I’m pleased to announce the publication of my first ebook, CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files, on June 10.
I wanted to let JFK Facts readers know first because you have inspired me to keep after this subject. The clash of ideas that takes place on this site is a reminder that there are lots (and lots) of people who care about the JFK story and care about getting it right.
Jacob Hornberger, the publisher and I, chose to publish the book on the June 10, 2016 to coincide with President Kennedy speech at American University on June 10, 1963, in which JFK articulated a “strategy for peace.” JFK’s refusal to invade Cuba, his restraint in Vietnam, his determination to ratify a nuclear test ban strategy were all expressions of this strategy. And this strategy earned him enemies in the CIA.
So we publish this book with the intention of piercing the veil of official secrecy that still enshrouds the actions of certain of JFK’s enemies in 1963.
You can pre-order the book now: CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files.
Tweet with #jfk2017
Robert McNamara and Lyndon B Johnson on Vietnam – Fog of War https://youtu.be/myWfWk1IQrw
LBJ’s criticism of the JFK/McNamara stand on Vietnam truly shows how ineffective he was as VP. Sitting on his hands with no substantive opinions to be offered during various crises.
David Regan
May 29, 2016 at 2:33 pm
“Robert McNamara and Lyndon B Johnson on Vietnam – Fog of War https://youtu.be/myWfWk1IQrw”
David, I once tried to watch the Fog of War. I hate McNamara to begin with and I couldn’t watch his lies. I didn’t make it through the thing.
“LBJ’s criticism of the JFK/McNamara stand on Vietnam truly shows how ineffective he was as VP. Sitting on his hands with no substantive opinions to be offered during various crises.”
I don’t think this is fair, David. LBJ set on his hands because Bobby made it that way. Johnson could have been a tremendous asset to the Kennedy boys in getting their bills through Congress but he was kept out of the loop. LBJ was strongly against overthrowing Diem. When in the Senate he helped put the damper on the US helping the French at Dien Bien Phu, especially with the nukes some wanted to use.
The cult of ignorance in the United States: Anti-intellectualism and the “dumbing down” of America
Ray Williams
psychologytoday.com
Sat, 07 Jun 2014 14:57 UTC
© reddit.com
There is a growing and disturbing trend of anti-intellectual elitism in American culture. It’s the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility.
Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason, says in an article in the Washington Post, “Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture; a disjunction between Americans’ rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.”
There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries. Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, describes how the vast underlying foundations of anti-elite, anti-reason and anti-science have been infused into America’s political and social fabric. Famous science fiction writer Isaac Asimov once said:
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Mark Bauerlein, in his book, The Dumbest Generation, reveals how a whole generation of youth is being dumbed down by their aversion to reading anything of substance and their addiction to digital “crap” via social media…
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america
\\][//
I posted a reference to this without a link on a recent thread, and just found the link and exact quote:
He [JFK] was searching for a way to relieve the ambassador [Henry Cabot Lodge] of his duties and to gradually diminish the U.S. presence in Vietnam. JFK had scheduled a White House meeting on this subject for Monday morning, November 25.”~Jackie Kennedy
http://carlanthonyonline.com/2013/11/22/a-second-jfk-term-jackie-kennedys-notes-on-what-was-planned/
\\][//
As far as new information becoming available, and whether it will really make any difference; Fletcher Prouty had this to say back in 1992.
It may sound cynical, but I don’t see the situation as being any different today as it was back then…
“I was doing a TV show to Australia, live, night before last. And there was a man from Los Angeles talking about the subject [JFK and Vietnam], and, my word he hadn’t even read this stuff. At the end of the show the man from Australia–the host of the show–asked me, “What do think is going to be the value of opening the files with respect to the Kennedy murder?” And I said, “Well I can’t see it being worth a darn. Here we are listening to people who haven’t even cracked the books that are opened, and if they have, they don’t understand what’s in them. I don’t see that this will make a damn bit of difference. If people aren’t going to read books that are available, why talk about reading books that aren’t available?” This is the key to the subject if people don’t read the stuff–now you’ve got this, you can see that 263 is all spelled out. All of the meetings that were held–there were over 50 meetings held before NSAM 263 was published. Well, here are these clowns that are professors in college, important writers in big magazines, and they haven’t even read this stuff.”~Fletcher Prouty – 1992
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FRUSintro.html
\\][//
I looked for a picture I’ve seen using “Kennedy Diem assassination pictures”. It’s of JFK grieving after/as he receives the news of the assassination.
This is what I got.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=kennedy+diem+assassination+picture&view=detailv2&qpvt=kennedy+diem+assassination+picture&id=0A6E2E3D506AAFF734FF5DF2F196FBE41C04A623&selectedIndex=9&ccid=dwtjZmBz&simid=608043799616160720&thid=OIP.M770b6366607320a68cae205309143991o0&ajaxhist=0
Poor communication from Henry Cabot Lodge to the point of being unavailable to take the Presidents calls suggests HCL was more responsible for Diem’s demise, especially when HCL made no effort to conceal his intention to run against JFK in 1964.
Yeah..isn’t that the Forrestal maneuver..?
Exactly! Waited until JFK was out of town. Averill Harriman’s mitts were all over it, too.
Phd
May 23, 2016 at 8:45 pm
“Exactly! Waited until JFK was out of town. Averill Harriman’s mitts were all over it, too.”
As were the mitts of Forrestal and Hilsman. Monday morning Taylor and McNamara were mad as hell.
One argument the Warrenistas can never defeat is the FACT that there were no military personnel in Vietnam there under any auspices but that of ‘Advisers’.
\\][//
Willy, they may have been called ” advisors”, but USMC HMM 362 deployed to Soc Trang 15 APR 62. Their mission was to transport and resupply ARVN units in the Mekong Delta.Their first combat mission occurred 22APR62. They were not involved in anything but direct logistical support even under combat conditions. The squadron had no ” advising” mission”.
The Americans killed at Ap Bac were active participants in a battle no matter what their official designation was.
“He had 3 years to get out…why didn’t he?(JFK)” – Photon.
JFK was a masterful politician. He recognized the rise of the Birchers and the extreme right in ’63. That’s why he was in Texas. He fully expected to be running against Goldwater in ’64. He knew any perceived flinching from the “global communist menace” would be handing a campaign weapon to his opponents.
But he was an anti-colonialist in the Senate in the ’50’s and, unlike Nixon, opposed aiding the French after Dien Bien Phu. It is simply inconceivable that he would have acted like LBJ and committed half a million men to that misadventure.
He also stopped relying on his in-country reports and began reading the NYT stories from Halberstam and Sheehan for the facts on the ground.
And, BTW, I spelled Walter’s last name as “Cronkheit” from a habit acquired from my German professor after four years. “Krankheit,” as you probably know, means “illness” in German. A hospital is a “krankenhaus.” I am surprised a self proclaimed physician does not know that much German.
ed connor
May 28, 2016 at 4:22 pm
“He had 3 years to get out…why didn’t he?(JFK)” – Photon.
“He also stopped relying on his in-country reports and began reading the NYT stories from Halberstam and Sheehan for the facts on the ground.”
Gee Ed, JFK called in the editor of the Times and requested he remove Halberstam from Vietnam. But this didn’t happen. The paper said no.
Photon
May 26, 2016 at 8:59 am
“Willy, they may have been called ” advisors”, but USMC HMM 362 deployed to Soc Trang 15 APR 62.”
“The Americans killed at Ap Bac were active participants in a battle no matter what their official designation was.”
Good post. This “they were just advisors” is particularly silly and indicates a lack of knowledge of the subject. Well said.
Ed, I appreciate your comment in regards to Cronkite, but apparently you didn’t know that his name Is DUTCH, not Deutsch. Douglas Brinkley discusses the Cronkite family history in his recent biography. The Dutch folks that I know do not talk kindly to being considered Germans.
Aber, das ist Schade. Ihr, Dr.( med) Photon.
Vietnam: A Television History; America’s Mandarin (1954 – 1963); Interview with Roger Hilsman, 1981
05/11/1981
Roger Hilsman worked in the Kennedy Administration, first as director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research and then as the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs. He was criticized for drafting a cable on behalf of President Kennedy to the American Ambassador to South Vietnam instructing the Ambassador to give direct support to the opponents of President Ngo Dinh Diem. He describes the Kennedy White House as youthful and confident but shaken when Soviet Premier Khrushchev announced his support for insurgencies around the world. He says this announcement paved the way for the US counterinsurgency operations in Vietnam. Hilsman says he tried to convince Kennedy that the way to fight guerillas was with guerillas themselves. He also recounts Kennedys distaste for sending American troops into Vietnam. He describes meeting with South Vietnamese leadership in the early 1960s, the mixed signals they received, and a lack of political support for their policies. He says Kennedy was desperate to get America out of Vietnam.”
http://everything.explained.today/Roger_Hilsman/
\\][//
Then why didn’t he? He had 3 years to get out, yet he expanded the American involvement in the war by several factors
Photon,
Did you even listen to the Hilsman interview?
I doubt it. You simply read my comment and shot another blank from the hip.
Didn’t you? admit it. Because if you had actually listened to the words of Hilsman, you would understand the complexity of Kennedy’s situation in his confrontation with the military leadership.
\\][//
Please explain Jordan, many here have never heard of Forrestal. Some might think he’s CIA or Cuban or something.
What a search will reveal now days.
https://solari.com/blog/president-john-f-kennedy-visits-grave-of-lieutenant-james-forrestal/
Then here’s the official story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Forrestal
Michael V Forrestal senior NSC member. page 467 Robert Kennedy : Brother Protector google book results page 467.
Jackie Kennedy wrote in a letter to her daughter that JFK was going to fire Henry Cabot Lodge as soon as he returned from their Dallas trip.
The link to this info is in a former thread here, that I did not save to my personal files.
\\][//
” JFK’s refusal to invade Cuba” except that JFK actually DID invade Cuba in 1961!
” his restraint in Vietnam” which included increasing the number of American military personnel from next-to-nothing to over 16,000 by the time he died; sending Green Beret units into combat situations with orders to shoot if fired upon; helicopter units that were actively involved in combat missions while transporting ARVN troops, getting American service personnel killed at increasing rates during his Presidency; and finally pursuing regime change in Saigon leading to his successor inheriting a completely chaotic situation with revolving door governments incapable of pursuing a war against the NLF even to the level of Diem.
” his determination to ratify a nuclear test ban strategy …” The same treaty had been in the works since the Eisenhower administration, it was passed in large part because Krushchev felt that he had no further need for atmospheric testing and that the propaganda costs of radioactive fallout outweighed any data collection from atmospheric tests. It didn’t stop nuclear testing. As the U.S. was more advanced at underground testing it was actually advantageous to American nuclear superiority ; it was only after Soviet scientists felt confident in their own program that the treaty moved forward even in its limited state-not due to any special expertise from JFK.
Again, a JFK assassination narrative propelled not by physical facts, but by the political views of JFK-views that the simple statements above reveal to be flawed, oversimplified and speculative.
Photon, your indignation seems contrived. Who do you expect your receptive readers are?
CIA Agent E. Howard Hunt admitting composing fraudulent cables
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1928&dat=19730510&id=UJQgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8mcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2644,1611993&hl=en
May 10, 1973
continued…
William B Macomber was a “former” OSS guerilla in occupied France, CIA officer, high ranking aide to Bonesman US Senator and later WC’s John Sherman Cooper.:
Photon, you should use these details to influence an acceptance that you have no lock on anger and resentment. The sponsors of teamBush clearly “won” via any means
necessary, or the coincidences parallel a cosmic prank. If only Reagan had been your average 70 year old with only average resistance to gunshot wound. See: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13906&p=237202
I am not sure what you are driving at. JFK never ordered Diem’s execution, but he had to have known what the consequences of the coup would be.After previous coup attempts against Diem the unsuccessful plotters suffered unhappy outcomes-as the 1963 plotters were aware of. They could not afford to allow him or his brother to survive. As the Americans in Saigon were aware that Diem was exploring back channel contacts with the Communists they didn’t have a lot of sympathy for his position. If he didn’t realize that agreeing to the coup was Diem’s death warrant he was grossly negligent in considering the consequences.
I frankly do not care what Colson did trying to fake a message. JFK’s involvement in the coup is well documented and is beyond question.
The real question in regard to Vietnam is what would have happened if JFK had never given the ok for the coup-which never would have happened without US support.If Diem had stayed in power, cut a deal with the Communists, asked the US to leave-would the outcome have been any different except that 50,000 American lives would not have been lost, nor would over 500,000 been wounded?
“I am not sure what you are driving at. JFK never ordered Diem’s execution, but he had to have known what the consequences of the coup would be.”~Photon
Remarkable Photon! You don’t know what Tom is driving at??? He arrived to the destination he was driving at: The fact that there were certain parties that considered even Kennedy’s ghost so dangerous that they had to defame him__years after he was physically assassinated.
Going to these lengths when JFK was dead and buried are only a tiny indication of what sorts of propaganda was developed to defame him while he was alive. Why was Kennedy a danger to these parties (that to this very day still control the “government)? Because Kennedy was going to take their military industrial toys away and proceed with diplomatic efforts to achieve peace.
\\][//
“The fact that there were certain parties that considered even Kennedy’s ghost so dangerous that they had to defame him__years after he was physically assassinated.”
“Going to these lengths when JFK was dead and buried are only a tiny indication of what sorts of propaganda was developed to defame him while he was alive. Why was Kennedy a danger to these parties (that to this very day still control the “government)? Because Kennedy was going to take their military industrial toys away and proceed with diplomatic efforts to achieve peace.”
Amen. And the public-at-large knows very little about JFK’s pursuit of peace, but I think his good intentions somehow seep through. It ain’t just “glamour” and a tragic death that the American public keeps giving his presidency high ratings.
As my mother used to say about JFK, “It just seems that despite his privileged upbringing, he had the American people’s best interests at heart.”
It wasn’t JFK’s ghost that gave the OK for the coup against Diem.
He DID authorize it. Had it not happened the entire course of the war would have been different and the level of US involvement almost certainly would not have been as extensive as it was.
It was the stupidest decision of the Vietnam war and set the stage for expanded US involvement. In that way it is completely analogous to GWB involvement in Iraq, with 10 times the dead from a decision for regime change. A decision made by a President despite conflicting advice from the military men who would be responsible for cleaning up the mess.
Photon,
Despite all your bitching and moaning, it was NOT JFK that expanded the war in Vietnam. It was Johnson.
Kennedy was getting out. That has been made clear by the historical record.
\\][//
Willy, how do you square JFK’s support for a coup against the very man whose removal made increased American involvement inevitable if he was going to pull out?
How do explain JFK’s push to remove a leader who would have given him the pretext to withdraw-if he wanted to withdraw?
Are you claiming that JFK had nothing to do with the coup, had no knowledge of it and was totally ignorant of what the consequences would be?
If JFK wanted an excuse to get out all he had to do was leave Diem in power. With Diem’s excesses against the Buddhists and loss of public support he would have a ready made excuse for getting out.
If he wanted a more formal excuse he could have allowed Diem’s back door accommodations with the Communists to continue, which would have produced a demand from Diem or his successor to leave.
His support of the coup conclusively proves that he had no plans to withdraw.
“Willy, how do you square JFK’s support for a coup against the very man whose removal made increased American involvement inevitable if he was going to pull out?”~Photon
You have no proof that Diem’s removal made increased American involvement inevitable.
You post pure conjecture as though it were fact.
And as everyone here realizes your crystal ball is cracked and has run out of magic.
\\][//
No, “Photon,” the United States did not authorize or take part in the 1963 overthrow of Diem and his brother in law, Ngu. It was aware of the plot, and informed the plotters that it would not intervene.
The Diems and the Ngus were French Catholics in a Buddist majority country.
By the summer of 1963 the majority Buddists were fed up with the elites (sound familiar?) and began protests, including self immolations in Saigon. Madam Ngu went on shopping trips to Paris, and essentially told the press that the majority Buddists could “just eat cake.”
Diem’s regime was doomed, through no fault of the U.S. His ouster was welcomed at the White House, though JFK was quite shocked and upset that General “Big” Minh decided to execute the Diems.
That’s what really happened. Unless you believe in Chuck Colson’s fake cables. But then, you believe in Dale Myers’ fake cartoons…
So the November 5, 2003 John Prados review for the National Security Archive of George Washington University including referenced audio tapes of the comments of JFK, RFK and others specifically mentioning US involvement in the coup and what it’s aftermath might entail are fakes? Because if your version of events is true somebody else must be mimicking JFK and RFK on the tapes- they clearly were involved. The coup would never have taken place without JFK’s approval. The fact that nobody mentioned the probable fate of the Ngo brothers doesn’t mean they didn’t know what was going to happen-or should have known based on the situation in Saigon and the prior history of coup attempts on Diem.
Is Prados a liar?
I believe the sources that show Kennedy was shocked to learn Diem had been killed.
But you are right that the U.S. acquiesced in the coup.
Initially, the hope was that the new government would be able to better prosecute the war.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viet17.htm
Willy Whitten
May 22, 2016 at 3:17 pm
“Why was Kennedy a danger to these parties (that to this very day still control the “government)? Because Kennedy was going to take their military industrial toys away and proceed with diplomatic efforts to achieve peace.”
I fail to see, from his speech below, where he took any “toys away”. In fact he increased some toys. Do you have any concept of 5 new divisions? A 600% increase in Special Forces.
quote on.
“In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers
and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces which are
engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent. I hope those who want a
stronger America and place it on some signs will also place those figures next to it.” ——-John F. Kennedy, November 22, 1963.
Willy Whitten
May 23, 2016 at 1:13 pm
Photon,
“Despite all your bitching and moaning, it was NOT JFK that expanded the war in Vietnam. It was Johnson.”
“Kennedy was getting out. That has been made clear by the historical record.”
Great news Willy; you finally found the order from Jack to withdraw from Vietnam! Can we see it please?
‘Madam Ngu went on shopping trips to Paris, and essentially told the press that the majority Buddists could “just eat cake.”’ — ed connor
‘October, 1963: Dallas is not on the official itinerary of Mrs. Ngo Dinh Nhu, the vainglorious ‘First Lady’ of South Vietnam. She is scheduled to simply change planes at Love Field and continue on her American tour. But Madame Nhu has heard about the great American patriots in Dallas, and she is intrigued. She has also heard about something even more exciting: Neiman Marcus [in Dallas]. She orders a brief layover in Dallas. . . . General Walker and dozens of his followers are waiting to greet her . . . . –“Dallas 1963”, Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis
“Gen. Edwin Walker, 83, Is Dead; Promoted Rightist Causes in 60’s ‘ — Eric Pace, NYTimes
‘. . . The issue that led to General Walker’s resignation began in April 1961 when Overseas Weekly, a privately owned newspaper circulated among members of the armed forces overseas, accused the general of using an Army information program to subject his troops to “a propaganda barrage” that extolled the John Birch Society. General Walker was then commanding the 24th Infantry Division, based in West Germany.
The newspaper also reported that the general had publicly asserted that former President Harry S. Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt and former Secretary of State Dean Acheson were “definitely pink.”
The report attracted widespread attention, and President Kennedy ordered an investigation into the matter. The general was relieved of his command while the inquiry was conducted.
In June 1961, the Army said the investigation showed that the general’s information program was “not attributable to any program of the John Birch Society.” But it admonished the general “for taking injudicious actions and for making derogatory public statements about prominent Americans.”
He resigned on Nov. 2, 1961, contending that he “must be free from the power of little men who, in the name of my country, punish loyal service to it.”‘
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/02/obituaries/gen-edwin-walker-83-is-dead-promoted-rightist-causes-in-60-s.html
Re: David Young: ‘There was his “very privileged education”, then “tremendous exposure to American wealth with the Rockefellers”, and an exceptional four years at the White House.’
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Entrepreneurship_Centre/Docs/david-young.pdf
David Young’s father, born in Belfast, was employed by Texaco for 35 years . . . in 1968, David’s law firm seconded him to assist the Rockefeller family with legal maters and he met Henry Kissinger who was advising Nelson Rockefeller.
The aforementioned law firm? Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and MCCLOY.
http://a2z.my.wheaton.edu/notable-alumni/david-r–young–jr
[1984] A Classified Doctoral Thesis
Long before, Mr. Young had studied law at Queen’s College, Oxford, and it was to Queen’s that he returned to study for a doctorate. After seven years, he finished his thesis on policy- making in the White House and won his degree. The paper is kept under lock and key in the Bodleian Library on the ground that it contains sensitive classified information.
(Young’s thesis was released in 1989; The Presidential Conduct of American Foreign Policy 1969-1973)
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/17/business/oxford-dons-are-assets-to-nixon-era-plumber.html
” his restraint in Vietnam” which included increasing the number of American military personnel from next-to-nothing to over 16,000 by the time he died . . . ‘photon’
photon, apparently you consider yourself a military historian so I’m wondering why this question remains an elephant in the room of this specific discussion at jfkfacts.org. Can you provide documentation of the historical detail proving how the numbers of military personnel deployed to Vietnam, whether advisory or active combat, increased from approx. 700 when Eisenhower left office to over 16,500 in November, 1963? Did Kennedy inherit from Eisenhower’s military policy greater numbers than have been revealed? Was Kennedy advised on a monthly, quarterly basis of the increases? Where is that documentation? As Commander in Chief did Kennedy ever see the paperwork or was that left to subordinates who were sworn to take their orders from their CINC? Or did they provide Kennedy plausible deniability – the nuance and subtleties of his policies lead them to believe they could send 3,000 – 4000 at a time into Vietnam without raising Kennedy’s hackles? Or was it that after the fact, after Kennedy learned of the major increases that he could not expose the reality he had lost control of his military? Or was it a subtle build up, 300 one month, 800 the next and suddenly Kennedy was saddled with over 16,000 US personnel in Vietnam? Why is the documentation so elusive, even on the Kennedy Library site that directs the interested party to search the National Archives to determine whose signature was on these mass deployments?
Military history experts surely have the answers, and surely “photon”, you have access to sources that would satisfy these reasonable questions. Did Kennedy sign off on the major increases or did they occur right under his nose without his having direct knowledge?
I’m not asking your opinion, photon, I’m searching for leads to credible source material, and given your own exuberant claims I think you might be equipped to provide same.
Leslie, have you ever heard of the phrase ” The buck stops here”?
Are you claiming that JFK was so completely incompetent that he had no idea what was going on in Vietnam? That his recorded discussions mention in the Prados review never happened-everybody else made all of the decisions? Why would anybody need to kill JFK if he was so out of the loop?
I sometimes wonder if CTers want to think that JFK had no idea what was going on around him, as he seems to be totally innocent of any of the ” dirty tricks” and bad decisions carried out during his administration.
“Leslie, have you ever heard of the phrase ” The buck stops here”?”~Photon
Is that in the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
Have you ever heard of the phrase “covert operations” Photon?
The guy that said “the buck stops here,” was dreadfully sorry he ever gave the approval to the black op boys who carry out covert operations.
It is hardly “incompetent” to be the target of covert operations as Kennedy was as far as being kept out of the loop as far as the real skinny in Southeast Asia.
It was no different than the scam that CIA pulled on JFK with the Bay of Pigs, attempting to force his hand to launch a full scale US invasion to save the operation. It was DESIGNED to fail, for the sole purpose of forcing Kennedy into that corner.
Southeast Asia was a CIA led operation from the very beginning with Landsdale (posing as an Airforce colonel at the time at the helm). Many of the top officers in Vietnam were CIA cutouts, just like Landsdale.
You KNOW we have been over these details time and again Photon.
And I know that is why you reject Prouty and John Newman, because they have the inside scoop on all of this that you haven’t the chops to rebut.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
May 23, 2016 at 10:53 pm
“Have you ever heard of the phrase “covert operations” Photon?”
I immediately remembered your message which claimed Taylor ordered the buildup in SV and Jack never knew about it. I believe this to be one of your better ones at making me laugh. Thank you.
“And I know that is why you reject Prouty and John Newman, because they have the inside scoop on all of this that you haven’t the chops to rebut.”
My stock reply for Prouty lovers; if you aren’t sharp enough to spot Prouty as a flake and liar then you aren’t sharp enough to solve the assassination. Newman isn’t much better.
“…The most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent.
The great enemy of that tremendous force of freedom is called, for want of a more precise term, imperialism – and today that means Soviet imperialism and, whether we like it or not, and though they are not to be equated, Western imperialism.
Thus the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free.”~~John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1957
http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/congress/jfk020757_imperialism.html
\\][//
“Where is the documentation of the build up?”
I’m certainly not an expert on Vietnam, but there are documents online. Maybe you should start here:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01
Since there’s an index, it didn’t take long to find this message from JFK to Gen. Maxwell Taylor in Oct. 1961. In response to increased activity by the Vietcong, he told Taylor:
“…I should like you to evaluate what could be accomplished by the introduction of SEATO or United States forces into South Vietnam, determining the role, composition and probable disposition of such forces….”
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d157
Jean, I’m grateful for your generous gesture. As a haystack, I recognize immediately that the needles I’m looking for are most likely buried in these volumes that would require months of study. Having said that, a cursory examination of said indexes – your link to ’61 and then the “Vietnam, 1962” volume and the documents from January – August 1963 provide hints to answers to my particular questions.
The following impressed me as relevant: (and fwiw, the SEATO reference jumped off the page for me as well).
(Note: my analysis is so rudimentary I anticipate anyone with expertise on the subject of VN will dismiss it out of hand, but as an effort to engage said experts who participate here, it’s a start.)
Kennedy inherited the crisis from President Eisenhower, the Commander-in-Chief who after an 8 year term in office warned the nation that a military – industrial complex posed a threat to our own democracy. I’m not suggesting Eisenhower was ‘responsible’ for the crisis in VN, but obviously – intentionally or not – he was going to leave the mess to his incumbent.
“After a meeting in Hanoi on 13 Nov 1959, the Central Committee of the North Viet-Namese Communist Party publicly announced its intention “to smach” the government of President Diem.” https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/pg_93
April, 1961: The first task force on Vietnam under President Kennedy reported US presence and/or recommendations for increases as follows:
An increase to the existing 685 MAAG (Military Action Advisory Group) of 100 personnel; 1600 instructors for training in the high- plateau; 400 special forces training in Nhu Trang; Aerial surveillance; US civic action mobile training teams; Naval Forces & Junk Force border of Cambodia; plans for deployment on short notice for a Marine brigade & support troops to either Tourane or Nhu Trang.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/pg_108
So Kennedy was advised by the task force to authorize in excess of 2,100 additional military personnel before he had served four months in office. It is clear he did not withhold authorization and in fact by early 1962, according to the VietNam Task Force Final Report:
‘A military assistance command under General Harkins was established in February, 1962 to direct our increased operational and training activities in Viet-Nam. US military personnel in Viet-Nam have been increased to 9,069 to carry out our increased responsibilities.’
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v02/pg_494
So even if Kennedy had not been apprised on a monthly or quarterly basis of the increase in US personnel in VN, he knew the exact number by February, 1962.
(cont.)
(cont.)
The July 1, 1962, Final Report of the Viet Nam Task Force speaks to the advice and directives of the February report:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v02/pg_484
> ARVN forces increased requiring increase in support from UN Military Personnel
> Provide equipment and assistance in training for an increase in (GVN) armed forces from 170k to 200k.
> 11 Special Forces Teams in country
> Operation Farmgate 8-T-28’s, four C-47’s and four B-26’s provides instruction in and executive air-ground support
> small craft and advisors and Junk Patrol and portion of the 7th Fleet . . .
> DaNang under construction.
Kennedy may or may not have been given the exact numbers, but it’s clear from just these six items that the deployments were increasing and that he was being apprised.
However by January, ’63 we see that the policy was being reassessed and that a phase-down and phase-out plan was underway.
(cont.)
Memorandum From the Commander in Chief Pacific (Felt) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff . . . January 25, 1963
“Reassessment of US Policy”
‘Planned Phase-out of US Forces and Activities’
. “ . . . as indicated in the Enclosure 5, the phase-out of the US military special assistance is envisioned as generally occurring during the period July 1965-June 1966, with earlier phase-down (or phase-out where feasible) of US units and activities taking place concurrently as the RVNAF becomes sufficiently proficient and qualified to assume their functions.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v03/pg_35
and 4 months later:
“Memorandum for the Record of the Secretary of Defense Conference, Honolulu, May 6, 1963”
9) Action: The secretary {Def Sec McNamara} also stated that the phase out of US personnel as planned is too slow and that we should try to get US numbers down to a minimum earlier than FY’66.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v03/pg_44
Yet to be resolved: when were the additional 6,500+ personnel deployed if in fact Kennedy had ordered a phase-down as early as 1963? Did the build up continue beyond January, 1963, and can it be argued it was limited to ‘advisors and instructors and Marine and Air support’ who were intended to accelerate conditions to ensure the phase-out plan?
Imho, those 9,000 plus military personnel in Vietnam by the first quarter of 1962 are the direct responsibility of President Kennedy. Historians disagree I’m sure, but as a layperson I can’t read that report any other way. The other 6-7 thousand remain in question. What is not in question is Kennedy’s plan for complete withdrawal regardless of the controversy over the deadline. I think he pursued the razors edge between “dove” and a responsible Commander in Chief with remarkable shrewdness and with far more courage than displayed by former Commander Ike Eisenhower while he was in office.
Tom S.
May 31, 2016 at 2:08 am
“Again, all I can do is marvel about what the two of you could possibly be so worked up in reaction to…..”
I don’t think Jean and I are worked up. We’ve been fighting this battle for a long time. From the length of your reply you might be getting a bit worked up. I love to hear you guys get started on the bonesmen. It must not be much of a group; they let John Kerry in.
‘Are you claiming that JFK . . .’ — photon
Were you not so defensive you could read and consider the questions in good faith. They are logical. Where is the documentation of the build up? This is not a philosophical discussion, it is a practical one related to not simply numbers, but the names behind them, 16,000 plus Americans and who specifically deployed them to SE Asia – and yes, Kennedy would ultimately be responsible regardless of whether or not he was kept in the dark; most with an informed conscience and a grasp of the implications would consider that a pyrrhic victory.
I’m looking for precisely how the build up occurred; documents reflecting names, dates, numbers, authorization, signatures; short of that detail, a general understanding of the military procedures including how a Commander in Chief is kept apprised of such a build up would be a start, if you would be so generous.
Leslie, perhaps you are right. I guess that everything that happened in Vietnam from 1961- November 22, 1963 happened without JFK’s knowledge or authorization. The discussions that I referred to in the National Security Archive never took place. JFK never had an interview with Walter Cronkite specifically discussing Vietnam weeks before his assassination where he stated that he was against withdrawal. There is no record of the number of US military personnel in SVN in 1960,1961,1962,1963. JFK never authorized the deployment of hundreds of Green Berets to potential combat zones.
Diem never existed.
Photon, don’t mischaracterize JFK’s interview with Walter Cronkheit on 9/2/63.
What he said was:
“In the final analysis, it’s their war, to win it or lose it… we can provide equipment and advisers, as we are doing, but it’s their war. And, with the current regime, they don’t have the kind of popular support they will need to win it.”
The interview is available on YouTube: JFK+Cronkheit 9/2/63.
Photon, evidently I’m failing to phrase the questions to encourage serious answers from you; consequently this is taking on a tone of partisanship that I thought you vehemently eschew. I am not arguing Kennedy wasn’t involved, I’m looking for the documentation that he knew exactly what was going on.
Let’s try this angle: government bureaucracy insists on paper work does it not? Didn’t these 16,000 plus military need housing, sustenance, equipment etc so wouldn’t the general administration or some similar agency have to kick in with pushing that paper as the thousands were sent to SE Asia? Aren’t there records to indicate which branch of military was requiring that support and wouldn’t those requisitions reflect dates and signatures and from there one could research the chain of command? This is so fundamental, yet you are politicizing the questions. Now I’m beginning to suspect either you don’t have the answers or you are unwilling to be forthcoming with them. Tell me I’m wrong.
” I ‘m looking for the documentation that he actually knew what was going on.” That is an incredible statement. It can imply several things: a) Leslie believes that JFK was unaware of a military buildup that he ordered, b) Leslie believes that JFK was ignorant of the establishment of the MACV in Feb. of 1962., c) Leslie believes that the Pentagon Papers don’t exist, nor do any other scholarly works on the Vietnam war circa 1961-1964, d) Leslie can’t read.
I have seen some rather extreme CT positions implying JFK’s ignorance ( therefore innocence ) of uncomfortable positions or actions taken by his administration, but to imply that JFK didn’t know what was going on in Vietnam takes the cake-and that is exactly what Leslie is trying to do. She can’t believe that her concept of who and what JFK was could possibly be actually responsible for something bad. It is a historical blindness that allows CTers to believe virtually any claim about the intentions of JFK that seem politically palatable , while ignoring the documented realities and events that actually occurred during his watch. It gets to the heart of what I consider the CT narrative -that JFK was such an exceptional figure and great man that only a conspiracy could remove, a man so progressive that reactionary forces had to remove him, a man threatening the military industrial complex, the CIA, THEM and virtually anybody else considered reactionary.
That man is a myth.Therefore the logical certainty of a Conspiracy is also a myth. Leslie just proves the lengths to which that some CTers are willing to go to accept that myth. With others like DiEugenio it is willful attempt to deny incontrovertible evidence of JFK’s reckless sexual escapades-JFK as a myth is preferable to JFK the man.
Ed, who is Walter Cronkheit?
Why did you quote the part you found convenient, and omit this?
“But I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don’t like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away.”JFK To Cronkite, as posted by McAdams
This has been addressed here too many countless times, and here we are again in need of pondering the word “withdraw” and the context demanded of that term in this proximate proposal it is used in:
““In the final analysis, it’s their war, to win it or lose it… we can provide equipment and advisers, as we are doing, but it’s their war. And, with the current regime, they don’t have the kind of popular support they will need to win it.”
Returning to the term “withdraw” — withdrawal of all efforts? Or withdrawal of military personnel while remaining engaged diplomatically?
Considering it is KNOWN, not postulated, that Kennedy was determined to withdraw militarily from Southeast Asia; there is only on possible interpretation to Kennedy’s overall remarks to Cronkite.
\\][//
Amazing that some folks think they can make something true merely by capitalizing it.
So you are saying that when Kennedy said it would be a mistake to withdraw, he really meant he was going to withdraw.
‘ . . . but to imply that JFK didn’t know what was going on in Vietnam takes the cake-and that is exactly what Leslie is trying to do. She can’t believe that her concept of who and what JFK was could possibly be actually responsible for something bad. . . .’ — photon
Photon, there’s a bit of crow ready for you to eat:
leslie sharp
May 25, 2016 at 3:53 pm
leslie sharp
May 25, 2016 at 3:58 pm
https://jfkfacts.org/coming-soon-ebook-jfk-cia/#comments
Now why don’t you grow up and have a serious, good faith exchange on this site. And start by posting some links to the sources of your bombastic claims.
“So you are saying that when Kennedy said it would be a mistake to withdraw, he really meant he was going to withdraw.” — John McAdams
By January, ’63 the policy for VN was being reassessed and a phase-down and phase-out plan was underway.
“Memorandum From the Commander in Chief Pacific (Felt) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff” . . . January 25, 1963
“Reassessment of US Policy”
‘Planned Phase-out of US Forces and Activities’
. “ . . . as indicated in the Enclosure 5, the phase-out of the US military special assistance is envisioned as generally occurring during the period July 1965-June 1966, with earlier phase-down (or phase-out where feasible) of US units and activities taking place concurrently as the RVNAF becomes sufficiently proficient and qualified to assume their functions.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v03/pg_35
and 4 months later:
“Memorandum for the Record of the Secretary of Defense Conference, Honolulu, May 6, 1963”
9) Action: The secretary {Def Sec McNamara} also stated that the phase out of US personnel as planned is too slow and that we should try to get US numbers down to a minimum earlier than FY’66.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v03/pg_44
Willy Whitten
May 25, 2016 at 1:37 pm
“Considering it is KNOWN, not postulated, that Kennedy was determined to withdraw militarily from Southeast Asia;”
So, you finally found this order from Jack. Show it to me please. This is my second request to see this order Willy. Come on man. Let me see it.
“This is my second request to see this order Willy. Come on man. Let me see it.”~Bill Clarke
You have seen it Mr Clarke, you just don’t know what it means.
\\][//
Bill, Willy, this does not seem on topic and it is reasonable to note that you’ve both beaten it to death.:
https://jfkfacts.org/21772/
Leslie,
“By January, ’63 the policy for VN was being reassessed and a phase-down and phase-out plan was underway.”
But notice that the phase-out plan was always said to be contingent on the South Vietnamese being able to take over the fighting. See your quote, e.g.:
“…with earlier phase-down (or phase-out *where feasible*) of US units and activities taking place *concurrently as the RVNAF becomes sufficiently proficient and qualified to assume their functions.*
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v03/pg_35” [my emphasis]
Jean Davison
May 26, 2016 at 11:41 pm
Leslie,
“By January, ’63 the policy for VN was being reassessed and a phase-down and phase-out plan was underway.”
But notice that the phase-out plan was always said to be contingent on the South Vietnamese being able to take over the fighting. See your quote, e.g.:
They don’t care, Jean. They shine Camelot and the history can go to hell as far as they are concerned.
They neve mention the first paragraph of the order which deals with plans to help win the war. This is really the core of the order but they don’t like to speak of that.
They rush to the 2nd paragraph and claim it orders a complete withdrawal in 1965. Of course you and I know exactly what it says and it says nothing of the sort. I suppose Newman, Galbraith, DiEugenio, Willy and a host of others have read NSAM 263 but still make the claim that it calls for total withdrawal. Their dishonesty has always been shocking to me.
Jean, your document is from January 25th. 4 months later Kennedy’s Secretary of Defence McNamara stated that the phase out as planned is too slow and the target date had been moved to earlier than previously planned.
:“Memorandum for the Record of the Secretary of Defense Conference, Honolulu, May 6, 1963”
9) Action: The secretary {Def Sec McNamara} also stated that the phase out of US personnel as planned is too slow and that we should try to get US numbers down to a minimum earlier than FY’66.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v03/pg_44
This indicates that prior to the coup that ended in Diem’s death there was intent, a very serious intent to withdraw earlier than originally planned and leave only a minimum of US personnel. The situation became extremely fluid in the weeks before Kennedy’s assassination; for that reason alone I think NSAM 263 is a weak argument as highlighted by others on this is site – 1,000 personnel was an accounting exercise imho – and that this report from Honolulu in May, 1963 should be the cornerstone of defence of Kennedy’s real intentions had Diem not been murdered.
“They don’t care, Jean. They shine Camelot and the history can go to hell as far as they are concerned.” — Bill Clarke
Bill, my comment did not refer to the NSAM 263 but rather to the report from the meeting in May, 1963. Note my response to Jean Davison.
An on the contrary Bill, I do care and have little interest in promoting the idea of Camelot” at the expense of an accurate portrayal of events leading to 11.22.63. Tragic as the death of Kennedy the man was, the assassination targeted our democracy and those are the stakes involved in failing to expose the conspiracy. Determining whether or not Kennedy intended to withdraw from Vietnam is an aspect of that investigation as it speaks to motive.
“Jean, your document is from January 25th. 4 months later Kennedy’s Secretary of Defence McNamara stated that the phase out as planned is too slow and the target date had been moved to earlier than previously planned.”
Read the whole thing, Leslie. Sure, McNamara said that, but he still linked the “phase out” to SVN’s readiness to take over the fighting. The same May 6 document that says “too slow” says:
“The Secretary stated that we should have a plan for phasing out US personnel; as the situation improves we should phase down our effort…. He still desires that we lay down a plan to have the RVNAF take over some functions this year so that we can take out 1,000 or so personnel late this year if the situation allows….”
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v03/d107
This is the crucial element always left out by people who argue that NSAM 263 shows a plan to withdraw unconditionally. That document also clearly tied US withdrawal to SVN’s ability to take over the fighting.
Jean, with respect as I hope I have gained a bit with you, you’re parsing words and or meaning: In that same document McNamara is recorded as stating:
“Action: The Secretary stated that we should have a plan for phasing out US personnel; as the situation improves we should phase down our effort. This will be required if we are to get continued US support for our effort in Vietnam. The Secretary also stated that the last category of personnel he would take out would be advisors. He still desires that we lay down a plan to have the RVNAF take over some functions this year so that we can take out 1,000 or so personnel late this year if the situation allows. The Secretary repeated that we should lay down a plan to expedite training to get VN personnel to take over tasks being performed by US personnel. For instance, he asked why should we have US personnel flying Cessna 185’s?
How can you read this as anything other than McNamara stating for the record,‘’we are going to withdraw from Vietnam’?
Leslie,
Of course McNamara hoped it would be possible to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, but there were always a condition attached to that. Please look at it again:
“He still desires that we lay down a plan to have the RVNAF take over some functions this year so that we can take out 1,000 or so personnel late this year IF THE SITUATION ALLOWS. The Secretary repeated that we should lay down a plan to expedite training to get VN personnel to TAKE OVER TASKS being performed by US personnel.”
The withdrawal was contingent on the SVN military being ready to take over the fighting. That was always the stated condition to be met, even in NSAM 263.
Jean, the record insists that the INTENT was to withdraw. Yes, the conditions were fluid. NSAM 263 was drafted after the May, 1963 Honolulu conference and did not embody the clarity of that report because the dynamics of the government of South Vietnam was in crisis.
Are you saying that Kennedy did not intend to withdraw but was actually planning on escalation? Where is your evidence?
Leslie, the evidence is that he acquiesced to the Diem coup nearly 6 months after whatever plans were made in Honolulu .
That action ensured more American involvement in the war and political situation in Saigon.
To ignore the Diem coup is to ignore reality.
“Jean, the record insists that the INTENT was to withdraw. Yes, the conditions were fluid.”
I get the impression you aren’t hearing me, Leslie. The intent was to withdraw *as the South Vietnamese took over the fighting.* That particular condition was not “fluid.”
“NSAM 263 was drafted after the May, 1963 Honolulu conference and did not embody the clarity of that report because the dynamics of the government of South Vietnam was in crisis.”
Do you mean this report on the May Honolulu meeting, which says:
“3. The primary limiting factor affecting early withdrawal of U.S. special military assistance is the capability of RVN to provide sufficient personnel during FY 64-65 with required aptitudes for training as pilots, and technicians to operate and maintain equipment turned over to RVNAF.”
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v03/d121
“Are you saying that Kennedy did not intend to withdraw but was actually planning on escalation? Where is your evidence?”
Where did I suggest such I thing?! I didn’t.
Let me add, I’m glad to see you’re reading the actual records instead of someone’s interpretation of what they say. I wish more people would do that.
leslie sharp
May 27, 2016 at 11:53 am
“They don’t care, Jean. They shine Camelot and the history can go to hell as far as they are concerned.” — Bill Clarke
“Bill, my comment did not refer to the NSAM 263 but rather to the report from the meeting in May, 1963. Note my response to Jean Davison.”
“An on the contrary Bill, I do care and have little interest in promoting the idea of Camelot” at the expense of an accurate portrayal of events leading to 11.22.63.”
My apology. I certainly believe you do care. I was about to reply to you message above last night but a storm knocked out the electrical power until just a few minutes ago. So I’ll answer it now.
leslie sharp
May 27, 2016 at 11:41 am
“This indicates that prior to the coup that ended in Diem’s death there was intent, a very serious intent to withdraw earlier than originally planned and leave only a minimum of US personnel.”
That was from Hotdog McNamara. God he was a disaster. But I don’t think JFK was as concerned about the date as long as it got done. Here is his take on it at the NSC meeting to draft NSAM 263; “JFK: Well, let’s say it anyway. Then ’65 if it doesn’t work out {unclear] we’ll get a new date.” . http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/.
I believe 65 was always the target date but lord was they ever wrong.
“that reason alone I think NSAM 263 is a weak argument as highlighted by others on this is site ”
Well, since so many lie about what NSAM 263 says you might be correct here. If one reads it honestly I think it lays out JFK’s policy to a T. Keep in mind this was his last major message concerning Vietnam.
“– 1,000 personnel was an accounting exercise imho –”
They like to blame this on LBJ but it was a clear deal with JFK and McNamara. “This from http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm . The 1,000 men withdrawal.
President Kennedy: Otherwise we ought to just do it by rotation of.. [unclear].
McNamara: Or we can do it just through normal attrition…[unclear: normal rotation]
JFK: Yeah.
McNamara: Normal rotation.
“and that this report from Honolulu in May, 1963 should be the cornerstone of defence of Kennedy’s real intentions had Diem not been murdered.”
The ideal was to remove Diem from power, not kill him. I failed to see why his death made much difference. Many believe this was one of the biggest mistakes the US made in Vietnam. Even old Ho said he couldn’t believe the Americans could be so stupid.
3. The primary limiting factor affecting early withdrawal of U.S. special military assistance is the capability of RVN to provide sufficient personnel during FY 64-65 with required aptitudes for training as pilots, and technicians to operate and maintain equipment turned over to RVNAF.”
That was Item 3).
Item 9. records McNamara’s statement that withdrawal plans were moving “too slow …. ” (pls see my earlier reference). McNamara as Sec Def did not add the caveat you argue, at least in that action item, and states very clearly that the withdrawal must accelerate..
In that same May, ’63 report, there is specific reference to how certain equipment would be disposed of or handed over to the ARVN which suggests to me very serious plans were underway. The particular section makes no provision that “IF or When” the SVN military was capable, it discusses exactly how certain US equipment would either remain in country and be given over to them or sold to them. That sounds like the initial stages of serious withdrawal to me.
As simplistic as it sounds, could this debate be encapsulated in a glass half empty, half full permanent impasse? Were not so much at stake, including the service of those who were deployed under Kennedy’s watch, that might have been a prudent closure long ago.
“To ignore the Diem coup is to ignore reality.” — photon
Not only did I not ignore the Diem coup, I emphasized that because of it, the plans for withdrawal were complicated. I don’t however see that they were interrupted —- EXCEPT for the murder of the president in Dallas, November 22, 1963.
leslie sharp
May 28, 2016 at 12:09 am
“Jean, the record insists that the INTENT was to withdraw. Yes, the conditions were fluid. NSAM 263 was drafted after the May, 1963 Honolulu conference and did not embody the clarity of that report”
Oh I think it is clear as a bell. “2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time. It says “the bulk”, not all and it says “Should be possible to withdraw the bulk”. It doesn’t say ‘we will withdraw come way may” as the fool Newman claims.
It is so simple I find it hard to believe so many think they can get by with lying about what it says.
“Are you saying that Kennedy did not intend to withdraw but was actually planning on escalation? Where is your evidence?”
He planned on escalation by the South Vietnamese military. See paragraph 1, NSAM 263.
leslie sharp
May 27, 2016 at 9:25 pm
“How can you read this as anything other than McNamara stating for the record,‘’we are going to withdraw from Vietnam’?
Leslie, the record clearly states “it should be possible to withdraw THE BULK of our troops. There is a big difference in ALL and the BULK. McNamara even states that we will have 3,500 left in country after the draw down (Miller Center tapes). That would be about 20% of the force left in country. So no where do I see this total withdrawal so many speak of. Again, this could be due to a lack of knowledge or simply promoting their propaganda.
Bill, who do you take our readers for, idiots? You seem to argue merely for the sake of it….. Gilpatric was there,
serving as Assistant Secretary of Defense. You somehow know better than he did? He was no friend of the Kennedy’s.
He was a law partner of Luce’s brother-in-law, former Time, Inc. publisher, Maurice “Tex” Moore. Gilpatric was
a lifelong friend of the Rocekefeller brothers. His brother Chadbourne’s obit.: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/03/obituaries/chadbourne-gilpatric-foundation-aide-74.html
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm
Allied Troop Levels – Vietnam, 1960 To 1973
……
1968 – 536,100
Ten days ago.: https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-6/#comment-877070 :
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/Gilpatric-R/GilpatricR.PDF
Transcript, Roswell Gilpatric Oral History Interview I, 11/2/82, by Ted Gittinger
…..
RG: Yes, I think he wanted to get across to Diem and the South Vietnamese generals and the
whole government apparatus out there that the U.S. wasn’t going to take on what he
regarded as their problems. We would be in an accessory advisory role but we weren’t
going to become the principals. So far as I could perceive up until Kennedy’s death in
November, he never varied from that general attitude.
TG: Are you among those who say that Kennedy would never have escalated in the way that
Johnson did?
RG: Well, of course it’s a hypothetical question. No one will ever know. Based on my
exposure to the President’s views over that nearly three year period, I felt he was looking
for an opportunity to pull back and it would have been very hard to convince him to
reverse course. But what he would have done if he had been president at the time of the
Gulf of Tonkin incident, if that had occurred, I don’t know. No one can say what he
would have done, but my view is that consistent with everything he did do and said
before his death, he would have been very reluctant to involve ourselves to the extent that
the country did after President Johnson took over….
“Bill, who do you take our readers for, idiots? You seem to argue merely for the sake of it…..”
Really, Tom? Seriously?? What did he say that was incorrect?
You quote Roswell Kilpatric from 1982. He wasn’t the only official whose story changed dramatically after the war became a lost cause. Please take a look at what Kilpatric wrote in the NYT Magazine of 5/30/65, after he’d left the LBJ administration. He sounds like a typical domino-theory-believing cold warrior.
Among other things, he wrote: “As President Johnson has often pointed out, his policy is basically an extension of that pursued by his predecessors, Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy…”
His 1968 article also said that “our position in Asia” would be damaged by “a voluntary departure in the face of Vietcong terrorism. The only worse alternative would be a Dienbienphu defeat brought about by the failure of our arms.”
“Voluntary departure” was of course what he implied Kennedy was determined to do in his 1982 oral history.
I have no way to link to this article, but I’m sure you can find it if you want to, Tom. IMO, Bill is very well-informed on Vietnam.
Jean, is it not true that Bill emphasized that 3500 was certainly a great disparity from zero? Can you accept that my reaction to Bill’s emphasis was that,
considering Johnson escalated to a troop level beyond 500,000, that it was reasonable to ask Bill,
I think you only addressed what you considered the weakest supporting point in my comment. I don’t think you replied reasonably to the point I made directly to Bill. Bill was arguing unreasonably, all numbers considered, according to the history of the troop levels, which I supported with a link.
Gilpatric was politically savvy. He had held several D.O.D. related positions. He returned to his law practice shortly after the beginning of LBJ’s presidency. He had served under McNamara who was prosecuting the war and its escalation in 1965. What do you envision was reasonable at that time for Gilpatric to say publicly, aside from no comment? Do you really think what he said as the escalation of the war was getting off the ground, cancels the reliability of what he intended as his first person account for historical review? If he had spoken against the intensifying U.S. involvement in 1965, what do you suppose many who support that it was JFK’s war would have said about Gilpatric’s outspokenness?
I’ll be the first to admit it cannot be said with certainty that a President Kennedy not denied continued life would have avoided many of LBJ’s and McNamara’s tragic mistakes of war escalation and direct U.S. involvement. I also cannot rule out that he would have reduced U.S. troop levels to less than 4,000 by years end 1965. I find the insistence that he was not sincerely planning a withdrawal is motivated by political partisanship. Given all considerations, I cannot identify a more plausible explanation for the insistence that it was JFK’s war, that he owned it even after LBJ almost immediately
countermanded JFK’s diplomatic and military strategy with regard to Vietnam? What is the insistence about, if not to distort the facts influencing appraisal of JFK and his presidency by historians and journalists? Why wasn’t murdering him in his wife’s lap at age 46, a thousand days into his first presidential term, enough for some who held him in low regard?
You may agree with Bill, Jean. You may be in full agreement that Bill’s opinions and analysis align well with the entire body of JFK’s Vietnam intervention
planning. Consider that Bill was emphasizing the great difference between a stated goal of zero vs. 3,500.
Tom S.
May 28, 2016 at 8:38 pm
“Bill, who do you take our readers for, idiots?”
Well, I probably don’t have a snowballs chance in hell of getting this passed by an angry Tom but it needs to be said.
If I had written this you would have flagged it. And I wouldn’t have a reasonable leg to stand on in protesting it. Conduct unbecoming Tom! Your bias is showing and that isn’t good for a moderator.
To answer your question, yes I think there are some idiots here. I’ve never been in a group, be it a war group or a gun group or a JFK group that didn’t have some idiots. You seem to take care of my favorite idiot by not passing my corrections to his BS. If you flagged his BS then I’d have nothing much to reply to. You might think about that a bit.
“You seem to argue merely for the sake of it…..”
Not at all. I was trying to clear up some misconceptions here. I would think that would be the goal of everyone here.
“Gilpatric was there,serving as Assistant Secretary of Defense. You somehow know better than he did?”
I don’t need to know Gilpatric to understand NSAM 263 and we were discussing a withdrawal plan.
“http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm
Allied Troop Levels – Vietnam, 1960 To 1973”
……
“1968 –536,100”
But we were not discussing 1968. Now who is off topic.
I got to tell you Tom; The Americanwar library is a sham operation. His table is probably correct since he stole it but the fellow himself is disgusting. He once offered to reunite kis whos parent had been killed in Vietnam. For a price of course. We used to read it for laughs.
I agree with your Gilpatric quote. He says he doesn’t think FJK would have done the same as LBJ in Vietnam. That is also my opinion as it is his.
Tom S.
May 29, 2016 at 7:46 am
“Jean, is it not true that Bill emphasized that 3500 was certainly a great disparity from zero?”
Well hell fire Tom, IT IS a great disparity! About a 20% disparity between what the order says and what you wish it said.
“Can you accept that my reaction to Bill’s emphasis was that,considering Johnson escalated to a troop level beyond 500,000, that it was reasonable to ask Bill,”
Again, we were not discussing 1968 or LBJ. We were discussing JFK in 1963. If you want to discuss LBJ and his escalation start a new thread.
“I think you only addressed what you considered the weakest supporting point in my comment.”
Your weakest point is that you nor Willy has an order from JFK calling for a complete withdrawal from Vietnam.
“I don’t think you replied reasonably to the point I made directly to Bill.”
Bill doesn’t think you have been very reasonable yourself. You keep trying to shift it to Johnson’s escalation and again; that is not what the discussion was about.
“Bill was arguing unreasonably, all numbers considered, according to the history of the troop levels, which I supported with a link.”
See above.
“I find the insistence that he was not sincerely planning a withdrawal is motivated by political partisanship.”
A total withdrawal or a partial withdrawal? It makes a difference you know. We have a written record for a partial withdrawal. We have nothing but “Jack told me so” for your total withdrawal.
“Given all considerations, I cannot identify a more plausible explanation for the insistence that it was JFK’s war,”
I hate to break this to you but it was Jack’s war in 1961,1962 and 1963.
that he owned it even after LBJ almost immediately countermanded JFK’s diplomatic and military strategy with regard to Vietnam?
I realize this is part of the propaganda but it too is just wrong as hell. Johnson continued Kennedy’s policy of sending more and more advisers and equipment, just exactly like Jack had been doing. He did this in December 1963, all of 1964 and January and February of 1965. So 15 months is not “immediate”.
“You may agree with Bill, Jean. You may be in full agreement that Bill’s opinions and analysis align well with the entire body of JFK’s Vietnam intervention planning. Consider that Bill was emphasizing the great difference between a stated goal of zero vs. 3,500.”
The 3,500 troops was not my opinion. It was recorded coming out of McNamara’s mouth. And he, as you say, was there.
“Can you accept that my reaction to Bill’s emphasis was that, considering Johnson escalated to a troop level beyond 500,000…”
No, because…read what he said:
“McNamara even states that we will have 3,500 left in country after the draw down (Miller Center tapes). That would be about 20% of the force left in country.”
He was comparing 3,500 to the 17,500 who were there, not 500,000.
Gilpatric was out of government and didn’t have to say a thing. Instead he wrote an article for the NYT, an article available for “historical review” just like his oral history. Lots of people modified their stories afterwards. Hawks became dovish. This is unfortunately human nature in action — presenting one’s past in a more flattering light.
“I find the insistence that he was not sincerely planning a withdrawal is motivated by political partisanship.”
Who said that? Not me. JFK planned and hoped to withdraw when the SV were ready to take over the fighting. This condition that was attached appears over and over in the official documents, but it’s usually ignored. I think the argument that he was planning an *unconditional* withdrawal didn’t show up publicly until around 1968, when the war began to look unwinnable. You won’t find withdrawal plans mentioned in either Sorensen’s or Schlesinger’s early books on Kennedy, written a year or so before 1968, though both discuss Vietnam. They’re online, so you can see for yourself. “Kennedy” and “A Thousand Days.”
“…. after LBJ almost immediately
countermanded JFK’s diplomatic and military strategy with regard to Vietnam?”
What diplomatic strategy would that be? Not long before the assassination the NYT called for a new Geneva-type conference to reach a settlement on Vietnam. The Kennedy administration’s reaction was negative. Look under section IV here, “Rejection of a neutralized Vietnam”:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04
“What is the insistence about, if not to distort the facts influencing appraisal of JFK and his presidency by historians and journalists?”
Really? I see it as speaking up against the blatant distortion of the facts that has been going on for years. Not that I can ever change that, but I agree with Bill Clarke that (paraphrasing), people lying about the historical record p*sses me off.
And if you think that I held Kennedy in “low regard” you couldn’t be more wrong. The first vote I ever cast was for him. (My parents went for Nixon.)
I don’t understand the basis for your opinion….who do you claim is lying, and what are the lies you perceive they’ve been telling?
26 days later….
“I don’t understand the basis for your opinion….who do you claim is lying, and what are the lies you perceive they’ve been telling?”
The claim, e.g., that NSAM 263 represents an unconditional, total withdrawal from Vietnam is a lie, whether the person making the claim realizes it or not. Maybe someone who makes that claim sincerely believes it, so I hesitate to name names. But it’s still a lie.
What LBJ did later has nothing to do with what JFK’s plans were. After the Diem coup in 11/’63 the military situation deteriorated rapidly and U.S. officials wanted to reassure the new leader, Gen. Mihn, that the U.S. wasn’t going to accept proposals for neutralization of Vietnam (which the U.S. saw as capitulation to the communists and which the Kennedy administration had already rejected). See the documents starting here:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d364
The second article you posted says much the same thing.
Jean Davison
May 30, 2016 at 11:42 pm
“The claim, e.g., that NSAM 263 represents an unconditional, total withdrawal from Vietnam is a lie, whether the person making the claim realizes it or not. Maybe someone who makes that claim sincerely believes it, so I hesitate to name names. But it’s still a lie.”
Bang on Jean. Not long ago I was surfing the TV channels and here was John Galbraith saying his bit about JFK ordered a total withdrawal in NSAM 263. I kept surfing but it started me wondering again if an intelligent man like that really believed this. You and I can read NSAM 263; why can’t Galbraith?
Again, all I can do is marvel about what the two of you could possibly be so worked up in reaction to…..
A small house: https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-12/
http://preservation.mhl.org/123-main-st
Macomber is held partly responsible for granting access to E Howard Hunt who did not have required security clearance resulting in cables accessed through Dept. of State classified being forged by Hunt intending to blame execution of Diem directly on JFK.
Edward G Hooker, A.U.V. housemate of Macomber and Bush, was step-nephew and later business partner of DeMohrenschildt. Tom Devine met with DeMohenschildt two weeks after Walker shooting attempt, on same day, April 25, 1963, as Devine’s close friend Joseph F Dryer, Jr. claimed a separate, uncoordinated meeting with DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Charles, who Dryer claimed to have been informed by a CIA contact, was accompanied by a secretary secretly reporting to CIA.
So, when you get loud about Vietnam withdrawal claims instead of the tip of the iceberg, excuse me for suspecting you protest excessively….
2 State Department Officials Linked to Hunt and Cables
Date: Thursday, May 10, 1973 Paper: Dallas Morning News
“Big doin’s”: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11517&p=251573
A small secret society.: http://tomscully.net
“Big doin’s”:
Alexander Ellis III – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you read all of it, maybe you’ll still be annoyed, but not for the reasons you say are the present catalysts…
Wednesday, July 25, 1973 Paper: Evansville Courier and Press
As always, the victors wrote (manipulated) the history.:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19760730&id=-MNaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dl0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6141,4293192&hl=en
Be angry at power, it has manipulated your perceptions, twofold.
Oh Photon,
Oh yes, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Nixon, LBJ, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 ALL were involved in ILLEGAL acts against the US constitution. You remember the constitution, Photon? You also remember that once upon a time, it was thought that committing an illegal act in this country meant being CHARGED with a crime, going to trial, and, depending on the verdict, serving jail time. Remind me, Photon, how many of the scumbags listed above, besides Nixon, were ever charged of ANYTHING?
Steve Stirlen,
Perhaps you can articulate specifically which illegal acts against the US constitution were committed by John Kennedy.
\\][//
And on 9/11, of course, the “Doomsday plane” was already hovering over the capital (Washington D. C.) as the Pentagon (ONI offices) was hit by a “hijacked” plane doing a 270′ degree downwards corkscrew turn, an incredible manouvre that would make any Top Gun maverick dead envious. And so it goes.
Then the twin towers fell, for some “odd” reason, together with their little brother, the WTC seven, at free fall (according to NIST). So it goes.
It was the damn Arabs, the evil Taliban, the illusive bin Laden.
Yes. It was Charlie.
Abd so it goes.
Ordered. Looking forward to the read. Thanks, Jeff!
Hi Ronnie:
Please read this post from a few days ago:
https://jfkfacts.org/best-available-list-withheld-jfk-assassination-documents/#comment-875204
This is the kind of comment that is prevalent in this site and makes me wonder whether many readers actually understand the situation pertaining to the documents of the JFK case:
“It would be great if a copy could be sent to every Senator and Congressman out there.”
Let’s pretend for a second that members of Congress are reading your desires. What exactly do you want them to do? What legislation would make you happy?
The Act says that the remaining records will be released 25 years after its signing. Do you want Congress to modify that law, stating that the date of revelation will instead be 23 years and 7 months after the original signing?
Some very wise person stipulated the day of the Big Event II to be 5 months after the centennial of our president (29 May 2017)
Presumably, during those 5 months the nation -and parts of the world- will be expectant with breathless anticipation.
I’d just like them to read and discuss it. If it influences them then good, they are wiser than I think.
[Ronnie:] “It would be great if a copy could be sent to every Senator and Congressman out there.”
=================================
Do you honestly expect a Republican-controlled Congress (the most incompetent in history) to go out of their way to give a Black guy the power and privilege to decide what information is released?
Here’s a riddle:
Q: Who killed Kennedy?
A: His enemies (duh!)
Q: Who were his enemies?
A: The Far Right.
The following main suspects:
(a) CIA, FBI, SS, ONI
(b) Mafia
(c) Cuban Expatriates
readily qualify as Far Right.
Therefore, I will respectfully disagree with Bill Kelly, Greg Parker and Shane McBryde:
“I don’t think this is a liberal v. conservative issue any more than the assassination itself.” – Bill Kelly
https://jfkfacts.org/morley-v-cia-jfk-at-issue-in-federal-court-next-week/#comment-5548
I (although according to some, I am merely an “A-grade *****wit and wanker.”) think Ramon’s comment is a good fit for discussion in the current “Comment of the week,” thread. Experience indicates to me there is a risk the opinions expressed in Ramon’s comment may spur replies eclipsing the topic of this article.
Please discuss the culpability of those occupying specific space in the political spectrum, in the Assassination of JFK and the cover up, here.:
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-6/#comment-877649
Tried to click on link to pre-order and nothing happened.
Here Jim, let me help you out.
https://www.amazon.com/CIA-JFK-Secret-Assassination-Files-ebook/dp/B01FIGY89Y/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1463977275&sr=8-2&keywords=jefferson+morley
The listed publisher however, is not Jacob Hornberger, but the Future of Freedom Foundation. Hornberger is President of FFF and former director of FEE (Foundation for Economic Education).
FEE is listed in Polluterwatch.com because it’s publication, The Freeman is alleged to be anti-environmental.
What would RFK, Jr think of all this I wonder?
At least I know now why “witnesses” like Mimi Alford are exempt with Jefferson from having to providence any evidence for their claims. Political partisanship wins again.
George, in good faith I’m with you on this issue and have been concerned with Hornberger’s personal history and in particular with the connections to the FEE which in accepts major funding from the Axis Network ie. the Koch Brothers. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Atlas_Network
It would be good to hear from Jeff Morley on the question of libertarianism and anti-regulation as well as his family’s history with the Mont Pelerin Society, in light of this expose intended to lift the veil on secrecy.
Try this one: https://www.amazon.com/CIA-JFK-Secret-Assassination-Files-ebook/dp/B01FIGY89Y?ie=UTF8&keywords=jefferson%20morley&qid=1464011373&ref_=sr_1_1&s=digital-text&sr=1-1
I’m looking forward to reading this. It would be great if a copy could be sent to every Senator and Congressman out there.