NSAM 273

[Greg Burnham]

Sorry, Jim. Still not buying it. I don't think Bundy can credibly claim ignorance about a policy that was defined by the document that HE AUTHORED himself -- NSAM 263! Unless one intends to engage in specious supposition about what "might have happened" to cause Bundy to be IN THE DARK--irrespective of his POSITION as the National Security Advisor--I find such meanderings less than useful. I will not rely upon his own self-serving claims to confirm his version (in this case, his alleged "ignorance") of the facts. Bundy knew something.

If you listen to the tape played in the film VIrtual JFK you will hear a conversation between McNamara, Kennedy, and Bundy.

In that conversation McNamara says words to the effect, "We have to find a way out of Vietnam." Bundy replies with words to the effect, "What are we doing that for?"

When this tape was played at the conference staged by James Blight in Georgia for the seminar on which the book VIrtual JFK was based upon, it startled everyone. Because it confirmed what James Galbraith had told them: that Kennedy understood that his Cabinet, including Bundy, was too hawkish and he had to work around them to get the withdrawal plan up and going. He chose McNamara to do this with.

THis is also confirmed by Ros GIlpatric in Howard Jones' book, Death of a Generation. GIlpatric revealed in an oral interview that McNamara told him that Kenedy had entrusted the withdrawal plan to him. Also, it should be noted that the strongest evidence for Kennedy's withdrawal plan, the Sec Def conference of May 1963, was presided over by McNamara, not Bundy. Bundy was not even there.

When Gordon Goldstein asked Bundy about the above conversation and what it meant, Bundy told him that what had happened was that Kennedy had entrusted McNamara with the implementation of the withdrawal plan. And he was behind the curve on this. He also reinforced the point, made by James Galbraith's father--John Kenneth-that Kennedy worked like this every so often. He would bypass his cabinet to get what he wanted. And in Goldstein's book, Lessons in Disaster,Bundy appreciated Kennedy's wisdom in doing so. Because he looked back and was appalled by how hawkish he was on Vietnam all the way up to 1964-65.

One should also note that people sign onto policies they do not support in administrations. Bundy clearly did not like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.He did not buy the evidence for the second attack at all. Yet LBJ had him carry the resolution around in his shirt pocket. And when the news came in, he had him modify it and submit it to congress. Bundy tried to slow it down and actually said, "Shouldn't we think about this before doing that?"

LBJ snapped at him, "I told you what to do, I didn't ask you what you thought!"

And that was the fat lady singing. VIetnam in full was now on its way.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Bernice Moore]

JFK's Journey on Bundy Footprints

http://www.historica...ndy-footprints/The relatively brief journey of the Kennedy presidency can be better understood by a careful analysis of Bundy's footprints. Of course the path may lead to Allen Dulles, the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

In the spirit of evidence based history, we should all thank Dulles, who left copious handwritten notes titled "Confessions" made public by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke (1). The Dulles strategy was plain to dictate foreign policy independent of the White House. A U.S. president could distinguish himself only by letting the American public think he was in support of Dulles. Before Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower did yield to Dulles, although he bitterly protested with his farewell speech, "The dangers to American democracy by the military industrial complex.(2) A few year later, and soon after Kennedy's death, Harry Truman would voice similar concerns about secret allegiances threatening our democracy (3).

One gift of immense importance is rumored to be Dulles' ability to dictate strategic decisions unacceptable to the executive powers he was attempting to influence through indirect means; thereby, his target, boss, foe, enemy or friend would end up doing precisely what Dulles had wished him to do through complicit, often well-coordinated, chess-like moves forcing his adversary to eventually practice the Dulles foreign policy. Or Dulles' adversary would be neutralized or destroyed.

A good example of Dulles' destructive power was evident in the Bay of Pigs disaster.

James W. Douglass, the author of "JFK and the Unspeakable," writes: "Four decades after the Bay of Pigs, we have learned that the CIA scenario to trap Kennedy was more concrete than Dulles admitted in his handwritten notes. A conference on the Bay of Pigs was held March 23-25, 2001, which included ex-CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars and journalists. News analyst Daniel Schorr reported on National Public Radio that, "from the many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents" he had gained one new perception of the Bay of Pigs:

"It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell, had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict. It appears that they never really expected an uprising against Castro when the liberators landed as described in their memos to the White House. What they did expect was that the invaders would establish and secure a beachhead, announce the creation of a counter-revolutionary government and appeal for aid from the United States and the Organization of American States. The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead. In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed."

Even if President Kennedy had said "no" at the eleventh hour, the whole Bay of Pigs idea, the CIA, as it turned out, had a plan to supersede his decision.

Another well-documented aspect of the Bay of Pigs was, of course, General Maxwell Taylor's conclusion of the military operation. General Taylor, who chaired the Cuban Study Group to investigate the invasion, concluded: McGeorge Bundy's order to reverse President Kennedy's air strike was the single most important cause of the operation's failure. We know, by now, that Bundy then offered his resignation and the President declined, instead firing Allen Dulles as the director of the CIA.

Dulles' influence in international politics did not end after the Bay of Pigs. In retrospect, it is understandable that Dulles' membership on the Warren Commission was not by chance. It is equally unlikely that two Dulles pupils (the Bundy brothers) took the top jobs as National Security Advisor to the President and Undersecretary of Defense at the Kennedy White House. Both had established public service for the CIA. The incestuous connection among secret powers at times seems transparent. A good example is the McCarthy-Dulles communication regarding the Senator's demands for Dulles to fire William Bundy. The Senator claimed Bundy was a communist sympathizer. Dulles did not yield and Bundy kept his job.

The bloody events of the summer and fall of 1963 dating back to the infamous August 24 cable, to the Diem assassination and the coup d'état in South Vietnam witnessed the complicit sabotage of Kennedy's Southeast Asia policy by McGeorge Bundy and his two top aides, Michael Forrestal and Roger Hilsman. In the absence of Bundy, Forrestal and Hilsman had sent an unauthorized cable to instruct Ambassador Lodge to go ahead with a coup d'état in Vietnam. Other mishaps and conduct consistent with treason, such as a handwritten note by Hilsman suggesting open defiance of presidential orders, are all part of the bigger picture of a Bundy-led slow dismantling of the Kennedy White House. Some of these details have already been published in other articles and are beyond the scope of this article. However, in retrospect, all the secret and complicit battles lead to a major question. Did President Kennedy know of the Bundy brothers' allegiance to Dulles? Did he know of their loyalty to Dulles as he was trying dismantle the CIA after the Bay of Pigs? The brothers, of course, were to become the architects of the Vietnam War with a stronger and more formidable CIA.

Regardless of the answers, a common sense approach for democracy seems logical. Anyone working for the President and the White House or the U.S. government must disclose all his secret or not-to-secret affiliations, allegiances and obligations. Full disclosure of all past and present ties, including memberships of secret societies. History says the Bundy brothers and Dulles were all members of Yale's Skull and Bones.

A new paradigm for individual and institutional integrity must include total and unconditional disclosure of all allegiances and affiliations. No excuses, no exceptions.

Practical measures – washing hands, boiling water – may prevent catastrophic infections and save lives. Similar methods may enable us to enjoy democratic leadership in the White House without ordinary minds practicing simple crimes to silence democracy. The Bundy brothers help us understand how easy it is to harm and mislead billions for decades with infinite malignancy and yet appear so civil and sterile at the same time. For this, we must also thank them for their contributions to progress on Earth.

References

1. Douglass, J., JFK and the Unspeakable. Orbis, 2008.

2. Eisenhower, D., Farewell Address. January 17, 1961.

3. Filler, L., Editor, The President Speaks: From William McKinley to Lyndon B. Johnson. New York, Capricorn Press, 1965. Pp. 363-368.

4. Truman, H., A Threat to Democracy. Washington Post, December 22, 1963

Edited November 12, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Greg Burnham]

Great article, Bernice. Thanks for posting it!

JFK's Journey on Bundy Footprints

http://www.historica...ndy-footprints/The relatively brief journey of the Kennedy presidency can be better understood by a careful analysis of Bundy's footprints. Of course the path may lead to Allen Dulles, the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

In the spirit of evidence based history, we should all thank Dulles, who left copious handwritten notes titled "Confessions" made public by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke (1). The Dulles strategy was plain to dictate foreign policy independent of the White House. A U.S. president could distinguish himself only by letting the American public think he was in support of Dulles. Before Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower did yield to Dulles, although he bitterly protested with his farewell speech, "The dangers to American democracy by the military industrial complex.(2) A few year later, and soon after Kennedy's death, Harry Truman would voice similar concerns about secret allegiances threatening our democracy (3).

One gift of immense importance is rumored to be Dulles' ability to dictate strategic decisions unacceptable to the executive powers he was attempting to influence through indirect means; thereby, his target, boss, foe, enemy or friend would end up doing precisely what Dulles had wished him to do through complicit, often well-coordinated, chess-like moves forcing his adversary to eventually practice the Dulles foreign policy. Or Dulles' adversary would be neutralized or destroyed.

A good example of Dulles' destructive power was evident in the Bay of Pigs disaster.

James W. Douglass, the author of "JFK and the Unspeakable," writes: "Four decades after the Bay of Pigs, we have learned that the CIA scenario to trap Kennedy was more concrete than Dulles admitted in his handwritten notes. A conference on the Bay of Pigs was held March 23-25, 2001, which included ex-CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars and journalists. News analyst Daniel Schorr reported on National Public Radio that, "from the many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents" he had gained one new perception of the Bay of Pigs:

"It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell, had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict. It appears that they never really expected an uprising against Castro when the liberators landed as described in their memos to the White House. What they did expect was that the invaders would establish and secure a beachhead, announce the creation of a counter-revolutionary government and appeal for aid from the United States and the Organization of American States. The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead. In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed."

Even if President Kennedy had said "no" at the eleventh hour, the whole Bay of Pigs idea, the CIA, as it turned out, had a plan to supersede his decision.

Another well-documented aspect of the Bay of Pigs was, of course, General Maxwell Taylor's conclusion of the military operation. General Taylor, who chaired the Cuban Study Group to investigate the invasion, concluded: McGeorge Bundy's order to reverse President Kennedy's air strike was the single most important cause of the operation's failure. We know, by now, that Bundy then offered his resignation and the President declined, instead firing Allen Dulles as the director of the CIA.

Dulles' influence in international politics did not end after the Bay of Pigs. In retrospect, it is understandable that Dulles' membership on the Warren Commission was not by chance. It is equally unlikely that two Dulles pupils (the Bundy brothers) took the top jobs as National Security Advisor to the President and Undersecretary of Defense at the Kennedy White House. Both had established public service for the CIA. The incestuous connection among secret powers at times seems transparent. A good example is the McCarthy-Dulles communication regarding the Senator's demands for Dulles to fire William Bundy. The Senator claimed Bundy was a communist sympathizer. Dulles did not yield and Bundy kept his job.

The bloody events of the summer and fall of 1963 dating back to the infamous August 24 cable, to the Diem assassination and the coup d'état in South Vietnam witnessed the complicit sabotage of Kennedy's Southeast Asia policy by McGeorge Bundy and his two top aides, Michael Forrestal and Roger Hilsman. In the absence of Bundy, Forrestal and Hilsman had sent an unauthorized cable to instruct Ambassador Lodge to go ahead with a coup d'état in Vietnam. Other mishaps and conduct consistent with treason, such as a handwritten note by Hilsman suggesting open defiance of presidential orders, are all part of the bigger picture of a Bundy-led slow dismantling of the Kennedy White House. Some of these details have already been published in other articles and are beyond the scope of this article. However, in retrospect, all the secret and complicit battles lead to a major question. Did President Kennedy know of the Bundy brothers' allegiance to Dulles? Did he know of their loyalty to Dulles as he was trying dismantle the CIA after the Bay of Pigs? The brothers, of course, were to become the architects of the Vietnam War with a stronger and more formidable CIA.

Regardless of the answers, a common sense approach for democracy seems logical. Anyone working for the President and the White House or the U.S. government must disclose all his secret or not-to-secret affiliations, allegiances and obligations. Full disclosure of all past and present ties, including memberships of secret societies. History says the Bundy brothers and Dulles were all members of Yale's Skull and Bones.

A new paradigm for individual and institutional integrity must include total and unconditional disclosure of all allegiances and affiliations. No excuses, no exceptions.

Practical measures – washing hands, boiling water – may prevent catastrophic infections and save lives. Similar methods may enable us to enjoy democratic leadership in the White House without ordinary minds practicing simple crimes to silence democracy. The Bundy brothers help us understand how easy it is to harm and mislead billions for decades with infinite malignancy and yet appear so civil and sterile at the same time. For this, we must also thank them for their contributions to progress on Earth.

References

1. Douglass, J., JFK and the Unspeakable. Orbis, 2008.

2. Eisenhower, D., Farewell Address. January 17, 1961.

3. Filler, L., Editor, The President Speaks: From William McKinley to Lyndon B. Johnson. New York, Capricorn Press, 1965. Pp. 363-368.

4. Truman, H., A Threat to Democracy. Washington Post, December 22, 1963

[Bernice Moore]

Great article, Bernice. Thanks for posting it!

JFK's Journey on Bundy Footprints

http://www.historica...ndy-footprints/The relatively brief journey of the Kennedy presidency can be better understood by a careful analysis of Bundy's footprints. Of course the path may lead to Allen Dulles, the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

In the spirit of evidence based history, we should all thank Dulles, who left copious handwritten notes titled "Confessions" made public by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke (1). The Dulles strategy was plain to dictate foreign policy independent of the White House. A U.S. president could distinguish himself only by letting the American public think he was in support of Dulles. Before Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower did yield to Dulles, although he bitterly protested with his farewell speech, "The dangers to American democracy by the military industrial complex.(2) A few year later, and soon after Kennedy's death, Harry Truman would voice similar concerns about secret allegiances threatening our democracy (3).

One gift of immense importance is rumored to be Dulles' ability to dictate strategic decisions unacceptable to the executive powers he was attempting to influence through indirect means; thereby, his target, boss, foe, enemy or friend would end up doing precisely what Dulles had wished him to do through complicit, often well-coordinated, chess-like moves forcing his adversary to eventually practice the Dulles foreign policy. Or Dulles' adversary would be neutralized or destroyed.

A good example of Dulles' destructive power was evident in the Bay of Pigs disaster.

James W. Douglass, the author of "JFK and the Unspeakable," writes: "Four decades after the Bay of Pigs, we have learned that the CIA scenario to trap Kennedy was more concrete than Dulles admitted in his handwritten notes. A conference on the Bay of Pigs was held March 23-25, 2001, which included ex-CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars and journalists. News analyst Daniel Schorr reported on National Public Radio that, "from the many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents" he had gained one new perception of the Bay of Pigs:

"It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell, had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict. It appears that they never really expected an uprising against Castro when the liberators landed as described in their memos to the White House. What they did expect was that the invaders would establish and secure a beachhead, announce the creation of a counter-revolutionary government and appeal for aid from the United States and the Organization of American States. The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead. In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed."

Even if President Kennedy had said "no" at the eleventh hour, the whole Bay of Pigs idea, the CIA, as it turned out, had a plan to supersede his decision.

Another well-documented aspect of the Bay of Pigs was, of course, General Maxwell Taylor's conclusion of the military operation. General Taylor, who chaired the Cuban Study Group to investigate the invasion, concluded: McGeorge Bundy's order to reverse President Kennedy's air strike was the single most important cause of the operation's failure. We know, by now, that Bundy then offered his resignation and the President declined, instead firing Allen Dulles as the director of the CIA.

Dulles' influence in international politics did not end after the Bay of Pigs. In retrospect, it is understandable that Dulles' membership on the Warren Commission was not by chance. It is equally unlikely that two Dulles pupils (the Bundy brothers) took the top jobs as National Security Advisor to the President and Undersecretary of Defense at the Kennedy White House. Both had established public service for the CIA. The incestuous connection among secret powers at times seems transparent. A good example is the McCarthy-Dulles communication regarding the Senator's demands for Dulles to fire William Bundy. The Senator claimed Bundy was a communist sympathizer. Dulles did not yield and Bundy kept his job.

The bloody events of the summer and fall of 1963 dating back to the infamous August 24 cable, to the Diem assassination and the coup d'état in South Vietnam witnessed the complicit sabotage of Kennedy's Southeast Asia policy by McGeorge Bundy and his two top aides, Michael Forrestal and Roger Hilsman. In the absence of Bundy, Forrestal and Hilsman had sent an unauthorized cable to instruct Ambassador Lodge to go ahead with a coup d'état in Vietnam. Other mishaps and conduct consistent with treason, such as a handwritten note by Hilsman suggesting open defiance of presidential orders, are all part of the bigger picture of a Bundy-led slow dismantling of the Kennedy White House. Some of these details have already been published in other articles and are beyond the scope of this article. However, in retrospect, all the secret and complicit battles lead to a major question. Did President Kennedy know of the Bundy brothers' allegiance to Dulles? Did he know of their loyalty to Dulles as he was trying dismantle the CIA after the Bay of Pigs? The brothers, of course, were to become the architects of the Vietnam War with a stronger and more formidable CIA.

Regardless of the answers, a common sense approach for democracy seems logical. Anyone working for the President and the White House or the U.S. government must disclose all his secret or not-to-secret affiliations, allegiances and obligations. Full disclosure of all past and present ties, including memberships of secret societies. History says the Bundy brothers and Dulles were all members of Yale's Skull and Bones.

A new paradigm for individual and institutional integrity must include total and unconditional disclosure of all allegiances and affiliations. No excuses, no exceptions.

Practical measures washing hands, boiling water may prevent catastrophic infections and save lives. Similar methods may enable us to enjoy democratic leadership in the White House without ordinary minds practicing simple crimes to silence democracy. The Bundy brothers help us understand how easy it is to harm and mislead billions for decades with infinite malignancy and yet appear so civil and sterile at the same time. For this, we must also thank them for their contributions to progress on Earth.

References

1. Douglass, J., JFK and the Unspeakable. Orbis, 2008.

2. Eisenhower, D., Farewell Address. January 17, 1961.

3. Filler, L., Editor, The President Speaks: From William McKinley to Lyndon B. Johnson. New York, Capricorn Press, 1965. Pp. 363-368.

4. Truman, H., A Threat to Democracy. Washington Post, December 22, 1963

Your welcome Greg, i found it so and was hoping others may as well,...take care...b

Edited November 12, 2010 by Bernice Moore