were being followed at the present time. I think I add to that. I think I add to that by going into the primary myself.”
Is it possible that RFK Jr. also adds to the opposition of our current Washington leadership? Against another deeply unpopular president, with a disapproval rating over 56%?[7]
You may remember that RFK Jr., like his father, initially challenged the sitting president in the Democratic primary. However, Jr. was forced to drop out of the primary and run as an Independent when it became clear that the DNC’s corrupt policies and control of the superdelegates would have made it impossible for him to win the nomination in 2024. Just as it had been made impossible for Tulsi Gabbard in 2020 and Bernie Sanders in 2016.
It’s worth asking - why had the Democratic voters turned their backs on LBJ?
Many of them viewed Johnson as a puppet of the military-intelligence complex, of whom President Eisenhower had warned. They viewed Johnson as a neocon in blue clothing. A racist grifter pandering for votes, willing to lie through his teeth for personal gain.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
What clues might we find about the public’s attitude towards LBJ? In 1967, the musical Hair was first performed Off-Broadway. The play focused on the 60s hippie counterculture, sexual revolution, and anti-Vietnam War peace movement.
Hair’s song “Aquarius” emphasized the unique point in astrological time humanity finds itself today, at the “Dawning of the Age of Aquarius”. Hair also featured a song titled “L.B.J.” about the man who was then serving as the President of the United States.
Here are the final 30 seconds of “L.B.J.”:[8]
LSD, LBJ,
FBI, CIA.
FBI, CIA, LSD.
LBJ!
LSD, LBJ, FBI, CIA. FBI, CIA, LSD, LBJ. I wonder what they could have meant by that?
So then, what policies did RFK propose in his 1968 opposition to LBJ? How did he recommend fixing the mistakes made by President Johnson and the Democratic party establishment?
I’ve included RFK’s pamphlet from the Nebraska primary, which reads:[9]
“I run for the Presidency because I want the United States to stand for hope, for the reconciliation of men, for new policies” – Senator Robert F. Kennedy, March 16, 1968
With these words, Senator Robert F. Kennedy launched his campaign for the presidency and gave new hope to millions of his countrymen and to the world. New hope because Senator Kennedy offers:
Concrete recommendations toward an honorable end to the war in Viet Nam.
New solutions to the problems of our cities.
A long and effective record in combating crime.
Total commitment to the cause of equal opportunity for all Americans.
A proven capacity to bridge the gap of confidence between young and old.
Eighteen years of intensive experience in public service, ranging from Navy Seaman to Attorney General of the United States, member of the National Security Council, and U.S. Senator.
Qualities of courage and integrity that are admired all over the world.
“These are not ordinary times and this is not an ordinary election. Give me your hand and your help.”
Exhibit 2[10]
Two weeks after RFK entered the presidential contest, another twist hit the Democratic race. On March 31, 1968, President Johnson announced that he would not be seeking reelection:[11]
President Lyndon B. Johnson: “Fifty-two months and 10 days ago, in a moment of tragedy and trauma, the duties of this office fell upon me. I asked then for your help and God’s, that we might continue America on its course, binding up our wounds, healing our history, moving forward in new unity, to clear the American agenda and to keep the American commitment for all of our people.
United we have kept that commitment. And united we have enlarged that commitment. And through all time to come, I think America will be a stronger nation. A more just society. A land of greater opportunity and fulfilment, because of what we have all done together in these years of unparalleled achievement.
Our reward will come in the life of freedom, and peace, and hope. That our children will enjoy through ages ahead. What we won when all of our people united just must not now be lost in suspicion and distrust and selfishness and politics among any of our people.
And believing this as I do, I have concluded that I should not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year. With America’s sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home. With our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day. I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal, partisan causes. Or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office – the Presidency of your country.
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President. But let men everywhere know; however, that a strong, and a confident, and a vigilant America stands ready tonight to seek an honorable peace – and stands ready tonight to defend an honored cause. Whatever the price, whatever the burden, whatever the sacrifice that duty may require.
Thank you for listening. Goodnight, and God bless all of you.”
The decision stunned the public, but ultimately reflected the deep divisions within American society at that time. Matthew Dallek of History.com writes: [12]
His refusal to run again was, on some basic level, a recognition of political reality. For all his legislative achievements (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicare, and Medicaid), LBJ had become the face of America’s divisions. To those on the Right, Johnson had done too much, too quickly, overloading the system with big-government programs that trampled on individual liberties. Much of the Left viewed Johnson as the corrupt wheeler-dealer who had lied America into the disastrous, bloody Vietnam quagmire…
McCarthy gave credit for Johnson’s withdraw from the race to antiwar activists in general and those who had volunteered on his campaign in particular. Referring to Johnson’s supporters, McCarthy said, “I don’t think they could stand up against five million college kids just shouting for peace. There was too much will-power there.”
Exhibit 3[13]
You know, Senator McCarthy may have been onto something there.
Many voters speculated President Johnson dropped out to avoid a humiliating third place finish in the April 2 primary in Wisconsin. With LBJ’s exit, the Democratic primary field expanded. On April 27, Johnson’s Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, entered the race.
Humphrey did not compete in any primaries; instead, he inherited the delegates previously pledged to Johnson. He then collected delegates in caucus states, in particular those controlled by local Democratic bosses. Vice President Humphrey became the pro-war candidate with establishment support, running against two anti-war candidates, Senators Kennedy and McCarthy. I wonder which of these men would emerge from the convention victorious?
The Democratic nominee would face off against the Republican candidate, former Vice President Richard Nixon. The general election took place on November 5, 1968.
Kennedy went on to win the Nebraska primary on April 27, beating McCarthy 52 percent to 31 percent.[14] It was his second primary victory after Indiana.
However, Kennedy never had the opportunity to finish the Democratic primary, or to compete against Nixon in the general election. Because on June 5, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, the fourth assassination of a high-profile political leader that decade.
On the day RFK was murdered, he won the Democratic primaries in both California and South Dakota. Now on his own presidential campaign trail, RFK Jr. has often reflected on his father’s ability to unite the country – winning the most urban and the most rural states on the day of his death.
Exhibit 4[15]
Here’s what RFK had to say during his final speech on June 4, 1968, celebrating those California and South Dakota victories:[16] [17]
Crowd: “We want Bobby. We want Bobby. We want Bobby. We want Kennedy. We want Kennedy. We want Kennedy. We want Kennedy. We want Bobby. We want Kennedy.”
Robert Kennedy: “Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.”
Crowd: “We want Kennedy. We want Kennedy. We want Kennedy.”
Kennedy: “Thank you very much. Thank you very much…
I want to first express my high regard to Don Drysdale. Who pitched his sixth straight shutout tonight. And I hope that we have his good fortune in our campaign.
Could I express my appreciation to a number of people? …
I want to express my gratitude to my dog Freckles, who has been maligned. And I don’t care what they - as Franklin Roosevelt said, ‘I don’t care what they say about me, but when they start to attack my dog!’
And I’m not doing this in order of importance, but I also want to thank my wife, Ethel. And her patience during this whole effort is fantastic.”
Crowd: “Where’s Freckles?”
Kennedy: “Freckles has gone home to bed. He thought very early that we were going to win, so he retired…
I want to thank Cesar Chavez who was here a little earlier. And Bert Corona who also worked with him. And all of those Mexican Americans who were such supporters of mine…
We have certain obligations and responsibilities to our fellow citizens which we’ve talked about during the course of this campaign. And I want to make it clear that if I am elected President of the United States with your help, I intend to do this.
I want to also thank all my friends in the Black community who made this campaign. Voting today I think really made a major difference for me. I want to express my appreciation to them...
I’m very grateful for the votes that I received and that all of you worked on - on behalf of the agricultural areas of the state as well as in the cities. I think it indicates quite clearly – as well as in the suburbs – I think it indicates quite clearly what we could do here in the United States.
The vote here in the state of California, the vote in the state of South Dakota. Here is the most urban state of any of the states of our union. South Dakota - the most rural state of any of the states of our union. We’re able to win them both. I think that we can end the divisions within the United States.
What I think is quite clear is that we can work together in the last analysis. And that what has been going on within the United States over the period of the last three years. The division, the violence, the disenchantment with our society.
The divisions – whether it’s between blacks and whites. Between the poor and the more affluent. Or between age groups, or on the War in Vietnam. That we can start to work together. We are a great country, and a selfish country, and a compassionate country. And I intend to make that the basis of my running.
Ladies and gentlemen, if I could just take a moment more of your time, because everybody must be dying from the heat. But what I think all of these primaries have indicated – if I could just take a minute or two minutes more of your time. What all of these primaries have indicated, and all of the party caucuses have indicated. Whether they occurred in Colorado or Idaho or Iowa. Wherever they occurred, it was the people in the Democratic party and the people in the United States wanted change.
And that change could come about only if those who are delegates in Chicago recognize the importance of what has happened here in the state of California. What has happened in South Dakota. What happened in New Hampshire. What happened across the rest of this country. The country wants to move in a different direction. We want to deal with our own problems within our own countries, and we want peace in Vietnam.
I congratulate Senator McCarthy and those who have been associated with him in their efforts that they have started in New Hampshire and carried through to this, to the primary here in the state of California. The fact is that all of us are involved in this great effort. And it’s a great effort not on behalf of the Democratic party. It’s a great effort on behalf of the United States, on behalf of our own people, on behalf of mankind all around the globe and the next generation.
And I would hope, I would hope, I would hope now that the California primary is finished. Now that the primary is over, that we can now concentrate on having a dialogue between the Vice President and perhaps myself on what direction we want to go in the United States.
What we are going to do in the rural areas of our country. What we are going to do for those who still suffer within the United States from hunger. What we’re going to do around the rest of the globe. And whether we’re going to continue the policies that have been so unsuccessful in Vietnam, of American troops and American marines carrying the major burden of that conflict. I do not want to, and I think we should move in a different direction.
So, I thank, I thank all of you who made this possible this evening. All of the effort that you made, and all of the people whose names I haven’t mentioned. But who made, did all of the work at the precinct level. Who got out the vote, who did all of the effort, brought forth all of the effort that is required.
I was a campaign manager eight years ago. I know what a difference that kind of an effort and that kind of commitment makes. So, I thank all of you. Mayor Yorty has just sent me a message that we’ve been here too long, already.
So, my thanks to all of you, and now it’s on to Chicago. And let’s win there. Thank you guys.”
Crowd: “We want Bobby. We want Bobby. We want Bobby. We want Bobby. We want Bobby.”
Bobby Kennedy never made it to Chicago. A few minutes after giving this speech, as he passed through the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel, Robert Francis Kennedy was murdered.
Vice President Humphrey went on to receive the Democratic nomination at the Chicago Convention on August 26-29. That Convention was one of the most controversial in history. It followed a year of riots, political turbulence, civil unrest, and the assassinations of MLK & RFK.
Humphrey emerged as the Democratic nominee over Senator McCarthy and Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, who had stepped into the race as another anti-war candidate after Robert Kennedy’s assassination.[18] Humphrey received the nomination even though he had not participated in a single primary, and 80% of primary voters had been for antiwar candidates. He was able to win thanks to the Democratic National Conventions inclusion of “superdelegates”, formally known as party leaders and elected officials, or PLEOs.
As a reminder, the press has lambasted Robert Kennedy as an opportunist just for missing the New Hampshire primary. Yet they took no issue with the pro-war, pro-establishment Humphrey skipping the primaries entirely on his path to the nomination. Weird, right?
Thousands of antiwar demonstrators gathered in Chicago that August to protest the Democratic National Convention’s outcome. These protestors recognized the Democratic party had betrayed the ideals they claimed to represent. That the Democratic National Committee cared more about controlling the process and the candidate than they cared about the will of the people.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
The Guardian would later report that:[21]
Trouble had been anticipated for months as the Democrats prepared to vote at their Chicago convention for a candidate to take on Nixon in the race for the White House, following President Lyndon B. Johnson’s announcement that he would not run for a second term.
In the days before the August gathering, a military occupying force was sent to the city – 6,000 members of the national guard and 6,000 army troops joined the 12,000-strong Chicago police department to face demonstrators and keep protests away from the convention being held at the International Amphitheatre.
By the weekend before the convention, about 2,000 demonstrators had set up camp in Lincoln Park, their show of strength apparently weakened by fears of confrontation. By Wednesday and the worst of the violence, there were 10,000.
From inside the International Amphitheater, behind barbed wire and a ring of security, the CBS evening news Anchor Walter Cronkite reported: 'The Democratic convention is about to begin in a police state. There just doesn’t seem to be any other way to say it.'
On Monday, demonstrators climbed on a statue of General Logan on a horse, leading to violent skirmishes with police in Grant Park. At night, heavily armed officers in gas masks swept through Lincoln Park driving people into the streets…
Just seven days after the police riot, Richard Nixon, the Republican presidential candidate, came to the same area of Chicago and flashed victory signs from the top of a motorcade car during a ticker-tape parade. Two months later, he won the election.
The leaders of the Chicago chaos included a group known as the Yippies (Youth International Party), led by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. The Yippies specialized in outlandish, bizarre rhetoric that attracted maximum media attention.
To sabotage the convention, Hoffman and Rubin announced that they were sending "super-hot" hippie girls to seduce the delegates and give them LSD; that they were going to put LSD into the water supply of the International Amphitheatre; and were sending well-endowed hippie "studs" to seduce the wives and daughters of the delegates. In a typical press release, Hoffman and Rubin stated about their plans in Chicago: "We are dirty, smelly, grimy and foul...we will piss and shit and fuck in public...we will be constantly stoned or tripping on every drug known to man".
Just before the convention started, Hoffman and Rubin showed up at the Civic Center Plaza to free the pig named Pigasus, whom they had nominated as the Democratic candidate, leading the police to seize Pigasus while arresting Rubin and five others.[22] The Pigasus incident was captured live on television. The Yippies were later charged with conspiracy and crossing state lines with the intention of inciting riots, events portrayed in the 2020 film The Trial of the Chicago 7.[23]
In contrast to the violence and chaos of Chicago, the Republican convention in Miami had been a model of order and unity. Richard Nixon had defeated NY Governor Nelson Rockefeller, CA Governor Ronald Reagan, and MI Governor George Romney for the Republican nomination. [24]
The juxtaposition of the Republican and Democratic conventions made Nixon appear better qualified to be president. A popular comment in the media was that on the evening of the Chicago protests, America decided to vote for Richard Nixon. The Yippie “provocateurs” and the Convention’s association with Black Panther Party leader, Bobby Seale, pushed the “silent majority” to the Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew ticket of law and order.
If the 1968 presidential race were a football game, the Democratic National Convention represented one of the worst game-losing safeties of all time. So bad, you might even think the Yippies had been paid to throw the game for the Red team!
Hubert Humphrey lost in the general election to Richard Nixon on November 5, 1968. The race concluded with one of the closest ever in the popular vote, with Nixon taking 31.8mn to Humphrey’s 31.3mn. Nixon won 301 electoral votes to Humphrey’s 191, while segregationist, Governor George Wallace of Alabama, picked up 46 as part of the American Independent party.[25]
Richard Nixon signed the 1970 Controlled Substances Act into law as one of his first acts as president. The CSA represented the first federal law to make certain drugs illegal. Nixon would go on to declare a War on Drugs, calling drug abuse, “Public enemy number one.”[26] He stated, “In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive… This will be a worldwide offensive… It will be government-wide… and it will be nationwide."
Exhibit 9[27]
Nixon’s Chief Domestic Policy Advisor, John Ehrlichman, would later admit on the record:[28]
Ehrlichman: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people … We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities… We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about drugs? Of course we did.”
The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
Robert Kennedy’s assassination was officially ruled a homicide by a lone gunman named Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. The 22-year-old allegedly shot Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel because he was a Palestinian extremist who opposed RFK’s support of Israel.[29] Twelve people had seen Sirhan fire his gun, and he pled guilty to the crime. Sirhan alleged he had no memory of the night, and so could only take the word of the people who saw him.[30]
Bobby Kennedy Jr. accepted the official story of his father’s murder for most of his life. Then, in 2015, RFK Jr. received a call from one of his father’s closest friends, Paul Schrade. Schrade had been with Bobby Sr. at the Ambassador Hotel when he was killed, and was struck in the forehead by an assassin’s bullet.[31] Schrade has devoted much of his life to keeping RFK’s memory alive, and to finding out what really happened that night.
RFK Jr. eventually became convinced of Sirhan’s innocence. The evidence indicated there had to have been a second gunman, most likely Thane Eugene Cesar, a security guard that night for Ace Security. Coincidentally, Cesar and two of the LAPD officers who oversaw the investigation, Manuel Pena and Hank Hernandez, had previous ties to the CIA.[32]
Sirhan could not remember the events of that night, and his last memory before amnesia set in was “drinking coffee with a pretty girl”. Dr. Edmund Simson-Kallas, the chief of San Quentin prison’s psychological testing program, examined Sirhan and concluded that he was under post-hypnotic suggestion – “perhaps hypno-programmed to shoot – as a kind of Manchurian candidate.”[33]
In 1975, the public learned that beginning in the 1950s, the CIA had invested massively in weaponizing hypnotism and developing protocols for preparing such “candidates” and then erasing memory in top-secret Cold War programs known as Project MK-Ultra and Project Artichoke.[34] These illegal and immoral experiments often included the use of mind-altering substances, including the psychedelic LSD. All three doctors who examined Sirhan agreed that he had likely been hypnotized. A few years later, in 1973, the CIA destroyed nearly all of its MK-Ultra files.
In 2017, RFK Jr. met with Sirhan Sirhan in person at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Sirhan told him: “I didn’t kill your father, and you are as much of a victim as any of us.”[35] Sirhan had originally been sentenced to die in the gas chamber, but after California abolished the death penalty in 1972, his sentence was commuted to life. He’d become eligible for parole in 1986, but been rejected 15 times since.
When Sirhan came up for parole again in 2021, Bobby Jr. and his brother Douglas wrote the commissioner a letter:[36] “While nobody can speak definitively on behalf of my father, I firmly believe that based on his own consuming commitment to fairness and justice, he would strongly encourage this board to release Mr. Sirhan because of Sirhan’s impressive record of rehabilitation.”
The California parole board voted to free Sirhan after more than fifty-three years of imprisonment, concluding he was no longer a danger to society. The final decision, however, rested with California’s Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom. On January 13, 2022, Governor Newsom denied Sirhan’s parole.[37]
Following the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Congress expanded Secret Service protection to presidential candidates. Since that time, their protection has been afforded to at least thirty-two presidential candidates.[38]
Every single candidate who applied for Secret Service protection was granted it until the current 2024 campaign. During this election cycle, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has had his request for Secret Service denied five times by Joe Biden’s administration.[39]
Here’s RFK Jr. describing the experience of bringing his father’s body back to Washington D.C. after his assassination:[40]
RFK Jr.: “I was not with my dad when he was shot, but I was with him when he died. And then we brought him back to New York, and we waked him at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. And we brought him down to Washington D.C. To Union Station in Washington.
It was supposed to be a two-and-a-half-hour train ride. But it ended up being seven-and-a-half hours because there were two million people on the train tracks. And it was the entire cross-section of the American public. It was all the crowds that I had seen during the campaigns from when I was a kid. And they were every color of the rainbow, every kind of American. And then we got to Washington D.C. and President Johnson met us there. And we drove my father up to Arlington and we buried him under a little stone next to his brother.”
It’s impossible to know what road America could have been traveling today, had Robert Kennedy survived to win the presidency in 1968. To complete the journey of liberation that his brother had started eight years prior. But one thing we do know. Even though the flesh of Robert Kennedy was taken from us too soon, his spirit and his soul live on.
Bobby’s brother, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), expressed this sentiment beautifully at his funeral:[41]
Ted Kennedy: “Your eminences. Your excellencies, Mr. President. On behalf of Mrs. Kennedy, her children, and the parents and sisters of Robert Kennedy. I want to express what we feel to those who mourn with us today in this cathedral and around the world. We loved him as a brother, and as a father, and as a son.
From his parents and from his older brothers and sisters, Joe and Kathleen, and Jack, he received an inspiration which he passed on to all of us. He gave us strength in time of trouble, wisdom in time of uncertainty, and sharing in time of happiness. He will always be by our side. Love is not an easy feeling to put into words. Nor is loyalty, or trust or joy. But he was all of these. He loved life completely, and he lived it intensely.
A few years back, Robert Kennedy wrote some words about his own father which expresses the way that we and his family felt about him. He said of what his father meant to him. And I quote:
‘What it really all adds up to is love. Not love as it is described with such facility in popular magazines. But the kind of love that is affection and respect, order and encouragement, and support. Our awareness of this was an incalculable source of strength. And because real love is something unselfish and involves sacrifice and giving, we could not help but profit from it.’
And he continued: ‘Beneath it all, he has tried to engender a social conscience. There were wrongs which needed attention. There were people who were poor and needed help. We have a responsibility to them and to this country. Through no virtues and accomplishments of our own, we have been fortunate enough to have been born in the United States under the most comfortable of conditions. We therefore have a responsibility to others who are less well off.’
That is what Robert Kennedy was given. What he leaves to us is what he said, what he did, and what he stood for. A speech he made to the young people of South Africa on their Day of Affirmation in 1966 sums it up the best. And I would like to read it now:
‘There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich, and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice. The inadequacy of human compassion. Our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows.
But we can perhaps remember, even if only for a time, those who live with us are our brothers. That they share with us the same short moment of life. That they seek, as we do, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness. Winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can. Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn at least to look at those around us as fellow men.
And surely, we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us. And to become in our own hearts, brothers and countrymen, once again. The answer is to rely on you. Not a time of life, but a state of mind. A temper of the will. A quality of imagination. A predominance of courage over timidity. Of the appetite for adventure, over the love of ease.
The cruelties and the obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to the obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. They cannot be moved by those who cling to a present that is already dying. Who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger that come with even the most peaceful progress. It is a revolutionary world that we live in, and this generation at home and around the world has had thrust upon it a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived.
Some believe there is nothing one man, or one woman can do against the enormous array of the worlds’ ills. Yet many of the world’s great movements of thought and action have flowed from the work of a single man.
A young monk began the Protestant Reformation. A young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the Earth. A young woman reclaimed the territory of France. And it was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World. And a 32-year-old Thomas Jefferson, who reclaimed that all men are created equal.
These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself. But each of us can work to change a small portion of events. And in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.
Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. And crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows. The censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle, or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation, those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.
For the fortunate among us, there is a temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success. So grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty.
But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass, we will surely judge ourselves. On the effort we have contributed to building a new world society, and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event.
Our future may lie beyond our vision. But it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither faith or nature. Or the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance. But there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.’
That is the way he lived, that is what he leaves us. My brother need not be idealized. Or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life. Be remembered simply as a good and decent man who saw wrong and tried to right it. Saw suffering and tried to heal it. Saw war and tried to stop it.
Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today pray that what he was to us, what he wished for others, will someday come to pass for all the world. As he said many times to many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: ‘Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream of things that never were and say why not’.”
I’m not crying, you’re crying.
And so, with that, we return to our core question of the day. Which politician is the RFK of the 21st century – RFK Jr. or Joe Biden Jr.? We’ll now spend time diving into three of Robert Kennedy Sr.’s top priorities, comparing them to those of our present-day presidential candidates:
Ending the Vietnam War
Fighting corruption & organized crime
Civil rights
Ending the Vietnam War
The Vietnam War
Vietnam had been part of the French Empire, from the mid-19th century through World War II. Then, two months after France surrendered to the Nazis, in September 1940, the Japanese Empire invaded French Indochina.[42]
A Vietnamese man named Nguyen Sinh Cung, later Ho Chi Minh, established the Indochinese Communist Party in 1930. During the war, Ho established the Viet Minh, an anti-Japanese resistance movement. The Viet Minh received money from the Allied Powers, including the United States, Soviet Union, and Republic of China.
Starting in 1944, the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the CIA, began providing the Viet Minh with weapons, ammunition, and training.[43] Japan surrendered August 15, 1945, at which point the Viet Minh launched a revolution to overthrow the Japanese-backed Empire of Vietnam.
On September 2, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam as an independent nation. However, on September 23, 1945, French forces overthrew the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and reinstated French rule in Vietnam. The conflict quickly evolved into full-scale war, the First Indochina War, and became a proxy in the larger Cold War.[44]
On March 12, 1947, President Harry Truman announced the Truman Doctrine. The Doctrine was an anticommunist foreign policy which pledged U.S. support to nations resisting "attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures".[45] In January 1950, China and the Soviet Union recognized the Viet Minh’s Democratic Republic of Vietnam, based in Hanoi, as the legitimate Vietnamese government.
The following months, the U.S. and U.K. recognized the French-backed State of Vietnam in Saigon, led by former Emperor Bảo Đại, as the legitimate Vietnamese government. By 1954, the United States had spent $1bn in support of the French military effort, taking on 80% of the war’s cost.
Following the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, a temporary ceasefire was negotiated. The French garrison surrendered on May 7, 1954. At the Geneva Conference, the French and Viet Minh agreed to a ceasefire, and independence was granted to Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Ngô Đình Diệm was appointed as Bảo Đại’s Prime Minister of South Vietnam.
The Pentagon Papers later revealed that Vice President Richard Nixon, heading up the 5412 Committee of the National Security Council and with the authorization of President Dwight Eisenhower, secretly shipped Diệm into Vietnam.[46] Diệm had been a graduate student at Columbia University, and he was immediately recognized as the Prime Minister. Shortly thereafter, Diệm became the President of South Vietnam - a country which had previously never existed.
Vietnam was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel at the Geneva Conference, and civilians were allowed to move freely between the two provisional states for a 300-day period. Elections were to be held in 1956 to establish a unified government.
However, two brothers - Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, and his head of the CIA, Allen Dulles - had other plans.
The next several years saw a mass exodus of North Vietnamese citizens, mainly Catholic minorities, fleeing south to avoid persecution by the Communists. In South Vietnam, Diệm eliminated his political opposition by launching military operations against two religious groups. During this time, the Eisenhower administration proposed the domino theory, which argued that if one country fell to Communism, then all of the surrounding countries would follow.
In January 1959, the North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a “People’s War” on the South, officially beginning the Second Indochina War.[47] They established Group 559 to maintain the Ho Chi Minh trail, a six-month mountain trek through Laos. In April 1960, North Vietnam imposed universal miliary conscription for adult males.
Senator John F. Kennedy defeated Vice President Richard Nixon for the presidency on November 8, 1960. That same month, a failed coup by disgruntled South Vietnamese Army officers resulted in a harsh crackdown by President Diệm against all perceived “enemies of the state”.[48] Over 50,000 were arrested by police controlled by Diệm's brother Nhu, with many innocent civilians tortured and executed. This resulted in further erosion of popular support for Diệm.
Shortly after Kennedy’s inauguration, in May of 1961, Vice President LBJ visited South Vietnam. On his trip, Johnson hailed President Diệm as the “Winston Churchill of Asia”.[49] 61 years later, former President George W. Bush would call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the “Winston Churchill of our time”.[50]
On October 24, 1961, President Kennedy sent a letter to President Diệm pledging, "the United States is determined to help Vietnam preserve its independence”.[51] President Kennedy then sent in military advisors and helicopter units to transport and direct South Vietnamese troops in battle, officially involving the United States in combat operations. The number of advisors sent to Vietnam by JFK eventually surpassed 16,000.
Over the years, President Diệm continued to lose popularity due to his repressive regime and South Vietnam’s military losses to the Viet Cong. Pressure began to mount for President Kennedy to distance himself from Diệm’s government. In July of 1963, the CIA began preparations for the staging of a coup against Diệm.[52]
That summer, President Kennedy and top aides, including his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., had heated discussions over whether to support the coup. That fall, tensions increased as South Vietnamese military leaders and U.S. intelligence officers prepared to overthrow Diệm.
On November 2, 1963, a coup was launched against South Vietnamese President Ngô Đình Diệm.[53] The following day, Diem and his brother Nhu were assassinated. The violent overthrow resulted in more chaos and corruption in South Vietnam. The coup threw the Vietnamese people out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Twenty days later, the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated. Many would argue that on November 22, 1963, the United States underwent a coup. That the violent overthrow resulted in more chaos and corruption in the U.S.A. And that the coup threw the American people out of the frying pan and into the fire.
After JFK’s assassination, Vice President Johnson insisted he take the oath of office immediately on Air Force One, rather than wait until he arrived back in Washington D.C. with President Kennedy’s body. A famous photo lives on from that moment, with JFK’s widow, Jackie Kennedy, standing to Johnson’s right as he was sworn into office. Many would later question whether Johnson had acted with excessive haste in taking the oath.
Exhibit 10[54]
One man who took issue with LBJ’s actions that day was JFK’s brother - Robert Kennedy. The hasty ceremony drove a deeper rift between LBJ & RFK, two men who already hated one another. The New Yorker would later report about that fateful day:[55]
Robert Kennedy had been having lunch with his wife, Ethel; Robert Morgenthau, the U.S. Attorney in New York; and Morgenthau’s deputy, Silvio Mollo, beside the swimming pool at Hickory Hill, his home in Virginia. It was a bright, sunny day, warm for November. At the top of the lawn sloping up from the pool, workmen were painting a new wing that had been added to the rambling white house. Suddenly, Morgenthau saw one of the workmen start running toward them. He was holding a transistor radio in his hand, and he was shouting something that no one could understand. Just then, a telephone rang on the other side of the pool, and Ethel walked around the pool to answer it, and said it was [FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover. Bobby walked over to take the call, and Morgenthau saw him clap his hand to his mouth and turn away with a look of “shock and horror” on his face. “Jack’s been shot,” he said. “It may be fatal.” He walked back to the house and tried to get more news, and about twenty minutes later he got it, from a White House aide, and a few minutes after that it was confirmed by Hoover, and then, at 2:56 p.m., Lyndon Johnson was on the phone.
This call—and a second one between Johnson and Robert Kennedy, six minutes later—was not recorded, and their recollections differ. The only witnesses—Rufus Youngblood and Marie Fehmer—heard just one side of the calls, and their impressions of what occurred differ markedly from those of Katzenbach, to whom Robert Kennedy spoke both between the two calls and immediately afterward.
But, whatever the differences, there emerges from the recollections and impressions a picture of two conversations between a man who knew exactly what he wanted and what to say in order to get it and a man so stunned by grief and shock that he hardly knew what he was saying, or even, to some extent, what he was hearing.
Johnson gave accounts of the telephone calls several times, both in the months immediately following the assassination and in 1967, when the dispute over the conversations grew so public and so bitter that it became a crucial element in the great blood feud between him and Robert Kennedy, perhaps the greatest blood feud of American politics in the twentieth century, and one that played a role, small but not insignificant, in decisions that shaped the course of American history.
By Johnson’s account, he telephoned Kennedy because “I wanted to say something that would comfort him.” And, by his account, he succeeded in this purpose, bringing Kennedy’s mind around to practical matters. “In spite of his shock and sorrow,” Johnson said, Kennedy “discussed the practical problems at hand with dispatch”; he was “very businesslike.” They discussed “the matter of my taking the oath of office,” and “the possibility of a conspiracy,” Johnson asserted. Kennedy, he asserted, “said that he would like to look into the matter of” when and where the oath should be administered, and “call back,” and when Kennedy called back “he said that the oath should be administered to me immediately.”
Kennedy’s accounts of the conversations, including one he gave that evening to Ken O’Donnell after O’Donnell arrived back in Washington, were different. Johnson, Bobby said, had told him that, “A lot of people down here had advised him to be sworn in right away.” When there was no immediate reply, Johnson pressed him, asking, “Do you have any objection to that?” Bobby said he hadn’t replied to the question. “I was too surprised to say anything about it. I said to myself, ‘What’s the rush? Couldn’t he wait until he got the President’s body out of there and back to Washington?’”
Johnson, in this account, took—or used—silence as assent. “He began to ask me a lot of questions about who should swear him in. I was too confused and upset to talk about it.” In a later conversation, which Bobby taped for posterity, he said that he had never told Johnson that the oath should be administered immediately. “I was sort of taken aback at the moment because . . . I didn’t think—see what the rush was.” In fact, he said, his wishes were the opposite of what Johnson portrayed: “I thought, I suppose, at the time, at least, I thought it would be nice if the President came back to Washington [as] President Kennedy.” The only aspect of the conversation that is agreed on is that Kennedy said he would look into the matter and call Johnson back.
Kennedy called Katzenbach, saying, “They want to swear him in right away, in Texas. That’s not necessary, is it?” “No, not necessary,” Katzenbach replied. And when Kennedy asked who could swear him in, Katzenbach said, “Anyone who can administer an oath,” a category that included any federal judge or hundreds of other government officials; the place or the exact time of the swearing in didn’t matter. “You become President when the President dies—that’s accepted. It’s not a question.”
Katzenbach later said that he agreed that an immediate swearing in, while not necessary, was desirable, “given its symbolic significance.” But he was “absolutely stunned” that Johnson had made the call to Bobby Kennedy so soon after his brother’s death. Any number of federal officials could have given Johnson the information he was seeking, he said. “He could have called me. I was in my office.”
He felt that Johnson might have made the call because “he may have wanted to be absolutely sure that there wouldn’t be an explosion from Bobby’s end”—wanted to ensure that Bobby would not later say that the immediate swearing in showed a lack of respect for the dead President. But, he said, given Bobby’s “feelings about Johnson, and about his brother,” the fact that Johnson called Bobby so soon after his brother’s death “frankly appalled” him. “Calling Bobby was really wrong.”
On October 11, 1963, President Kennedy had signed National Security Action Memoranda 263 ordering the withdraw of 1,000 troops from Vietnam by the end of the year.[56] His plan called for the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam by 1965.[57] On November 26, the day after JFK’s funeral, President Johnson issued National Security Action Memoranda 273, overriding the withdrawal plans established by 263.[58]
Despite the animosity between Bobby Kennedy and President Johnson, Kennedy would serve out most of his remaining term as Attorney General (AG). In June 1964, Bobby offered to succeed Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. as Ambassador to South Vietnam but was rejected by LBJ.[59] Robert Kennedy would instead continue as AG until September 2, 1964, when he dropped out to run for Senate in New York.
Bobby Kennedy even endorsed President Johnson at the 1964 Democratic Convention. Here’s what Bobby had to say in this speech, nine months after his brother’s assassination. Bobby Kennedy was greeted at the Convention that year with a sixteen-minute standing ovation:[60]
RFK: “I first want to thank all of you. Delegates to this Democratic National Convention and supporters of the Democratic party for all that you did for President John F. Kennedy.
I want to - I want to - I want to express my appreciation to you for the effort that you made on his behalf at the convention four years ago, the efforts that you made on his behalf for his election in November of 1960, and perhaps most importantly, the encouragement and the strength that you gave him after he was elected President of the United States.
I know that it was a source of the greatest strength to him to know that there were thousands of people all over the United States who were together with him, dedicated to certain principles and to certain ideals.
No matter what talent an individual possesses, no matter what energy he might have, no matter what - how much integrity and honesty he might have, if he is by himself, and particularly a political figure, he can accomplish very little. But if he's sustained, as President Kennedy was, by the Democratic Party all over the United States, dedicated to the same things that he was attempting to accomplish, you can accomplish a great deal…
[H]is idea really was that this country should - and this world, really, should be a better place when we turned it over to the next generation than when we inherited it from the last generation. And that's why - And that's why with all of the other efforts that he made - with the Test Ban Treaty, which was done with Averell Harriman, was so important to him.
And that's why he made such an effort - And that's why he made such an effort and so was committed to the young people not only of the United States but the young people of the world.
And in all of these efforts you were there - all of you. And when there were difficulties, you sustained him. When there were periods of crisis, you stood beside him. When there were periods of happiness, you laughed with him. And when there [were] periods of sorrow, you comforted him.
I realize that as an individual that we can't just look back, that we must look forward. When I think of President Kennedy, I think of what Shakespeare said in Romeo and Juliet:
‘When he shall die take him and cut him out into the stars and he shall make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.’
And I realize as an individual, really. I realize that as an individual and even more importantly, for a political party and for the country that we can’t just look to the past. That we must look to the future.
And so, I join with you in realizing that what has been started four years ago - what everyone here started four years ago - that that's to be sustained; that that's to be continued.
The same effort and the same energy and the same dedication that was given to President John F. Kennedy must be given to President Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. If we make that commitment, it will not only be for the benefit of the Democratic Party, but far more importantly, it will be for the benefit of this whole country.
When we look at this film, we might think that President Kennedy once said that:
‘We have the capacity to make this the best generation in the history of mankind, or make it the last.’
If we do our duty, if we meet our responsibilities and our obligations, not just as Democrats, but as American citizens in our local cities and towns and farms and our states and in the country as a whole, then this country is going to be the best generation in the history of mankind.
And I think that if we dedicate ourselves, as he frequently did to all of you when he spoke, when he quoted from Robert Frost - and said it applied to himself, but that we could really apply to the Democratic Party and to all of us as individuals - that:
‘The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.’
Mrs. Kennedy has asked that this film be dedicated to all of you and to all the others throughout the country who helped make John F. Kennedy President of the United States.
I thank you.”
A few weeks before the convention, a series of events had taken place in Vietnam that would lead to a significant increase in American combat forces over the coming years. On August 2, 1964, a sea battle occurred between the United States and North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin. Both sides had damaged vessels, and the North Vietnamese lost four men, suffering six casualties.[61]
Two days later, the National Security Agency claimed that another battle had taken place. However, the reality was that the U.S.S. Maddox was engaged in electronic espionage against North Vietnam. The ship was coordinating attacks by South Vietnam and the Laotian Air Force against North Vietnamese targets.[62] They were doing so in North Vietnamese waters, which is an act of war.
On August 2, the North Vietnamese had ineffectively attacked the U.S.S. Maddox, knowing this was going on. There was, however, never any evidence of a second attack. Yet on August 5, newspapers across America reported the Gulf of Tonkin as a series of attacks.[63] People were told that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an unprovoked attack while the Maddox was on a routine patrol.
President Johnson would state the attacks had taken place on the high seas, meaning international water, when they in fact took place in North Vietnamese waters. The US media relied almost exclusively on U.S. government officials for its information, and avoided questioning what actually happened.[64]
After the Gulf of Tonkin, the U.S. Congress authorized massive air strikes against North Vietnam and dramatically ramped up US involvement there – up to more than 500,000 troops at a time.[65] Opinion polls indicated 85% of Americans at the time supported President Johnson’s bombing decision.[66] It wasn’t until 2005 that the NSA released declassified documents which confirmed the second attack had never happened.[67]
On August 7, the U.S. Congress, at the behest of President Johnson, overwhelmingly passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The Resolution received unanimous approval in the House and a vote of 98-2 in the Senate.[68] The Resolution granted enormous power to President Johnson to wage an undeclared war in Vietnam from the White House.
On Christmas Eve, 1963, President Johnson told the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Just let me get elected, and then you can have your war."[69] On November 3, 1964, Democrat, Lyndon Johson, defeated Republican, Barry Goldwater, in the general election by 16 million votes, the biggest victory to date in U.S. history.[70] Johnson got his election, and the Pentagon got their war in Vietnam.
In January 1965, Robert Kennedy took the oath of office as Senator, and LBJ was inaugurated as President. This would be LBJ’s first and only full term as President. Senator Kennedy initially kept his disagreements with the president over Vietnam policy private. However, as President Johnson began bombing North Vietnam in February and committed significant American ground forces in July, RFK began publicly opposing him.[71]
In January 1966, Bobby Kennedy said in a speech on the Senate floor: “If we regard bombing as the answer in Vietnam, we are headed straight for disaster."[72] In a speech the following month, he advocated for a “middle way” to bring the war to a close, one that would enable the Viet Cong to join a coalition government in Saigon.[73]
In August, Gallup Poll reported Bobby had been gaining popularity and that he posed a threat to President Johnson in the 1968 election.[74] The article cited his new ideas on Vietnam as the reason for the gains, during a time when President Johnson saw declining popularity.
On March 2, 1967, Bobby Kennedy outlined a three-point plan to end the war in Vietnam.[75] In his plan, Kennedy proposed the U.S. halt the bombing of North Vietnam and declare its willingness to open peace talks with the Communists “within the week”. His plans called for:[76]
International teams to verify whether the Hanoi regime engaged in “any large buildup of troops or supplies” during the negotiations,
Both sides to agree that they will not “substantially increase the rate of infiltration and reinforcements”, and
The United Nations to supervise the gradual withdraw of American forces from South Vietnam and their replacement by an international presence.
As the atrocities in Vietnam escalated, Reverand Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. added his voice to the chorus of Americans calling for an end to war. MLK delivered his famous “Beyond Vietnam” speech on April 4, 1967, one year to the day before his assassination:[77]
MLK: “A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on…
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: ‘Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say. Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people, they ask?’ And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment, or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live…
Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America.
A few years ago, there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor—both black and white—through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem.
So, we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So, we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years—especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action.
But they asked—and rightly so—what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today—my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent…
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy—and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us—not their fellow Vietnamese—the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So, they go—primarily women and children and the aged.
They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one "Vietcong"-inflicted injury. So far, we may have killed a million of them—mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers, as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers…
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words:
‘Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism...’
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just."
This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood…
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries.
This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgement against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain…"
This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept - so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force - has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John:
‘Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.’
Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: ‘Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore, the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.’
We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs.
We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on." We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.
We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world—a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter—but beautiful—struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets?
Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.”
In November 1967, four months before declaring for the presidential election, RFK went on Face the Nation to discuss his Vietnam policies:[78]
Martin Agronsky, CBS News Correspondent: “Do you disagree with the current evaluation that has just been given us by General Westmoreland, the commander in South Vietnam, and by Ambassador Bunker? That the end of the war may be in view? That within two years we may be able to bring troops home from Vietnam?”
Robert Kennedy: “Well, what he said of course is that if North Vietnam doesn’t escalate and that we continue to do what we’re doing and we continue to bomb them, the North, and they don’t escalate. That’s one part of it.
And the second is if the South Vietnamese begin to do more. Well, I think the history over the period of the last two years is they’re going to continue to escalate. They escalate in a different way, as I point out in my book, than we escalate.
They don’t bomb Detroit and they don’t bomb Chicago and they don’t bomb Los Angeles. But the Russians send them more sophisticated weapons, they send more men into the South. And the casualties go up. The casualties have gone up over the period of the last 18 months steadily.
So, they’re going to kill more Americans. I don’t see how we can anticipate that they’re going to stand still as we escalate on our side. The history of the war hasn’t been that.
The second part of his question was the South Vietnamese would do more. Well, the South Vietnamese in fact over the period of the last year have done less, far less. Our casualties are greater than the casualties of the South Vietnamese now. We’re carrying the burden of the fighting. We’re carrying the burden of the war.
I’ve always said unless it’s clear that it’s their war and we’re over there to help them, that we can’t win. Now, they’ve had corruption, they’ve had a lack of land reform. They’ve failed to put in the democratic procedures that I think that we should have, the democratic processes.
Unless they change, unless there’s a drastic change, then the people of South Vietnam are not going to feel loyalty to them, to Saigon, rather than to the Viet Cong. And feel that it’s worthwhile they are making the sacrifice, they are making the effort.
The South Vietnamese army has really pulled out. Why isn’t, for instance, in the Battle of Dokdo, why hasn’t it been the South Vietnamese that’s gone up that hill? Why hasn’t it been the South Vietnamese army that’s been on the demilitarized zone and stayed there? Why does it always have to be Americans? I think they should do it. They should carry the burden. Now, if they’re going to do more of that, and the North Vietnamese will not escalate, which I expect that they will, and the Russians can send them far more sophisticated weapons than they have already.
If both of those things come true, then I think that we will be well on our way to winning the war. But I think there has to be a complete 180 degree turn for the South Vietnamese. And there has to be a complete change of policy in North Vietnam. I haven’t seen any indication of that up to the present time.
I’d like to see the South Vietnamese do more. I’d like to see them carrying this burden, I’d like to see them doing the fighting, and not just Americans. Because I don’t think there’s any alternative to that. We’re not going to win unless the South Vietnamese begin to do more, make more of an effort. And it shouldn’t be just be in the United States and Americans doing it. That’s what I resent.
And as I say, when we talk about that there’s nothing about this really being said within the Republican party or what we should do within our own country. And that’s why I think that people and when we talk about the violence and the people walking out and the lawlessness. There isn’t, there is no way for people to express their point of view. And I think that this is most unfortunate in this country.
There is an unhappiness and an unease within the United States at the moment. And there has to be an outlet for it. And I think that this poses a very, very important problem, and the Republican party offers nothing. We have to do something within the Democratic party…”
Tom Wicker, New York Times Washington Bureau Chief: “Senator, your remarks about the - trying to get the South Vietnamese to carry a larger share of the war there. You’ve been associated with this war, or with the effort in Vietnam, for many years now. In two administrations.
Just recently, there has been an emphasis within this administration on the fact that this war is being fought in the American national security interest because of a great threat from Asian communism and so forth. Now if that is the case, it would follow that perhaps we ought to do as much as needed to be done. And would you address yourself to that. In whose interest is this war?”
Kennedy: “Yes. Yes. Well, I think first we were there. You know, first going to your point that I’ve been involved in this. And as I say in my book, I have a share of responsibility. And there are mistakes that have been made, I have been involved in those mistakes. But perhaps if you admit mistakes, you’re perhaps a little wiser than you were when you were committing them. But-”
Agronsky: “Could you be specific?”
Kennedy: “I’ll answer first Mr. Wicker’s question. Because I think this really is extremely important for us. First, we were making the effort there so that people had their own right to decide their own future and could select their own form of government and it wasn’t going to be imposed on them by North Vietnamese, the North Vietnamese. And we had the support of the people of South Vietnam. I think that’s why we were involved in that struggle. That’s certainly the way I looked at it when I was on President Kennedy’s administration. And when I was with President Johnson.
Now we’ve turned when we found that the South Vietnamese haven’t given their support, and are not making the effort. Now we’re saying we’re going to fight there so that we don’t have to fight in Thailand. So that we don’t have to fight on the West coast of the United States, so that they won’t move across the Rockies. But do we - our whole moral position, it seems to me, changes tremendously. One, we’re in there – we’re helping people, we’re working with them, we’re fighting for their independence. Second, we’re and we’re killing enemies, and we’re also killing many civilians. But we’re doing it because they want it.
Now we’ve changed and we’ve switched. Maybe they don’t want it, but we want it. So, we’re going in there, and we’re killing South Vietnamese, we’re killing children, we’re killing women. We’re killing innocent people because we don’t want to have the war fought on American soil. Or because they’re 12,000 miles away and they might get to be 11,000 miles away. Our whole moral position changes, it seems to me, tremendously.
I mean, do we have the right here in the United States to say that we’re going to kill tens of thousands? Make millions of people, as we have, millions of people refugees? Kill women and children, as we have? There’s 35,000 people without limbs in South Vietnam. There’s 150,000 civilian casualties every year.
Thousands of children are killed because of our efforts. Do we have that right here in the United States to perform these acts? Because we want to protect ourselves, so that we don’t have – it’s not a greater problem for us here in the United States? I very seriously question whether we have that right.
And I think – other people are fighting it. Other people are carrying the burden. But this is also our war. Those of us who stay here in the United States. We must feel it. When we use napalm, and when a village is destroyed, civilians are killed, this is also our responsibility. This is a moral obligation and a moral responsibility for us here in the United States.
And I think that we’ve forgotten about that. And when we switched from one point of view to another, I think that we’ve forgotten about it. And I think that it should be discussed.
And all of us should examine our own conscience, of what we are doing in South Vietnam. It’s not just the fact that we’re killing North Vietnamese soldiers, or Viet Cong. But we’re also responsible for tens and tens of thousands of innocent civilian casualties. And I think that we’re going to have a difficult time explaining it to ourselves.”
RFK then gave one of his most important speeches on February 8, 1968, criticizing Johnson’s Vietnam policy following the Tet Offensive:[79]
RFK: “Our enemy, savagely striking at will across all of South Vietnam, has finally shattered the mask of official illusion with which we have concealed our true circumstances, even from ourselves. But a short time ago we were serene in our reports and predictions of progress.
The Viet Cong will probably withdraw from the cities, as they were forced to withdraw from the American Embassy. Thousands of them will be dead. But they will, nevertheless, have demonstrated that no part or person of South Vietnam is secure from their attacks: neither district capitals nor American bases, neither the peasant in his rice paddy nor the commanding general of our own great forces.
No one can predict the exact shape or outcome of the battles now in progress, in Saigon or at Khe Sanh. Let us pray that we will succeed at the lowest possible cost to our young men. But whatever their outcome, the events of the last two weeks have taught us something. For the sake of those young Americans who are fighting today, if for no other reason, the time has come to take a new look at the War in Vietnam, not by cursing the past but by using it to illuminate the future.
And the first and necessary step is to face the facts. It is to seek out the austere and painful reality of Vietnam, freed from wishful thinking, false hopes, and sentimental dreams. It is to rid ourselves of the “good company,” of those illusions which have lured us into the deepening swamp of Vietnam. We must, first of all, rid ourselves of the illusion that the events of the past two weeks represent some sort of victory. That is not so…
For years we have been told that the measure of our success and progress in Vietnam was increasing security and control for the population. Now we have seen that none of the population is secure, and no area is under sure control.
Four years ago, when we only had about 30,000 troops in Vietnam, the Viet Cong were unable to mount the assaults on cities they have now conducted against our enormous forces. At one time a suggestion that we protect enclaves was derided. Now there are no protected enclaves.
This has not happened because our men are not brave or effective, because they are. It is because we have misconceived the nature of the war: It is because we have sought to resolve by military might a conflict whose issue depends upon the will and conviction of the South Vietnamese people. It is like sending a lion to halt an epidemic of jungle rot.
This misconception rests on a second illusion—the illusion that we can win a war which the South Vietnamese cannot win for themselves. You cannot expect people to risk their lives and endure hardship unless they have a stake in their own society. They must have a clear sense of identification with their own government, a belief they are participating in a cause worth fighting for…
The third illusion is that the unswerving pursuit of military victory, whatever its cost, is in the interest of either ourselves, or the people of Vietnam. For the people of Vietnam, the last three years have meant little but horror. Their tiny land has been devastated by a weight of bombs and shells greater than Nazi Germany knew in the Second World War. We have dropped 12 tons of bombs for every square mile in North and South Vietnam. Whole provinces have been substantially destroyed. More than two million South Vietnamese are now homeless refugees…
We can and should offer reasonable assistance to Asia; but we cannot build a Great Society there if we cannot build one in our own country. We cannot speak extravagantly of a struggle for 250 million Asians, when a struggle for 15 million in one Asian country so strains our forces, that another Asian country, a fourth-rate power which we have already once defeated in battle, dares to seize an American ship and hold and humiliate her crew…
These are some of the illusions which may be discarded if the events of last week are to prove not simply a tragedy, but a lesson: a lesson which carries with it some basic truths. First, that a total military victory is not within sight or around the corner; that, in fact, it is probably beyond our grasp; and that the effort to win such a victory will only result in the further slaughter of thousands of innocent and helpless people—a slaughter which will forever rest on our national conscience.
Second, that the pursuit of such a victory is not necessary to our national interest, and is even damaging that interest.
Third, that the progress we have claimed toward increasing our control over the country and the security of the population is largely illusory.
Fourth, that the central battle in this war cannot be measured by body counts or bomb damage, but by the extent to which the people of South Vietnam act on a sense of common purpose and hope with those that govern them.
Fifth, that the current regime in Saigon is unwilling or incapable of being an effective ally in the war against the Communists.
Sixth, that a political compromise is not just the best path to peace, but the only path, and we must show as much willingness to risk some of our prestige for peace as to risk the lives of young men in war.
Seventh, that the escalation policy in Vietnam, far from strengthening and consolidating international resistance to aggression, is injuring our country through the world, reducing the faith of other peoples in our wisdom and purpose and weakening the world’s resolve to stand together for freedom and peace.
Eighth, that the best way to save our most precious stake in Vietnam—the lives of our soldiers—is to stop the enlargement of the war, and that the best way to end casualties is to end the war.
Ninth, that our nation must be told the truth about this war, in all its terrible reality, both because it is right—and because only in this way can any Administration rally the public confidence and unity for the shadowed days which lie ahead.
No war has ever demanded more bravery from our people and our Government—not just bravery under fire or the bravery to make sacrifices, but the bravery to discard the comfort of illusion, to do away with false hopes and alluring promises…”
Within four months of delivering this speech, both he and Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. By the end of 1968, President Johnson’s final year in office,[80] “U.S. troop levels reached 495,000 with 30,000 American deaths to date. In 1968, over a thousand a month were killed. An estimated 150,000 soldiers from North Vietnam infiltrated the South via the Ho Chi Minh trail in 1968. Although the U.S. conducted 200 air strikes each day against the trail in late 1968, up to 10,000 NVA supply trucks [were] en route at any given time.”
President Nixon had campaigned on a pledge of “peace with honor”. But his policies resulted in the exact opposite. The Vietnam War lasted five more years. After Nixon’s first year in office, he instituted the first military draft since World War II.[81]
The Paris Peace Accords were finally signed by the U.S., North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the Viet Cong in January 1973. The last remaining American troops withdrew from Vietnam by the end of March.
America’s longest war, until Afghanistan, resulted in 15 years of military involvement.[82] Over 2 million Americans served in Vietnam, with 500,000 seeing combat. 47,244 were killed in action, with 10,446 non-combat deaths. 153,329 were seriously wounded, including 10,000 amputees. 2,400 American POWs/MIAs went unaccounted for.
Total Vietnamese deaths are estimated at 1.35 million.[83] This included approximately 220,000 South Vietnamese and U.S. allied military deaths, 550,000 North Vietnamese/Viet Cong military deaths, and 500,000 North and South Vietnamese civilians.
Since the evacuation of Vietnam, United States military operations have included:[84]
Military intervention in Lebanon, 1982-1984
Invasion of Grenada, 1983
Bombing of Libya, 1986
Iran-Iraq War, 1987-1988
Invasion of Panama, 1989-1990
Iraq, 1990-1991
Somali Civil War, 1992-1995
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, 1992-1995
Haiti, 1994-1995
Kosovo, 1998-1999
Afghanistan, 2001-2021
Yemen, 2002-Present
Iraq, 2003-2011
Pakistan, 2004-2018
Somali Civil War, second intervention, 2007-Present
Libya, 2011
Niger, 2013-2024
Iraq, 2014-2021
Syria, 2014-Present
Libya, 2015-2019
Is Ukraine primed to be the next destination for our troops?
The Ukraine War
Joe Biden has been directly involved in America’s Foreign Policy since 1973. That year, he began his first term as Senator from Delaware, the youngest in U.S. history. 1973 was the same year as America’s Vietnam evacuation.[85] Senator Biden was reelected six consecutive times.
Over his thirty-six years in the Senate, Biden served on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He chaired the Judiciary Committee across ten years in the eighties and nineties, and the Foreign Relations Committee over six years in the 2000s.[86]
Joe Biden never served his final Senate term because on that election day, November 4, 2008, he was concurrently elected as Vice President of the United States. During the eight years he spent as Barack Obama’s Vice President, Biden led the administration’s foreign policy, including that of U.S. policy in Ukraine.[87]
The Obama/Biden regime’s State Department was run by Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton, during the first term, and John Kerry, during the second. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, served as Obama’s point woman for Ukraine. Nuland returned to the State Department under the Biden Presidency as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.[88]
Joe Biden took a few years out of elected office during President Trump’s first term, before returning to public service in his current role as acting President of the United States, in January 2021.
What has been Joe Biden’s policy on war and military intervention these past 50+ years? As we examine his foreign policy actions, we must also consider his track record on domestic civil liberties.
Why? Because democracy at home cannot survive empire abroad.
Here’s investigative journalist, Glenn Greenwald, explaining how foreign expansionism leads to restricted freedoms at home:[89]
Glenn Greenwald: “It would be bad enough if the United States were just going around, spending all of Americans’ money to fuel foreign wars. But we’re they’re doing at the same time with these foreign wars are using them as a pretext to erode the core Constitutional and civic rights of American citizens here at home.
So, when they wanted to launch the so-called ‘War on Terror’, they ushered in the Patriot Act that gave vast powers to the FBI and the CIA. Of all kinds of detention and surveillance powers. They empowered the NSA to spy on Americans without the warrants required by the Constitution. Newt Gingrich wanted to rewrite the First Amendment in order to usher in censorship measures in the name of the War on Terror.
They did the same thing with the War in Ukraine. Some of the greatest censorship on Big Tech came from those people who were questioning NATO narratives. Who were standing up and saying, ‘I don’t think these things are true, I don’t think these things are wise.’ The EU made it illegal to even give RT a platform. So, every single one of these wars results in fewer and fewer rights for Americans here at home.”
So, with that in mind, let’s look at Joe Biden’s track record on foreign intervention and his defense of domestic civil liberties. The following clips cover Biden’s policies towards the War on Drugs, the Afghanistan War and subsequent withdrawal, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Ukraine War:
Senator Joe Biden, 1989:[90] “The President says he wants to wage a War on Drugs. But, if that’s true, what we need is another D Day. Not another Vietnam. Not another limited war, fought on the cheap and destined for stalemate and human tragedy.”
President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001:[91] “Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward. And freedom will be defended.”
Senator Joe Biden, September 14, 2001: “If it requires the use of ground forces, I have no doubt we’ll get support to do it. I’m not confirming this - let’s assume it turns out to be bin Laden and his organization. Any cell, any group, anything it takes, including using ground forces...”
Biden, October 25, 2001: “The President has personally stated it to Senator Helms and to me, and I’m sure to others, that we have to be in this for the long haul. That we can’t quote “drain the swamp” and let it fill up again.”
Reporter, January 12, 2002: “In Kabul today, Afghan leader Hamid Karzai had a blunt message for visiting U.S. Senator Joe Biden. Rebuilding this shattered nation, Afghan officials said today, will require at least $45bn in international aid over the next ten years.”
Biden: “I think this government is really going along on, actually, nickels and dimes now. It needs some help immediately…”
Vice President Biden, February 15, 2010: “In Afghanistan, as I speak our soldiers are making measurable progress on the overarching goal to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan...”
President Barack Obama, May 1, 2011: “The United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda.”
Biden, October 11, 2012: “We have decimated Al Qaeda central. We have eliminated Osama bin Laden. That was our purpose. But we are leaving in 2014. Period. And in the process, we’re going to be saving over the next ten years another $800 billion. We have been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we’re doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It’s their responsibility, not America’s.”
Reporter, December 29, 2014: “Today marked a turning point in Afghanistan as the U.S.-led coalition formally ended its combat role in that country. But although that mission has officially come to an end, the conflict in Afghanistan is far from over.”
Reporter: “2014 has been the deadliest year since 2001. With 5,000 Afghan forces killed.”
President Biden, April 14, 2021: “In 2014, NATO issued a declaration affirming that Afghan security forces would from that point on have full responsibility for this country’s security by the end of that year. That was seven years ago. So, when will it be the right moment to leave?
The War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multigenerational undertaking. We were attacked. We went to war with clear goals. We achieved those objectives. Bin Laden is dead. And Al Qaeda is degraded in Iraq - in Afghanistan. It is time to end the forever war.”
Reporter, September 29, 2021:[92] “House Republicans fumed on Wednesday over President Joe Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal during his second day of contentious Congressional hearings with Pentagon leaders. Republicans have accused Biden of lying about military commanders’ recommendations to keep 2,500 troops in the country. And of playing down their warnings of the risks of a collapsed Afghan government.”
Mr. Jonhson, Professional Staff Member: “I fear the president is delusional. This wasn’t an extraordinary success. It was an extraordinary disaster. It will go down in history as one of the greatest failures of American leadership.”
Reporter: “Generals on Wednesday were once again candid in their assessment of the conflict. Calling the war’s end a strategic failure.”
General Mark Milley: “It is obvious to all of us that the War in Afghanistan did not end on the terms that we wanted. With the Taliban now in power in Kabul.”
Reporter, August 27, 2021:[93] “Mr. President, there had not been a U.S. service member killed in combat in Afghanistan since February of 2020. You set a deadline, you pulled troops out, you sent troops back in. And now twelve marines are dead. You said the buck stops with you. Do you bear any responsibility for the way that things have unfolded in the last two weeks?”
President Biden: “I bear responsibility for fundamentally all that’s happened of late. But here’s the deal. You know, I wish you’d one day say these things. You know, as well as I do, that the former President made a deal with the Taliban that he would get all American forces out of Afghanistan by May 1.
In return, the commitment was made – and that was a year before - in return, he was given a commitment that the Taliban would continue to attack others but would not attack any American forces. Do you remember that? I’m being serious. No, I’m asking you a question because before – now, now, now wait a minute. I’m asking you a question. Is that accurate?”
Reporter: “But Mr. President, respectfully. I don’t think that the issue that - Do you think that people have an issue with pulling out of Afghanistan or just the way that things have happened?”
U.S. Marine Seargent Tyler Vargas-Andrews, March 8, 2023:[94] “Hundreds of people came in waves surging through the gate, multiple times physically fighting us. Living out of our tower, we conducted 24/7 operations out at the Gate. The next seven days were surreal. Nothing prepared us for the ground experience we were about to encounter. It was chaos, but we worked together to figure out the next best steps. Tens of thousands of people descended upon Abbey Gate. We were looking for anyone with a blue passport, first and foremost. People were suffering from extreme malnutrition, dehydration, heat casualties, and infants were dying.
Afghans who were brutalized and tortured by the Taliban flocked to us, pleading for help. Some Afghans turned away from HKIA [Hamid Karzai International Airport] and tried to kill themselves on the razor wire in front of us that we used as a deterrent. They thought this was merciful compared to the Taliban torture that they faced. Countless Afghans were murdered by the Taliban 155 yards in front of our position, day and night. With only shipping containers between us, the Taliban would routinely murder people under our observation at their checkpoint. We communicated the atrocities to our chain of command and intel assets, but nothing came of it.
Department of State staff and HKIA would completely shut down processing Afghans every evening and into the morning, leaving ground forces with a nightmare. They did not work in reasonable rotations, and very much presented an unwillingness to work in other situations as well. No matter our health or condition, the Marines stood watch and engaged in dangerous and disorderly crowds. State was not prepared to be in HKIA. In fact, State would not want to deal with the Afghans unable to be processed. Weakening the security of the perimeter, State would take us away from our mission to walk Afghans out to meet the fate of the Taliban, condemning them to death.
Over the communication network we passed that there was a potential threat and an IED attack imminent. This was as serious as it could get. I requested engagement authority while my team leader was ready on the M110 semi-automatic sniper system. The response – leadership did not have the engagement authority for us, do not engage. I requested for the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Brad Whited, to come to the tower to see what we did.
While we waited for him, psychological operations individuals came to our tower immediately and confirmed the suspect met the suicide bomber description. He eventually arrived and we showed him our evidence. The photos we had of the two men and reassured him of the ease of fire on the suicide bomber. Pointedly we asked him for engagement authority and permission – we asked him if we could shoot. Our battalion commander said, and I quote, ‘I don’t know.’ End quote.
Myself and my team leader asked very harshly, ‘Well who does? Because this is your responsibility, sir.’ He again replied he did not know but would find out. We received no update and never got our answer. Eventually, the individual disappeared.
To this day, we believe he was the suicide bomber. We made everyone on the ground aware operations had briefly halted, but then started again. Plain and simple, we were ignored. Our expertise was disregarded; no one was held accountable for our safety.
About 17:30, Staff Sargent Darin Hoover, friend and mentor, came to get me from the tower to go help find an Afghan interpreter in the crowd. We found the interpreter and his brother, born with American passports. They told us five - they told us of five family members were still in the canal.
I stayed there waiting for the family members standing against the two-foot canal wall. Ten minutes passed, then a flash and a massive wave of pressure. I’m thrown twelve feet onto the ground, but instantly knew what had happened. I opened my eyes to Marines dead or unconscious lying around me. A crowd of hundreds immediately vanished in front of me, and my body was catastrophically wounded, with 100-150 ball bearings now in it.
Almost immediately, we started taking fire from the neighborhood and I saw how injured I was with my right arm completely shredded and unusable. I saw my lower abdomen soaked in blood. I crawled backwards roughly seven feet because I thought I was still in harm’s way. My body was overwhelmed from the trauma of the blast. My abdomen had been ripped open. Every inch of my exposed body except for my face took ball bearings and shrapnel. I tried to get up but could not. Laying there for a few minutes, I started to lose consciousness.
When I heard Chas, my team leader, scream my name as he ran to me. His voice, his voice calling to me kept me awake. When he got to me, he dragged me to safety and immediately started triaging me. Tying tourniquets on my limbs and doing anything he could to stop the bleeding and start plugging wounds with the help of the other Marines. I was awake through most of it, screaming, moaning, and cursing.
Please ask – I ask you to please ask me about getting shot at the tower at Abbey Gate and how no one wanted my report post blast. Even NCIS and the FBI failed to interview me.
The withdrawal was a catastrophe in my opinion, and there was an inexcusable lack of accountability and negligence. The eleven marines, one sailor, and one soldier that were murdered that day have not been answered for.”
Narrator:[95] “Fast forward to the 2020 presidential race. There is only one candidate for the nomination of the Democratic party who played a leading role in actually making the Iraq War happen.”
Senator Joe Biden, 2002: “In my judgement, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. And the possibility he may use them or share them with terrorists. Other regimes hostile to the United States and our allies already have, or seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”
Reporter: “This was Joe Biden in 2002 speaking as Chair of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. A few months later when the Senate was debating whether to give President George W. Bush the authority to start a war with Iraq, Biden argued strongly in favor of granting this authority.”
Biden: “The objective is to compel Iraq to destroy its illegal weapons of mass destruction and its programs to develop and produce missiles and more of those weapons. Saddam is dangerous. The world would be a better place without him. But the reason he poses a growing danger to the United States and its allies is that he possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons. And unlike my colleagues from West Virginia and Maryland, I do not believe that this is a march to war. I believe that it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this Resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur.”
Dr. Barbara Ransby: “Joe Biden did so much more than vote for the war. He was the Chair of the powerful Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. And he really used his control over that Committee to make sure that a majority of the U.S. Senate voted to authorize the war. And that’s a very serious thing.”
Narrator: “Historian Barbara Ransby.”
Ransby: “It’s questionable whether the authorization to start the war could have even passed Congress without all that Biden did to get it approved. So, he really did play a major role in bringing us into the Iraq War. A terrible, terrible war. And this was much more responsibility - he bears much more responsibility than many other Senators who simply voted for it.
Of course, the statements about chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons were false. And many experts already concluded this at the time of the Senate Hearings. But Biden didn’t allow these experts to testify. That’s really significant.
As Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden was able to control the Senate debate on the war. And therefore, much of the information that most Senators received and that major media outlets reported was really distorted.”
Amy Goodman, Democracy Now, March 15, 2019:[96] “I wanted to talk about Iraq. In 2002, former Chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, said quote:
‘Senator Biden is running a sham hearing. It’s clear Biden and most of the Congressional leadership have preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts, and they’re using these Hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq. These Hearings have nothing to do with an objective search for the truth, but rather seek to line-up like-minded witnesses who will buttress this pre-determined result.’ Ritter said.
That same year, in 2002, Senator Biden said: ‘We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long-haul. Not just the day after, but the decade after. I am absolutely confident the President will not take us to war alone,’ he said. Talk about the significance of that then, and then what it could mean for today.”
Andrew Cockburn: “Well, it fits into, you know, Biden’s worldview or behavior on the international stage - throughout. Which is as a, you know, very hardline hawk.
You know, as you’ve just said, or as Ritter said at the time, Biden was really doing everything he could to assist George Bush in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq. You know, on the Foreign Relations Committee. He summons pro-invasion witnesses. As far as I know, he was certainly not one of the famous - of the five Senators who took the trouble to go down and read the National Intelligence estimate. That, you know, Senator Bob Grahm has talked about. Which was locked away down in the basement. Which would have told them that there was a lot of doubts within the Intelligence Community as to whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and so forth.
No! He just, you know he wanted – he was all for war. And he was all for occupation, as you’ve said. And that fits in with, you know, his record since. He’s most notably as Vice President, Obama made him, gave Vice President Biden the Iraq file.
But also, the Ukraine file. And Biden used that to be an ardent proponent of more arms for Ukraine. For intervention in what is really a Civil War in Ukraine. Of course, his family, his son had very extensive business ties in Ukraine. Which doesn’t look too good.
His son, Hunter, was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. So, you know, Biden whenever he has been given the chance, he has been for armed intervention. He was ardently for the expansion of NATO in the post - in the 1990s. Which is really the root cause of the renewed, sort of, the new Cold War. I mean, Biden was there. It’s no surprise that he describes John McCain as his best friend in the Senate.”
Richard Dolan, 2017:[97] “Regarding the Patriot Act, we have the statement of former Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clark, who told Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lesley, ‘I remember someone asking a Justice Department official - how did they write such a large statute so quickly? And of course, the answer was that it had been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last twenty years, waiting for the event where they would pull it out.’
So, there’s that. But here’s something just as interesting, and I’m guessing you probably don’t know this. The core of the U.S.A. Patriot Act was in fact written in 1995 by none other than Senator Joe Biden. The man who became Barack Obama’s Vice President. Yes.
This was reported in 2008 on CNET. You might find it interesting, by the way, that he did this a few months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place. Joe Biden introduced a bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It called for secret evidence to be used in prosecutions. It wanted to expand wiretap and surveillance law, to create a new federal crime called terrorism that could be invoked based upon political beliefs. It wanted to allow the United States military to be used in civilian law enforcement. And it allowed permanent detention of non-US citizens without judicial review. Just come take them away.
And Biden, by the way, seemed quite proud that his 1995 bill was so close to the Patriot Act of 2001. This is what he said: ‘I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City Bombing. And the bill Attorney General John Ashcroft sent up was my bill.’
Back in 1995, most people were horrified by what Biden proposed and his bill went nowhere. All that was needed was a trigger.”
Exhibit 11[98]
President Joe Biden, September 9, 2021: [99] “My message to unvaccinated Americans is this. What more is there to wait for? What more do you need to see? We’ve made vaccinations free, safe, and convenient. The vaccine is FDA approved. Over 200 million Americans have gotten at least one shot.
We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us. So please, do the right thing.
But just don’t take it from me, me. Listen to the voices of unvaccinated Americans who are lying in hospital beds. Taking their final breath saying: ‘If only I’d gotten vaccinated. If only.’ It’s a tragedy. Please don’t let it become yours.”
President Biden: [100] “So what is happening in America right now is a pandemic, a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Let me say that again.”
President Biden: “We have a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
President Biden: “The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated.”
President Biden (in chorus): “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
President Biden:[101] “This is not about freedom, or personal choice.”
RFK Jr., May 24, 2024:[102] “When President Trump left office, the assault on the Constitution intensified. President Biden violated a freedom so fundamental that James Madison didn’t even think to put it in the Bill of Rights. He never imagined that the government could mandate medical procedures to unwilling Americans in violation of bodily autonomy. But that’s what happened during the pandemic. A program of coercion and information chaos and information control. That prevented the public from making fully informed choices.
But that wasn’t the worst of it. He put the power of his office behind the assault of the one freedom upon which all other freedoms rely – the freedom of the press. We now know from the Twitter files, from the discovery in the Murthy vs. Biden case, and from my own case, which is now in front of the Supreme Court, Kennedy v. Biden.
37-hours after he took the oath of office, President Biden was colluding with the FBI to coerce the social media sites. Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram to open portals to allow the Federal agencies to censor political speech of Americans.
The FBI opened this portal to the CIA, to CISA, to NIH, to the IRS, to the CDC, to the DHS, and about a half dozen other agencies. In an obscene orgy of Federal censorship that was unprecedented in the American experience.
It started, it started with what they called medical misinformation. And it wasn’t even misinformation. There’s a dialogue between Facebook and the White House at that time in which Facebook is saying, ‘A lot of this information,’ including from me - the stuff that they were suppressing – ‘is actually factually accurate.’
And the White House, they coined a new name. A new word called malinformation – which is information that is factually accurate but is nevertheless inconvenient to government authorities.
And pretty soon, an entire censorship-industrial complex had grown up, which was a billion dollars spent. That involved the government agencies, the universities, NGOs, and tech companies.
And the stuff that they censored. They started with medical – so-called medical misinformation – but they then widened that to all kinds of political issues. Including censorship about criticism of the War in Ukraine and other government programs.”
Senator Rob Portman, June 8, 2021:[103] “In 2008, then Senator Biden introduced a resolution calling for a NATO membership action plan for Ukraine and for Georgia. And by the way, that was the same year, as you know, that NATO said they were going to have both Georgia and Ukraine come into NATO, it was a question of when.
That Resolution passed the Senate easily, it had support of a lot of members. Including a Senator named Obama, one named Clinton, one named McCain. Totally bipartisan. Does this administration still support a membership action plan for Ukraine and Georgia?”
Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State: “We support Ukraine membership in NATO.”
President Joe Biden, February 24, 2022:[104] “The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity.
This is a premeditated attack. Vladimir Putin has been planning this for months, as I’ve been — as we’ve been saying all along. He moved more than 175,000 troops, military equipment into positions along the Ukrainian border.
He moved blood supplies into position and built a field hospital, which tells you all you need to know about his intentions all along. He rejected every good-faith effort the United States and our Allies and partners made to address our mutual security concerns through dialogue to avoid needless conflict and avert human suffering…
Putin is the aggressor. Putin chose this war. And now he and his country will bear the consequences. Today, I’m authorizing additional strong sanctions and new limitations on what can be exported to Russia…
Tomorrow, NATO will convene a summit — we’ll be there — to bring together the leaders of 30 allied nations and close partners to affirm our solidarity and to map out the next steps we will take to further strengthen all aspects of our NATO Alliance.
Although we provided over $650 million in defensive assistance to Ukraine just this year — this last year, let me say it again: our forces are not and will not be engaged in the conflict with Russia in Ukraine. Our forces are not going to Europe to fight in Ukraine but to defend our NATO allies and reassure those allies in the east.
As I made crystal clear, the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power. And the good news is NATO is more united and more determined than ever…
Over the past few weeks, I ordered thousands of additional forces to Germany and Poland as part of our commitment to NATO.
On Tuesday, in response to Russia’s aggressive action, including its troop presence in Belarus and the Black Sea, I’ve authorized the deployment of ground and air forces already stationed in Europe to NATO’s eastern flank allies: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania…
I’ve also spoken with Defense Secretary Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, about preparations for additional moves should they become necessary to protect our NATO allies and support the greatest military alliance in the history of the world — NATO…
Let me also repeat the warning I made last week: If Russia pursues cyberattacks against our companies, our critical infrastructure, we are prepared to respond…
This is a dangerous moment for all of Europe, for the freedom around the world. Putin has a — has committed an assault on the very principles that uphold global peace.
But now the entire world sees clearly what Putin and his Kremlin — and his Kremlin allies are really all about. This was never about genuine security concerns on their part. It was always about naked aggression, about Putin’s desire for empire by any means necessary — by bullying Russia’s neighbors through coercion and corruption, by changing borders by force, and, ultimately, by choosing a war without a cause…
Liberty, democracy, human dignity — these are the forces far more powerful than fear and oppression. They cannot be extinguished by tyrants like Putin and his armies. They cannot be erased by people — from people’s hearts and hopes by any amount of violence and intimidation. They endure.
And in the contest between democracy and autocracy, between sovereignty and subjugation, make no mistake: Freedom will prevail. God bless the people of a free and democratic Ukraine. And may God protect our troops.”
Vice President Kamala Harris, February 20, 2022:[105] “Let me start by saying I appreciate and admire President Zelensky’s desire to join NATO.”
Tucker Carlson, February 12, 2024:[106] “The core question is why did he move his forces into Eastern Ukraine? And I watched this from a distant vantage in the United States. And I watched the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, go to the Munich Security Conference. Just days before that, in February of 2022, and say in a public forum, in a press conference to Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. ‘We want you to join NATO.’ Which is another way of saying – it’s a synonym for - we plan to put nuclear weapons on Russia’s front door.”
Reporter, World Government Summit: “Do you think they threw a bait for him?”
Carlson: “Are you joking? Of course they did. And everyone, and it just tells you how constipated, and restricted and censored the U.S. media landscape is. That I was the only one who said that. Well, wait a second. The purpose of diplomacy is to reach a peaceful, mutually – one hopes – beneficial conclusion to a crisis.
So, if you’re showing up voluntarily at the Munich Security Conference, and saying, ‘Hey Zelensky, why don’t you allow us to put nuclear weapons on Russia’s border?’ You’re cruising for a war because you know that’s the red line. Because Putin has said that, and any close observer of the area already knows that.”
Jeff Sachs, May 28, 2024:[107] “Until this moment, every senior official in the U.S. or the Secretary General of NATO, Jan Stoltenberg, says Ukraine will join NATO. And one thing everyone that’s listening should understand - Ukraine will never join NATO short of a nuclear war. So - because Russia will never allow it. Period. So, every time we say it, all we mean is the war continues, and more Ukrainians are destroyed.”
Tucker Carlson: “And we’re willing to risk nuclear conflict.”
Sachs: “And some people definitely are because they are idiots.”
President Biden, February 7, 2022:[108] “If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again. Then, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, January 26, 2023:[109] “Senator Cruz, like you I am – and I think the administration is – very gratified to know that Nord Streat 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”
Jesse Watters, Fox News, March 9, 2022:[110] “Yesterday on Capitol Hill, Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland went before the Senate where she had this exchange with Senator Marco Rubio. Listen.”
Marco Rubio: “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”
Victoria Nuland: “Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So, we are working with the Ukrainian on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approach.”
Jesse Watters: “Biolabs in Ukraine. Biolabs. You heard that right.”
Colonel Douglas Macgregor, June 2023:[111] “The Ukrainians have expended themselves. They are now at a point where I would say there’s practically nothing left. Anybody who was really trained to do much is dead or wounded. It depends on which source you want to trust, but it runs from 250,000 dead up to 300,000 dead to 350,000 dead on the Ukrainian side.”
Tom Ellsworth: “And that’s military forces only?”
Macarthur: “Yeah, that’s just, that’s just soldiers. That’s just soldiers.”
President Joe Biden, April 24, 2024:[112] “I’m making sure the shipments start right away. In the next few hours, literally within a few hours, we’re going to begin sending in equipment to Ukraine for air defense munitions, for artillery, for rocket systems, and armored vehicles.
You know, this package is literally an investment. Not only in Ukraine’s security, but in Europe’s security, and our own security. We’re sending Ukraine equipment from our own stockpiles. Then we’ll replenish those stockpiles with new products made by American companies here in America.”
That last clip comes from Joe Biden on April 24, 2024, after Congress approved the latest $61 billion “foreign aid” package to Ukraine. With this latest “investment in security”, the official total of U.S. taxpayers funneled to Ukraine has reached nearly $200bn.[113]
Of course, as acting President Biden highlighted, that aid will not go to the citizens of Ukraine. Rather, it will come back to local weapons manufacturers right here in the United States of America.
Small businesses with names like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing. All five of which, coincidentally, share the same top shareholders. Local asset managers with names like Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard.
RFK Jr. was not directly involved in U.S. foreign policy for the first several decades of his career. Rather, he focused on environmental protection, defending human health, and fighting the forces of crony capitalism, as I’ll discuss further in part two of this essay.
However, once the COVID-19 pandemic crisis erupted, RFK Jr. spoke out against the totalitarian actions he saw taken by governments around the world. In August 2020, at the height of the lockdown insanity, RFK Jr. spoke in front of a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people in Berlin, Germany:[114]
RFK Jr.: “I see people who love democracy. People who want open governments. People who want leaders that are not going to lie to them. People who are not, leaders who will not make up arbitrary rules and regulations to orchestrate obedience of the population. We want health officials who don’t have financial entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry. Who are working for us and not Big Pharma.
We want officials who care about our children’s health and not about pharmaceutical profits or government control. I look at this crowd, I see all the flags of Europe. I see people of every color. I see people from every nation, every religion. All caring about human dignity, about children’s health, about political freedom. This is the opposite of Nazism.
Governments love pandemics. They love pandemics for the same reason they love war. Because it gives them the ability to impose controls on the population that the population would otherwise never accept. The great institutions and mechanisms for orchestrating and imposing obedience…
Seventy-five years ago, Hermann Goering testified at the Nuremberg Trials. And he was asked, ‘How did you make the German people go along with all of this?’ And he said, ‘It’s an easy thing. It’s not anything to do with Nazism. It has to do with human nature. You can do this in a Nazi regime, you can do it in a Socialist regime, you can do it in a Communist regime, you can do it in a Monarchy and a Democracy. The only thing a government needs to make people into slaves is fear. And if you can figure out something to make them scared, you can get them to do anything you want.’
Fifty years ago, my uncle, John Kennedy, came to this city. He came here to Berlin because Berlin was the frontline against global totalitarianism. And today again, Berlin is the frontline against global totalitarianism. My uncle came here, he proudly said to the people of Germany, ‘Ich bin ein Berliner.’”
President John F. Kennedy, June 26, 1963:[115] “All, all free men, wherever they may live are citizens of Berlin. And therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’.”
RFK Jr.: “Today, all of us who are here today can proudly say once again, ‘Ich bin ein Berliner.’ You are the front line against totalitarianism.
I’m going to say one more thing. They haven’t done a very good job at protecting public health. But they’ve done a very good job at using the quarantine to bring 5G into all of our communities. And to shift us all, to begin the process of shifting us all to a digital currency. Which is the beginning of slavery. Because if they control your bank account, they control your behavior…
The pandemic is a crisis of convenience for the elites who are dictating these policies. It gives them the ability to obliterate the middle class, to destroy the institutions of democracy, to shift all of our wealth to a handful of billionaires. To make themselves rich by impoverishing the rest of us.
And the only thing between them and our children is this crowd that has come to Berlin. We’re telling them today – you are not going to take away our freedom. You are not going to poison our children. We are going to demand our democracy back.
Thank you all very much for fighting.”
Two and a half years later, Bobby Jr. declared his candidacy for president. A hallmark of his campaign has been criticism of the Ukraine War and a call for peace with our greatest nuclear rival, Russia. Here is the end of RFK Jr.’s presidential campaign announcement, in April 2023:[116]
RFK Jr.: “I want to talk about the War in Ukraine. And we need to have a national conversation about this war. We need to have a mature, we need to have a mature conversation that allows for nuance and that allows for complexity, and we need to do it respectfully.
We can’t be telling one side that they’re Nazis and the other side that they love Putin. Everybody in this country loves our country. And we have to respect differences of opinion and we have to respect the people’s capacity to ask questions.
Some of the issues that we need to talk about [are] – number one: is this war in the U.S. national interest? We just need to isolate that question. Is it in the U.S. national interest?
And there are some of the leading [indiscernible], of the most respected people in, of our national diplomats - let’s say. Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, Larry Wilkerson, who was Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff. They all have said definitively, if you just want to ask is it in our national interest, it is not. It is not in America’s national interest to push Russia closer to China. That is a cataclysm.
Number two: it’s not in our national interest to do something that could involve us in a nuclear exchange with a country that has more nuclear weapons than us. Now, having said that, I want to say that we are in the Ukraine for all the right reasons. We are there because we are a good people. And Abraham Lincoln said, ‘America is a great nation because we are a good nation’.
And we continue to be a good people. And we are there because of our compassion for the Ukrainian people who have been brutalized, who have been illegally invaded, and have shown extraordinary valor and courage defending their country. And defending their families and their beliefs and their liberties and their independence. Things that Americans have to admire. My own son Connor – I’m very, very proud that Connor joined the Foreign Legion and fought in the Ukraine during the Kharkiv Offensive as a machine gunner for a Special Forces group.
But I think that we need to know as Americans, and we have a right to know – what is our government’s chief objective in this war? Now, we were told initially that the objective was humanitarian. And that is a good reason to be there – a humanitarian one. What that means is trying to end the bloodshed and minimize it as much as possible.
But in recent times, President Biden said that one of our objectives, at least, is regime change of Vladimir Putin. And this is the same strategy that did not work well for us in Iraq. And it’s many of the same people! The neocons who are around President Biden who have been talking about that for a long time. And been engaged in geopolitical machinations in the Ukraine since 2014.
And then, President Biden’s Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, validated President Biden’s statement by saying that our objective in the Ukraine is to exhaust and degrade the Russian army so that they are incapable of having battles anywhere else in the world.
Now, and indeed, many of the steps that we’ve taken in the Ukraine have seemed to indicate that our interest is in prolonging the war, rather than shortening it. So, if those are our objectives – to have regime change and exhaust the Russians - that is completely antithetical to a humanitarian mission.
If we’re there for a humanitarian mission, it means to reduce bloodshed and bring an end to the war quickly. If we’re there to exhaust the Russians or regime change, then doesn’t it mean that the Ukraine is just a pawn in a geopolitical battle between two great superpowers? And that our strategy is to, is to put the flower of Ukrainian youth into an abattoir of death in order to exhaust Russia?
And if that’s true, then we need to know about it. If it’s not true, then we need a pretty good discussion with the President and the Secretary of Defense and others to tell us exactly - what are we doing there?
Now, I want to talk just a little about some of the causes of the war. We’ve now committed $113 billion to the Ukraine. For reference, the entire budget of EPA is $12 billion. The budget of CDC is $11 billion.
We have 57% of Americans, we have a crisis here. We have a war on the poor. 57% of Americans cannot put their hand on a thousand dollars if they have an emergency. One quarter of Americans go to bed hungry.
We have 1.5 million veterans who are living below the poverty line. We have 33,000 veterans who are homeless. We have 27 veterans – 23 veterans a day - who are killing themselves. The war on the poor is a blood war.
I want to introduce you to a friend of mine, an old friend, Keith Amato… Keith is on disability that does not allow him to work anymore. And he has been surviving on food stamps. And his - on March 1st, he got a recorded telephone call from the government saying that his food stamps allocation is going to be dropped next month from $283 a month to $25. 30 million Americans got that phone call. 30 million Americans.
The same month, the government announced that it is going to drop Medicare for up to 15 million Americans. The same month, the government announced that it is printing $300 billion extra dollars to pay off the Silicon Valley Bank, to bail it out. And we announced, the Biden administration announced $750 additional millions of dollars that we are going to send to the Ukraine.
So, we have money for wars. And we have money for bankers that need bailouts. But what happens to the American people when they are on hard times? Shouldn’t we have compassion for them?...
Keith had his food stamp checks dropped to $25. You try going shopping on $25! You have to be crazy to think that you can survive a week on $25. A day! So, he’s spending $25 on food, they cut his food stamps to pay the inflation. His food bill has doubled over the past two years. And for basic foodstuffs like chicken, dairy and milk, it’s gone up 78%!
So, we are starving American people. And we are cutting them off from the kind of aid that we should be giving that we’re instead spending on being the policeman of the world.
We have 800 bases around the world now. We have, we spend $880 billion a year on our military. We were supposed to get a peace dividend. After the Soviet Union collapsed, we were supposed to go from $6 billion to $2 billion. That was a peace dividend. Then, we were going to spend the rest, bring it home and build schools and infrastructure.
Instead, we’ve made up a bunch of foreign enemies, and different enemies, and things that we’ve got to do to spend more money. The military-industrial complex and the intelligence agencies are telling us we have to. Instead of dropping it to $2, we raised it to $8.8. So that’s where we are. This is, this is what’s happening.
You know, if you go back to the beginning of our history. Our founders made so many clear warnings against Americans getting involved in foreign wars. Because they said, trying to be an imperium abroad is going to destroy democracy at home. It is going to turn us into a garrison state, a national security state, and a surveillance state. They said its anti - the two are inconsistent. You cannot be an imperial nation abroad and a democracy at home.
And John Quincy Adams really spoke for all of the framers when he said, ‘America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.’ It is something we cannot afford to do in our country.
My grandfather, Joseph Kennedy said, ‘We need to build fortress America. We need to arm ourselves to the teeth at home. And make ourselves too expensive to conquer, and then build our economy.’
Because the economy is the source of strength. Not bullets and weapons. It’s having a strong economy, a strong middle class. Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex and what it would do to destroy democracy.
My father died in his campaign against the Vietnam War. Martin Luther King broke with the Civil Rights movement on Vietnam and he said, ‘This has got to be our priority. Because you don’t - you’re not seeing that there is a direct link between poverty at home, poverty and violence and oppression at home and war abroad. You cannot separate them’.
As long as we’re making war, as long as our major exports are weapons and war, we will never have a middle class in this country.”
The Cuban Missile Crisis shaped RFK Jr.’s views on war and the threat of nuclear weapons. The Cuban Missile Crisis lasted thirteen days during his uncle’s presidency. RFK Sr., then Attorney General, played a major role in leading the world away from nuclear crisis. Robert Kennedy documented these events in his book Thirteen Days, which was adapted into a film in 2000.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world was closer to nuclear war than ever before, with the noteworthy exception of present day. Here is Bobby Kennedy Jr. on Lex Fridman’s podcast discussing the crisis:[117]
RFK Jr.: “I have very strong memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis and of those thirteen days when we came closer to nuclear war. You know and particularly, I think it was when the U2 got shot down over Cuba that, you know, and nobody in this country - there’s a lot of people in Washington D.C. who at that point thought that they very well may wake up dead. That the world may end that night. 30 million Americans killed, 130 million Russians.
This is what our military brass wanted. They saw a war with Russia, a nuclear exchange with Russia as not only inevitable but as desirable. Because they wanted to do it now while we still had a superiority.”
Lex Fridman: “Can you actually go through the feelings you’ve had about the Cuban Missile Crisis? What are some memories of it? What are some interesting, kind of -?”
Kennedy: “Well, I was going to school in Washington D.C. to Sidwell – or to Our Lady of Victory. Which is in Washington D.C. So we were, I lived in Virginia, across the Potomac. And we would cross the bridge every day into D.C. And during the crisis, U.S. Marshalls came to my house. To take us, I think around day eight.
My father was spending the night at the White House. He wasn’t coming home. He was staying with the ExCom Committee and sleeping there. And they were up 24 hours a day, and they were debating and trying to figure out what was happening.
But we had U.S. Marshalls come to our house to take us down. They were going to take us down to White Sulphur Springs in Southern Virginia, in the Blue Ridge mountains. Where there was an underground city, essentially, a bunker that was like a city. Apparently, it had McDonald’s in it and a lot of others. You know, it was like a full city for the U.S. government and their families.
So, U.S. Marshalls came to our house to take us down there. And I was very excited about doing that. And this was at a time when we were doing the drills. We were doing the duck and cover drills once a week at our school. Where they would tell you, when the alarm goes off, you put your head under the table. You remove the sharps from your desk, put them inside your desk, you put your head under the table, and you wait. And the initial blast will take the windows out of the school. And then we all stand up and file into an orderly fashion into the basement where we’re going to be for the next six or eight months or whatever. But in the basement, where we went occasionally in those corridors, were lined with freeze-dried food canisters, often from floor to ceiling. So, we were all preparing for this.
Bob MacNamara, who was a friend of mine, and was one of my father’s close friends, the Secretary of Defense. He later called it mass psychosis, and my father deeply regretted participating in the bomb shelter program. Because he said it was part of a psychological – psyop trick to teach Americans that nuclear war was acceptable. That it was survivable.
But my father, anyway, when the Marshalls came to our house to take me and my brother Joe away, we were the ones who were home at that time. My father called and he talked to us on the phone, and he said I don’t want you going down there because if you disappear from school, people are going to panic. And I need you to be a good soldier and go to school. And he said something to me during that period, which was that if the nuclear war happened, it would be better to be among the dead than the living.
Which I did not believe. Okay? I mean I had already prepared myself for, you know, for the dystopian future. And I knew I could – I spent every day in the woods. I knew that I could survive by catching crawfish and, you know, cooking mud puppies. Doing whatever I had to do. But I felt like, okay, I could handle this. And I really wanted to see the setup down in this underground city. But anyway, that was part of it for me.
My father was away. And then in the last days of it, my father got this idea. Because Khruschev had sent two letters. He sent one letter that was conciliatory. And then he sent a letter that after his Joint Chiefs and the warmongers around him saw that letter and they disapproved of it; they sent another letter that was extremely belligerent.
And my father had the idea, let’s just pretend we didn’t get the second letter and reply to the first one. And then he went down to Dobrinin, who was - he met Dobrinin in the Justice Department. Dobrinin was the Soviet Ambassador. And they, you know, they proposed this settlement. Which was a secret settlement where Khruschev would withdraw the missiles from Cuba. Khruschev had put the missiles in Cuba because we had put missiles, you know, nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy.
My uncle’s secret deal was that if he, if Khrushchev removed the missiles from Cuba, within six months he would get rid of the Jupiter missiles in Turkey. But if Khrushchev told anybody about the deal, then it was off. If news got out about that secret deal, it was off. So, that was the actual deal. Khrushchev complied with it and then my uncle complied with it.”
Fridman: “How much of that part of human history turned on the decisions of one person?”
Kennedy: “I think that’s one of the – because that’s of course the perennial question. Is history, kind of, on automatic pilot and, you know, human decisions, decisions of leaders really only have, you know, marginal or incremental bearing on what is going to happen anyway?
But I think that is the - and the historians argue about that all the time. I think that [the Cuban Missile Crisis] is a really good example of a place in human history that literally the world could have ended if we had a different leader in the White House.
And the reason for that is that there were, as I recall, sixty-four gun emplacements. You know, missile emplacements. Each one of those missile emplacements had a crew of about 100 men. And they were Soviets. So, they were.
And we didn’t know, we had a couple of questions that my uncle asked Allen Dul – or asked the CIA. And he asked - Dulles was already gone - but he asked the CIA, and he asked his military brass. Because they all wanted to go in. Everybody wanted to go in.
My uncle said, my uncle asked to see the aerial photos, and he examined those personally. And this is why it’s important to have a leader in the White House who can push back on their bureaucracy.
And then he asked them, you know, ‘Who’s manning those missile sites? And are they Russians? And if they’re Russians and we bomb them, isn’t that going to force Khrushchev to then go into Berlin? And that would be the beginning of a cascade effect that would, you know, highly likely end in nuclear confrontation?’
And the military brass said to my uncle, ‘Oh, we don’t think he’ll have the guts to do that’. So, my uncle was like, ‘That’s what you’re betting on?’ And, you know, they all wanted him to go in. They wanted him to bomb the sites and then invade Cuba. And he said, ‘If we bomb those sites, we’re going to be killing Russians. And it’s going to force – it’s going to provoke Russia into some kind of response. And the obvious response is for them to go into Berlin.’
But the thing that we didn’t know then that we didn’t find out until, I think, there was like a thirty-year anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Havana. And what we learned then was that - from the Russians who came to that event - it was like a symposium where everybody on both sides talked about it. And we learned a lot of stuff that we had never – nobody knew before.
One of the insane things, the most insane thing that we learned was that the weapons were already – the nuclear warheads were already in place. They were ready to fire. And that the authorization to fire was made, was delegated to each of the gun crew commanders. So, there were sixty people who all had authorization to fire if they felt themselves under attack. So, you have to believe that at least one of them would have launched. And that would have been the beginning of the end.
And you know, if anybody had launched, you know, we knew what would happen. My uncle knew what would happen. Because he asked again and again, what is going to happen? And they said 30 million Americans will be killed, but we will kill 130 million Russians. So, we will win. And that was a victory for them.
And my uncle said, later said, he told Arthur Schlessinger and Kenny O’Donnel. He said, ‘Those guys’ - he called them the salad brass. The guys with all of the stuff on their chest.
He said, he said, ‘Those guys - they don’t care. Because they know that if it happens, that they’re going to be in the charge of everything. They’re the ones who are going to be running the world after that.’ So, for them, you know, it was an incentive to kill 130 million Russians and 30 million Americans.
But my uncle, he had this correspondence with Khrushchev. They were secretly corresponding with each other. And that is what saved the world. Is that they had, both of them had been men of war. So, Eisenhower famously said, ‘It will not be a man of war. It will not be a soldier who starts World War III.’ Because a guy who has actually seen it knows how bad it is.
And my uncle had been in the heat of the South Pacific. His boat had been cut in two by a Japanese destroyer. His, three of his groomsmen had been killed. One of them badly burned. He pulled that guy with a lanyard by his teeth six miles to an island in the middle of the night and then they hid out there for ten days. And then, you know, he came back, he was the only President of the United States that earned the purple heart.
Meanwhile, Khrushchev had been at Stalingrad. Which was the worst place to be on the planet, you know, probably in the 21st century, other than, you know, Auschwitz or one of the death camps. It was, you know, it was the most ferocious, horrific war with people starving. People, you know, committing cannibalism, eating the dogs, eating the cats, eating their shoe leather. Freezing to death by the thousands, etc.
So, Khrushchev did not want, the last thing he wanted was a war. The last thing my uncle wanted was a war. But the CIA did not know anything about Khrushchev. And the reason for that is there was a mole at Langley. So that every time the CIA got a spy in the Kremlin, he would immediately be killed. So, they had no eyes at the Kremlin. There were literally hundreds of Russian spies who had defected to the United States and were in the Kremlin who were killed during that period.
They had no idea anything about Khrushchev. About how he saw the world. And they saw the Kremlin itself as a monolith, you know, this kind of. You know, the same way that we look at Putin today. That they have this ambition of world conquest and it’s driving them, and there’s nothing else they think about. They are absolutely single-minded about it.
But actually, there was a big division between Khrushchev and his Joint Chiefs and his intelligence apparatus. And they both at one point discovered they were both in the same situation. They were surrounded by spies and military persons who were intent on going to war, and they were the two guys resisting it.
So, my uncle had this idea of being the peace president from the beginning. He told Ben Bradley, one of his best friends who, you know, was the publisher of the Washington Post, or the editor-in-chief at that time. He said, Ben Bradley asked him, ‘What do you want on your gravestone?’ And my uncle said, ‘He kept the peace.’ He said, ‘The principal job of the President of the United States is to keep the country out of war.’”
Many historians suggest the Cuban Missile Crisis profoundly impacted President John F. Kennedy. Seeing how close humanity had come to annihilation, he perhaps experienced a spiritual awakening.
A recognition that our civilization has more to offer our planet than death, destruction, and thousands of years of radioactive fallout. That this proxy war in Ukraine - rather, Cuba - was extremely dangerous, idiotic, and a betrayal of the public.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does, you know the, you know, the thing.
Many researchers consider the Cuban Missile Crisis a turning point in John F. Kennedy’s presidency, after which he was determined to set the world on the path of peace and nuclear disarmament. These efforts were encapsulated by a speech he gave at American University on June 10, 1963, one of the greatest in American history:[118]
President JFK: “I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.
I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children. Not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women. Not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles - which can only destroy and never create - is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war - and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament, and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it.
But 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 towards the possibilities of peace, towards the Soviet Union, towards the course of the Cold War and towards 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.”
Five months after this speech, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed in his presidential motorcade, during a trip that partially served to launch his 1964 reelection campaign.[119] His wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, Texas Governor, John Connoly, and Connoly’s wife, Nellie, were in the limousine with him when he was shot.
The Warren Commission, established to investigate his murder, concluded that he was killed by a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was a former Marine who allegedly defected to the Soviet Union. In the U.S.S.R., he was indoctrinated by Communists and sent to assassinate JFK.
The Warren Commission determined that Oswald fired three shots from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository, from above and behind the president. The bullets were fired in 5.6 seconds with a Mannlicher–Carcano rifle.[120]
The first shot missed the president’s limousine completely. The third shot entered the right rear of the President’s head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front, causing a massive wound upon exit.[121]
The second shot entered the back of President Kennedy’s neck and exited the front of his neck. The bullet then proceeded through Governor Connoly’s back, pierced his lung, and destroyed four inches of the right fifth rib before exiting from the front of his chest.[122] The bullet then went into the back of Connoly’s right wrist, shattering the distal end of the radius. The bullet then exited from the front of his wrist before completing its journey in Connoly’s left thigh. The bullet later fell out of Connoly’s thigh, and was discovered on his stretcher at the hospital, in pristine condition.
Exhibit 14[123]
The carnage caused by the second bullet resulted in a total of seven wounds between President Kennedy and Governor Connoly. The second bullet’s unique flight path and impressive resilience earned it the nickname, “The Magic Bullet”.
The Warren Commission reported that Oswald ran down five flights of stairs at the Book Depository after he killed the President. 45 minutes later, Oswald shot and killed Dallas Police Officer, J.D. Tippit, before slipping into a movie theatre, where he was arrested for Tippit’s murder.[124] Oswald was then also charged with assassinating Kennedy.
Oswald denied killing the President, engaging in this famous exchange with the press after his arrest:[125]
Lee Harvey Oswald: “I’d like some legal representation. These police officers have not allowed me to have any. I don’t know what this is all about.”
Reporter: “Did you kill the president?”
Oswald: “No sir, I didn’t. People keep asking me that. Sir?”
Reporter: “Did you shoot the president?”
Oswald: “I work in that building.”
Reporter: “Were you in the building at the time?”
Oswald: “Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.”
Reporter: “Did you shoot the president?”
Oswald: “No, they’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy!”
Reporter: “Did you shoot the president!?”
Two days later, Lee Harvey Oswald was killed by another lone gunman. The murderer this time was a local nightclub owner named Jack Ruby.[126] Oswald’s assassination took place on live television in the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters.
Ruby was immediately arrested, found guilty of the murder, and sentenced to death. Ruby appealed the conviction and was to be granted a new trial. However, he became ill and died in captivity from a pulmonary embolism, three years after the Kennedy & Oswald assassinations.
John F. Kennedy was taken from our world on that fateful day in November 1963. But he remains with us in spirit. JFK’s vision for world peace was carried on by his brother Robert, and by many others over the generations to come.
With that, we conclude our examination of RFK’s policies towards military intervention and the Vietnam War. We now move into the second sector of comparison between Joe Biden Jr. and RFK Jr. - fighting corruption and organized crime - as we look to understand which politician embodies the RFK of our generation.
How do you think the Big Guy is going to shake out on this one?
[1] “Kennedy family members clearly endorse Joe Biden over spoiler RFK Jr.” @Laurieluvsmolly. X. April 19, 2024. Accessed May 24, 2024. https://x.com/Laurieluvsmolly/status/1781395549544980581/video/1
[2] Moore, Elena. “The Kennedys endorse Biden, not their family member RFK Jr.”. NPR. April 18, 2024. Accessed May 25, 2204. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/18/1245530551/kennedy-family-endorse-biden-not-rfk
[3] “RFK Jr.'s sister says a vote for him is 'dangerous.' Here's why”. CNN. March 26, 2024. Accessed May 25, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/26/rory-robert-f-kennedy-jr-presidential-run-biden-ebof-vpx.cnn
[4] “1968 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 25, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_New_Hampshire_Democratic_presidential_primary
[5] “From the archives: Robert F. Kennedy launches 1968 presidential campaign”. CBS News. March 16, 1968. Accessed May 25, 2024.
[6] Ibid
[7] “How unpopular is Joe Biden?”. Project 538. May 24, 2024. Accessed May 25, 2024. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
[8] “L.B.J.” Hair: Original Soundtrack. 1979. Accessed May 25, 2024.
[9] Bristow, David. “Robert Kennedy and the 1968 Nebraska campaign trail”. History Nebraska. Accessed May 25, 2024. https://history.nebraska.gov/robert-kennedy-and-the-1968-nebraska-campaign-trail/
[10] Ibid
[11] “President Johnson's Address to the Nation, 3/31/68. WHCA VTR 242-A”. YouTube. March 31, 1968. Posted May 24, 2012. Accessed May 25, 2024.
[12] Dallek, Matthew. “LBJ Announced He Wouldn’t Run Again. Political Chaos Ensued.” History. March 30, 2018. Accessed May 25, 2024. https://www.history.com/news/lbj-exit-1968-presidential-race
[13] Ibid
[14] Bristow, David. “Robert Kennedy and the 1968 Nebraska campaign trail”. History Nebraska. Accessed May 25, 2024. https://history.nebraska.gov/robert-kennedy-and-the-1968-nebraska-campaign-trail/
[15] “1968 Democratic Party presidential primaries”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
[16] “RFK -Part 1 last speech Ambassador Hotel”. YouTube. June 4, 1968. Accessed May 25, 2024.
[17] “RFK part 2 Last Speech Ambassador Hotel”. YouTube. June 4, 1968. Accessed May 25, 2024.
[18] “George McGovern”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern
[19] “1968 Democratic National Convention”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention
[20] “1968 Democratic Party presidential primaries”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
[21] Taylor, David & Sam Morris. “The whole world is watching.” The Guardian. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2018/aug/19/the-whole-world-is-watching-chicago-police-riot-vietnam-war-regan
[22] 1968 Democratic National Convention”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention
[23] “The Trial of the Chicago 7”. Wikipedia. Accessed July 3, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_the_Chicago_7
[24] “1968 United States presidential election”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election
[25] Ibid
[26] “War on drugs”. Wikipedia. Accessed July 3, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
[27] Ibid
[28] Baum, Dan. “Legalized It All: How to Win the War on Drugs”. Harper’s Magazine. Accessed July 24, 2022. https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
[29] “Sirhan Sirhan.” Wikipedia. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan
[30] Russell, Dick. The Real RFK Jr.: Trials of a Truth Warrior. Skyhorse Publishing: New York, 2023.
[31] Ibid
[32] Ibid
[33] Ibid
[34] Ibid
[35] Ibid
[36] Ibid
[37] Hubler, Shawn. “Sirhan Sirhan Is Denied Parole as Newsom Rejects Board’s Recommendation”. The New York Times. Januare 13, 2022. Accessed July 3, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/sirhan-sirhan-denied-parole.html
[38] “Scathing letter from my attorneys holds Secretary Mayorkas responsible for consequences of his politically motivated, petty, and vindictive denial of Secret Service protection for my campaign.”. @RobertKennedyJr. X. April 3, 2024. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1775566812257677639
[39] Bond, Paul. “RFK Jr. Again Denied Secret Service Protection, Threatens Legal Action”. Newsweek. April 10, 2024. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://www.newsweek.com/rfk-jr-again-denied-secret-service-protection-threatens-legal-action-1889108
[40] “Robert F. Kennedy was shot 56 years ago today”. @Holden_Culotta. X. June 5, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://x.com/Holden_Culotta/status/1798393629301510362
[41] “Edward M. Kennedy - Eulogy for Robert F. Kennedy”. YouTube. June 8, 1968. Posted May 4, 2011. Accessed May 25, 2024.
[42] “Vietnam War”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#cite_note-:3-84
[43] “The OSS in Vietnam, 1945: A War of Missed Opportunities by Dixee Bartholomew-Feis”. WWII National Museum. July 15, 2020. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/oss-vietnam-1945-dixee-bartholomew-feis
[44] “The Vietnam War: Seeds of Conflict 1946 – 1960”. The History Place. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20230312070611/http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html
[45] Ibid
[46] “Daniel Sheehan - 5-24-2016 “. Rulers of the Realm. Romero Institute. YouTube. May 24, 2016. Accessed May 28, 2024.
[47] Ibid
[48] Ibid
[49] “This Day in History”. History. May 12, 1961. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lyndon-b-johnson-visits-south-vietnam
[50] Lungariello, Mark. “George W. Bush calls Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky the ‘Winston Churchill of our time’”. New York Post. May 5, 2022. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/george-w-bush-zelensky-is-the-winston-churchill-of-our-time/
[51] “The Vietnam War: America Commits: 1961-1964”. The History Place. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20230312070617/http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html
[52] Ibid
[53] Ibid
[54] “First inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_Lyndon_B._Johnson#/media/File:Lyndon_B._Johnson_taking_the_oath_of_office,_November_1963.jpg
[55] Caro, Robert. “The Transition”. The New Yorker. March 26, 2012. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/02/the-transition-kennedy-assassination-lbj
[56] “NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDA [NSAM]: NSAM 263, SOUTH VIETNAM”. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. October 11, 1963. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfknsf-342-007#?image_identifier=JFKNSF-342-007-p0001
[57] Sheehan, Daniel. “Rulers of the Realm - JFK, Cuba and the CIA”. UC Santa Cruz. May 5, 2016. Accessed May 29, 2024.
[58] Ibid
[59] “Robert F. Kennedy”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy#cite_note-Thomas,_p._293-215
[60] “JFK & RFK Convention Speeches at the 1960 and 1964 DNC's”. YouTube. August 27, 1964. Accessed May 29, 2024.
[61] Dolan, Richard. “False Flags: Season 1: Episode 7”. 2017. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://www.gaia.com/video/false-flags-and-regime-change?fullplayer=feature
[62] Ibid
[63] Ibid
[64] Ibid
[65] Ibid
[66] “The Vietnam War: America Commits: 1961-1964”. The History Place. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20230312070617/http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html
[67] Shane, Scott. “Vietnam Study, CastingDoubts, Remains Secret”. The New York Times. October 31, 2005. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/politics/vietnam-study-castingdoubts-remains-secret.html?searchResultPosition=1
[68] “The Vietnam War: America Commits: 1961-1964”. The History Place. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20230312070617/http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html
[69] Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam: A History. Penguin Books, New York: 1983.
[70] “The Vietnam War: America Commits: 1961-1964”. The History Place. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20230312070617/http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html
[71] “Robert F. Kennedy”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy#cite_note-Thomas,_p._293-215
[72] Ibid
[73] “Excerpts From Kennedy's Statement Urging Vietnam Accord”. The New York Times. February 20, 1966. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1966/02/20/121710135.html?pageNumber=2
[74] “1966: Surging Popularity for Kennedy”. International Herald Tribune. August 23, 1966. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://archive.nytimes.com/iht-retrospective.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/22/1966-surging-popularity-for-kennedy/
[75] “1967: Kennedy’s Plan: Quit Bombing, Negotiate Now”. International Herald Tribune. March 2, 1967. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://archive.nytimes.com/iht-retrospective.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/1967-kennedys-plan-quit-bombing-negotiate-now/
[76] Ibid
[77] “MLK: "Beyond Vietnam" Speech (April 4, 1967)”. YouTube. April 4, 1967. Accessed May 30, 2024.
[78] “From the archives: Robert F. Kennedy on "Face the Nation" in 1967”. Face the Nation. YouTube. November 26, 1967. Accessed May 29, 2024.
[79] “ROBERT F. KENNEDY SAYS VIETNAM WAR CANNOT BE WON”. Alpha History. February 1968. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://alphahistory.com/vietnamwar/robert-f-kennedy-war-cannot-be-won-1968/
[80] “The Vietnam War: The Jungle War 1965 - 1968”. The History Place. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20230312070617/http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1965.html
[81] “The Vietnam War: The Bitter End 1969 - 1975”. The History Place. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20230312070617/http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1965.html
[82] Ibid
[83] Lewy, Guenter (1978). America in Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press, pages 442–453
[84] “List of wars involving the United States”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 31, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#21st-century_wars
[85] “Joe Biden”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 31, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
[86] Ibid
[87] “Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden,” Council on Foreign Relations. January 2018. Accessed May 31, 2024. https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden
[88] “Victoria Nuland”. Wikipedia. Accessed May 31, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland
[89] “Ep. 37 – Glenn Greenwald.” @TuckerCarlson. November 7, 2023. Accessed May 31, 2024. https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1722034150595522695?t=445
[90] “President Bush Speech on Drugs/Democratic Response on Drug Strategy by Senator Biden”. US National Archives. YouTube. 1989. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[91] “Watch Biden's Comments On Afghanistan Over 20 Years Of War”. NBC News. YouTube. August 21, 2021. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[92] “Republicans attack Biden's defense of Afghan pullout”. Reuters. September 29, 2021. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[93] “Joe Biden crumbles under questioning about US withdrawal from Afghanistan”. The Telegraph. YouTube. August 27, 2021. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[94] “Marine recalls Kabul airport suicide bombing”. Washington Post. YouTube. March 8, 2023. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[95] ““Worth the Price?” New Film Shows How Biden Played Leading Role in Push for U.S. to Invade Iraq”. Democracy Now! YouTube. February 18, 2020. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[96] “The Case Against Joe Biden: How the Former VP Fueled Mass Incarceration and Protected Big Banks”. Democracy Now! YouTube. March 15, 2019. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[97] Dolan, Richard. “Season 1: Episode 9”. False Flags. Gaia Streaming. 2017. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://www.gaia.com/video/unraveling-911?fullplayer=feature
[98] McCullagh, Declan. “Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record”. CNET. August 24, 2008. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-voting-record/
[99] “VIDEO CLIP - Joe Biden "My message to unvaccinated Americans is this" “. @MakisMD. X. September 4, 2023. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://x.com/MakisMD/status/1698844368315326891
[100] “Remember when they tried to gaslight us into believing there was a pandemic of the unvaccinated??”. @StephanieStarrC. X. March 2, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://x.com/StephanieStarrC/status/1763989067555889237
[101] “Chris Cuomo vs. Dave Smith Debate: COVID-19, Mandates & Trump’s Guilty Verdict: Ep 419”. PBD Podcast. June 1, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[102] “WATCH LIVE: Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr. speaks at Libertarian Party conference”. PBS NewsHour. YouTube. May 24, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[103] “Portman Presses Secretary Blinken on Nord Stream II, U.S. Support for Ukraine”. Senator Rob Portman. YouTube. June 8, 2021. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[104] “Russia unleashes brutal military assault on Ukraine | WNT”. ABC News. YouTube. February 24, 2022. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[105] “Vice President Kamala Harris on the Munich Security Conference”. C-SPAN. February 20, 2022. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://www.c-span.org/video/?518091-1/vice-president-kamala-harris-munich-security-conference
[106] “LIVE: Tucker Carlson, Takes Part in World Government Summit at What’s Next for Storytelling? | IN18L.” YouTube. February 12, 2024. Accessed June 4, 2024.
[107] “Jeffrey Sachs with probably the smartest and most accurate assessment of the Ukraine war, and American foreign policy more broadly, ever caught on tape.”. @TuckerCarlson. X. May 28, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1795500379578253729
[108] “President Biden on Nord Stream 2 Pipeline if Russia Invades Ukraine: "We will bring an end to it.". C-SPAN. YouTube. February 7, 2022. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[109] “Hearing on Countering Russian Aggression”. C-SPAN. January 26, 2023. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://www.c-span.org/video/?525542-1/hearing-countering-russian-aggression
[110] “Watters: The connection between Russia and Ukraine’s biolabs.” Fox News. March 9, 2022. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://www.foxnews.com/video/6300171637001
[111] “Col. Douglas Macgregor – Ep. 283.” PBD Podcast. June 2023. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[112] “Biden speaks after Senate passes aid for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and TikTok bill — 4/24/2024”. CNBC. YouTube. April 24, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[113] Kulakevich, Tatsiana. “Senate approves nearly $61B of Ukraine foreign aid − here’s why it helps the US to keep funding Ukraine”. Yahoo! News. April 24, 2024. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-approves-nearly-61b-ukraine-122515786.html
[114] “Legendary Speech Robert Kennedy Jr. in Berlin 2020”. YouTube. August 29, 2020. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[115] “JFK 50 Year Commemorative Edition | Ich Bin Ein Berliner | Warner Bros. Entertainment”. Warner Bros. Entertainment. YouTube. June 26, 1963. Accessed June 8, 2024
[116] “LIVE: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. expected to announce presidential run”. Reuters. YouTube. April 19, 2023. Accessed June 5, 2024.
[117] “RFK Jr. on Cuban Missile Crisis and JFK | Robert F Kennedy Jr and Lex Fridman”. Lex Clips. YouTube. July 8, 2023.
[118] “President John F. Kennedy's "Peace Speech"”. C-Span. YouTube. American University, Washinton D.C.: June 10, 1963. Accessed June 7, 2024.
[119] "Assassination of John F. Kennedy”. Wikipedia. June 7, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
[120] Ibid
[121] “JFK Assassination Records”. National Archives. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html#struck
[122] Stone, Oliver (dir.). “JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass”. Amazon Prime Streaming. 2021. https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Revisited-Through-Looking-Glass/dp/B09LHL2HQP/
[123] “Kennedy stretcher bullet in vial”. NIST.gov. Accessed July 4, 2024. https://www.nist.gov/image/kennedy-stretcher-bullet-vial
[124] “Lee Harvey Oswald”. Wikipedia. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald
[125] “LEE HARVEY OSWALD DECLARES "I'M JUST A PATSY"”. YouTube. September 1, 2013. June 7, 2024.
[126] “Jack Ruby”. Wikipedia. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby#