Who was JFK?

[James DiEugenio]

When Kennedy learned of the deaths of Diem and his brother, he "leaped to his feet and rushed from the room with a look of shock and dismay on his face...." (Douglass, p. 211)

He then did two things: he recalled Lodge from Saigon for the purpose of firing him. And he told NSC assistant Mike Forrestal that there was going to be a complete review of Vietnam policy. (DiEugenio, p. 368)

Neither of these ever happened. Why? Because Kennedy was murdered that same month.

With LBJ in charge, the hard line Lodge was asked to stay on, and after the first meeting of the new president on Vietnam, Johnson said he had "never been happy with our operations in Vietnam." After the meeting, he told assistant Bill Moyers he was going to give the generals what they wanted and Vietnam was not going to slip away like China did. He was going to tell those generals in Saigon, "to get off their butts and get out in those jungles and whip the hell out of some communists." (ibid) This is two days after Kennedy was killed.

With a new approach evident to everyone, LBJ now sent McNamara to Vietnam prior to Xmas of 1963. He wanted a ground level report. McNamara came back with the non official intel figures about the true depiction of the war. The ones LBJ was getting from Burris. Johnson knew that McNamara got the message. (ibid, p. 369)

Edited July 25, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Len Colby]

Ford caved because he had no choice. I don't think that's fair to Ford. He didn't make a choice. The Congress voted to stop the war, put it on them. They were Democrats and deserved the credit/blame

No it was Nixon who finally decided to pull out of 'Nam. There were only 50 troops there, mostly if not entirely embassy guards, by the end of '73.

Those who think Ike's “MIC” comment was not taken out of context should read the transcript without any spin.

http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm

[Len Colby]

PS - Jim Vietnam was partitioned in 1945, I think was after FDR died but I'd have to check.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Len Colby

[Cliff Varnell]

In May of 1963 during the large Buddhist demonstration against Diem, two percussion bombs went off near a radio station killing seven and wounding 15. The immediate deduction was that this was the work of the government security forces guided by Diem's brother Nhu. But at the hospital, the supervising physician disagreed. He had never seen such powerful explosives used by Nhu's men or the Viet Cong. In fact, Nhu had him jailed because he would not say the latter were the perps. The doctor figured that the lack of metal in the bodies betrayed a bomb that was detonated in air, a plastic bomb. Which neither Nhu nor the Viet Cong used at the time.

The local authorities concluded that the bombs were planted by a CIA agent under military guise, Captain Scott. Scott later admitted to this. He said he used "an explosive that was still secret and known only to certain people in the CIA, a charge no larger than a matchbox with a timing device." (Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, 131)

Hue in May and Dallas in November.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

When Sibert called the FBI Lab from the JFK autopsy -- to inquire as to the existence of rounds that wouldn't show up in an autopsy -- he was on the trail of Persons of Interest in the murders of JFK and the Ngo Bros.

Staff Support Group, US Army Special Operations Division/CIA.

[Len Colby]

Just thinking about what the Democrats have done to us (US citizens) and to the World. Since JFK left us, LBJ took over and amongst all his failures, the VietNam war was surely his monumental failure. Then we get Jimmy Carter: he continued the policies of surrender in the world, leaving us the Iranian situation amongst other things, Then we got Bill Clinton--Black Hawk Down, anyone? continued the surrendering in the middle east. And then comes the master, Barack Obama. Colossal failures everywhere.

Vietnam was a failure but clearly Goldwater would have upped US involvement as much if not more so than LBJ. There is strong evidence Nixon and Kissinger sabotaged the 1968 Paris Peace Talks. Tricky Dick then continued the war unnecessarily for years before agreeing to terms very close to those on the table in 1968. Bonzo Raygun capitulated to Iranian terrorists and then sold their patrons weapons. But if we want to talk about "Colossal failures everywhere." the POTUS par excellence was "Baby Doc" Bush.

[James DiEugenio]

In January, the Pentagon passed up a program to the White House for the direct bombing of the north and the insertion of US combat troops. Both had been taboo with JFK.

On March 2, 1964 the Chiefs sent a revised proposal to LBJ. This one included bombing, the mining of North Vietnamese harbors, a naval blockade, and possible use of tactical nukes in case China intervened. In other words, the new president was drawing up complete war plans for Vietnam. NSAM 288 was based on this proposal. It was essentially a target list of bombing sites which reached 94 prospects. What Kennedy did not do in three years, LBJ had done in three months. (ibid, p. 369)

In May, with Nixon and Goldwater clamoring for bombing, Johnson now made the decision that the US would directly attack North Vietnam. All that was needed was a casus belli. But it important to note that LBJ had already ordered the congressional resolution to be written! And he was lobbying congress even before the Gulf of Tonkin incident took place!

What was the net result of Tonkin? The damage was one bullet through one hull of a ship. (Recall, during the Missile Crisis Castro shot down a U 2 and killed a pilot. JFK ordered no retaliation.) For that one bullet, LBJ went on national TV and ordered wave after wave of sorties against North Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was then passed by both houses of congress.

The war was on. The definition of a coup d'etat is a sharp shift in power and policy that takes place after a new government forcibly replaces another. That is what happened here.

Edited July 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Brian Schmidt]

Len, I assume by taking the MIC section out of context, you mean that insomuch as people quote it without mentioning Ike's classifying the need for a permanent national security apparatus as necessarily, they are missing the broader context of what he said. I think the way most people understand Ike's warning about the dangers of a permanent arms industry is the way it was intended, regardless of the context of the rest of the speech.

For further reading on the evolution of the term, John Simkin covers it well in this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6116

[James DiEugenio]

Now, let me add what I consider the coup de grace here. I used this in my book Destiny Betrayed, second edition, but it was really discovered by Jim Blight and originally published in his fine book Virtual JFK.

In a declassified phone call of February 20, 1964, Johnson told McNamara, "I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statements about withdrawing. I thought it was bad psychologically. But you and the president thought otherwise, and I just sat silent." In other words, Johnson was aware of what Kennedy and McNamara were planning. He was opposed to it but suffered in silence. But that would now be changed with Johnson in charge....

In another conversation, less than two weeks later, Johnson actually tried to make McNamara take back what he said in 1963 about the initial thousand man withdrawal and the complete withdrawal in 1965. He begins to formulate excuses to say that NSAM 263 didn't really mean that "everybody comes back, that means your training ought to be in pretty good shape by that time." When McNamara is silent over this contradiction being imposed on him, Johnson tries to soothe him by saying there is not anything really inconsistent in these new statements he wanted McNamara to make. (Destiny Betrayed p. 371)

I really don't know who is worse on this, Johnson or Nixon. Johnson realized Kennedy was withdrawing and tried to cover it up so there would be no split in policy between them.

Nixon, in his terrible book No More Vietnams, does not even recognize Kennedy's intent to withdraw. He then tries to say that Kennedy sent combat troops to Vietnam. By the same logic so did Eisenhower, since he first committed advisors.

The worst thing about Nixon's policy is not just that his administration got us into Vietnam in the first place, but that he then spread a war he knew was unwinnable into Cambodia. Thereby causing one of the great post war genocides.

[Mark Knight]

That is correct Pat. Its part of a new article I am working on for Bob Parry.

Nixon fought to keep his tapes and papers sealed until he died. We now know why.

The tapes are devastating to his legacy. There is no way around it. The guy not only lied to the public in office. He also lied in his books once he was out of office.

He knew that the war could not be won in 1969. He then tried to frighten Giap and the Russians with Cambodia and a nuclear alert. When that did not work, in fact it backfired, he settled on the decent interval strategy. Which he also lied about.

"

“Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in. ”-- Harry S Truman

[Kenneth Drew]

Len, I assume by taking the MIC section out of context, you mean that insomuch as people quote it without mentioning Ike's classifying the need for a permanent national security apparatus as necessarily, they are missing the broader context of what he said. I think the way most people understand Ike's warning about the dangers of a permanent arms industry is the way it was intended, regardless of the context of the rest of the speech.

For further reading on the evolution of the term, John Simkin covers it well in this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6116

Brian, you are correct that the MIC comment is usually used correctly and 'not out of content'. Clearly Ike was aware and warning that so many were/had become so invested in the fortunes of war that war would be propagated to ensure that the fortunes continued. It has worked out that way. Far too many decisions are made based on who will get infinitely richer as a result of it.

[Kenneth Drew]

Just thinking about what the Democrats have done to us (US citizens) and to the World. Since JFK left us, LBJ took over and amongst all his failures, the VietNam war was surely his monumental failure. Then we get Jimmy Carter: he continued the policies of surrender in the world, leaving us the Iranian situation amongst other things, Then we got Bill Clinton--Black Hawk Down, anyone? continued the surrendering in the middle east. And then comes the master, Barack Obama. Colossal failures everywhere.

Vietnam was a failure but clearly Goldwater would have upped US involvement as much if not more so than LBJ. There is strong evidence Nixon and Kissinger sabotaged the 1968 Paris Peace Talks. Tricky Dick then continued the war unnecessarily for years before agreeing to terms very close to those on the table in 1968. Bonzo Raygun capitulated to Iranian terrorists and then sold their patrons weapons. But if we want to talk about "Colossal failures everywhere." the POTUS par excellence was "Baby Doc" Bush.

That may be true. But, I believe if Goldwater has upped it, it likely would been a more intense interest in winning it rather than just fighting it. My point was not what the Republicans might have done but what the Democrats DID DO. You won't get any argument from me that there is very little difference in the politics of the Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are made up of politicians whose main objectives are power and money, not stability.

[Kenneth Drew]

That is correct Pat. Its part of a new article I am working on for Bob Parry.

Nixon fought to keep his tapes and papers sealed until he died. We now know why.

The tapes are devastating to his legacy. There is no way around it. The guy not only lied to the public in office. He also lied in his books once he was out of office.

He knew that the war could not be won in 1969. He then tried to frighten Giap and the Russians with Cambodia and a nuclear alert. When that did not work, in fact it backfired, he settled on the decent interval strategy. Which he also lied about.

"

“Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in. ”-- Harry S Truman

Mark, interesting that you chose that comment to quote. Would you suggest the name of a president that could be substituted in the place of Richard Nixon that would make the statement not true. (other than Ronald Reagan)

There is no way around it. The guy not only lied to the public in office. He also lied in his books once he was out of office. Sounds like he's talking about Obama here. We know absolutely nothing about him.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Paul Brancato]

Great Truman quote, and so true as things turned out.

Jim - I think you are spot on about the fact that there was a coup d'état and the reversal of JFK's policies, especially in SE Asia, was the purpose of the coup. There is no way this can be viewed as a fortuitous accident that the Hawks and the defense industry capitalized on. Your focus on Lodge is well placed, as his actions in VN, taken behind JFK's back, suggest foreknowledge of the impending change in the WH, and also suggest who was behind the coup. After all, who would Lodge have been working for? Surely he was no loose cannon. His Yankee bonfides were deep, and his connections to the Skull and Bones club, W. Averill Harriman, McGeorge Bundy are well known. Bundy ran the situation room after the assassination of JFK, coordinating with Air Force One,

I'm just connecting the dots, which though they may not be provable, they are certainly believable.

[Kenneth Drew]

Great Truman quote, and so true as things turned out.

Jim - I think you are spot on about the fact that there was a coup d'état and the reversal of JFK's policies, especially in SE Asia, was the purpose of the coup. There is no way this can be viewed as a fortuitous accident that the Hawks and the defense industry capitalized on. Your focus on Lodge is well placed, as his actions in VN, taken behind JFK's back, suggest foreknowledge of the impending change in the WH, and also suggest who was behind the coup. After all, who would Lodge have been working for? Surely he was no loose cannon. His Yankee bonfides were deep, and his connections to the Skull and Bones club, W. Averill Harriman, McGeorge Bundy are well known. Bundy ran the situation room after the assassination of JFK, coordinating with Air Force One,

I'm just connecting the dots, which though they may not be provable, they are certainly believable.

I think you are spot on about the fact that there was a coup d'état and the reversal of JFK's policies, especially in SE Asia, was the purpose of the coup. There is no way this can be viewed as a fortuitous accident that the Hawks and the defense industry capitalized on

I sincerely hope that's not a surprise to anyone.

[James DiEugenio]

Something I left out, but Douglass mentions: Before Lodge left for Saigon, he had a long meeting with Henry Luce. It was there that it was decided upon that they were going to go hard line on Diem. Which, of course, contradicted JFK's wishes.

Thanks Paul. I agree that it is indicative of a high level plot.

But what I was trying to say is that this is what happened to all of JFK's reforms in foreign policy. It happened in Indonesia, Congo, Dominican Republic etc. And those were just the most visible and spectacular ones. What was ignored, and I had to read up on this, was the Middle East policy which has the strongest repercussions to today.

There was lot of money on the table if Kennedy was allowed to keep those reforms in place. You are talking tens of billions of dollars in 1963 terms. Well over a hundred billion today.

The Powers that Be were not going to let that happen just so a bleeding heart Irishman, who was not one of their crowd anyway, could free and enpower a bunch of natives in the Third World.

Edited July 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio