I see you asked more. Let me attempt your second question.
"Why would Moynihan go far, far out of his way to sabotage the Nixon administration which not only treated him well, but pretty much aligned with his "benign neglect" viewpoint."
This is a big topic which involves many concepts, including The Mole Hunt alleged to be high in the CIA…
I see you asked more. Let me attempt your second question.
"Why would Moynihan go far, far out of his way to sabotage the Nixon administration which not only treated him well, but pretty much aligned with his "benign neglect" viewpoint."
This is a big topic which involves many concepts, including The Mole Hunt alleged to be high in the CIA, Moynihan's role as the architect if you like of steering the US government during the Cold War, in what you might call Hegelian Dialectics.
I'd suggest focus n the facts first, and the logistical realities to determine whether the claim -- my claim -- can in fact be valid, and get to the motivations and larger political purposes later, or let them simply fall into place. When you get enough facts that's what happens. It's easy to get tripped up by digging too early into motivation and philosophy based on perceived understandings.
That's not meant as a cop-out and I will understand if that's unsatisfactory but I haven't had enough coffee this morning for starters and it's again a big topic that isn't especially suited for this format. That said, to the extent you and I and others continue here, i will attempt to get pieces in where I can. I would also suggest reading my comments over here:
I see you asked more. Let me attempt your second question.
"Why would Moynihan go far, far out of his way to sabotage the Nixon administration which not only treated him well, but pretty much aligned with his "benign neglect" viewpoint."
This is a big topic which involves many concepts, including The Mole Hunt alleged to be high in the CIA, Moynihan's role as the architect if you like of steering the US government during the Cold War, in what you might call Hegelian Dialectics.
I'd suggest focus n the facts first, and the logistical realities to determine whether the claim -- my claim -- can in fact be valid, and get to the motivations and larger political purposes later, or let them simply fall into place. When you get enough facts that's what happens. It's easy to get tripped up by digging too early into motivation and philosophy based on perceived understandings.
That's not meant as a cop-out and I will understand if that's unsatisfactory but I haven't had enough coffee this morning for starters and it's again a big topic that isn't especially suited for this format. That said, to the extent you and I and others continue here, i will attempt to get pieces in where I can. I would also suggest reading my comments over here:
https://www.stonecoldtruth.com/p/nixon-threatened-to-reveal-the-cias?utm_campaign=reaction&utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack&utm_content=post
A lot has already been laid out there.
https://substack.com/@mattcloud/note/c-70075890