James DiEugenio

Johnny Cairns crossed the pond over the anniversary to go the scene of the crime. On the way he witnesses an interview by author and good buddy Thomas Mallon for good ole Ruthie to go through her paces. As you will see it was all a set up from go one. Which Johnny does a nice job exposing. No one asks, for instance, what sense does it make for Oswald to shoot at a fascist type rightwing nut, but then shoot and kill the most liberal president since FDR? I mean was anyone awake? Plus he missed from close range at Walker, but performs a fantastic piece of marksmanship in the Kennedy case. Hmm. Mallon marches on. With Ruthie. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/our-lady-of-the-warren-commission-part-1-2

Let me add one other point about McNamara. I have also thought, but cannot prove, that this was the reason he commissioned the Pentagon Papers and kept them secret from Johnson. In that notable book, The War Within, McNamara is depicted as being wracked with guilt about Vietnam, and in late 1966 Galbraith said the same thing after meeting him for dinner. And this is about when the creation of the PP started. My personal opinion is that McNamara understood how huge the split was between Kennedy and Johnson on the war and part of his aim in the PP was to show how it happened. In the Gravel Edition there is a whole section called Phased Withdrawal 1962-64 which demonstrates this. For whatever reason, neither the Post nor the TImes printed that section.

When people reply to Mike, I have to read his stuff. Geez. Look, Mac Bundy was in the room when McNamara said they were pulling out the first thousand. Bundy asked what this was about. McNamara said that it was part of a withdrawal program that should be started. When Gordon Goldstein confronted him with this exchange for his biography of Bundy, he realized what had happened. Kennedy was going around him because he felt he was too hawkish and McNamara was reciting what JFK wanted said. That ended up being correct, because we know this from John K Galbraith's biographer RIchard Parker. Does anyone here think that JFK did not know what would happen in VIetnam after the withdrawal? Its right in the O'Donnell and Powers book. Nixon and Kissinger both knew what was going to happen and they kept it secret. Their knowledge was not exposed until their tapes were declassified. Nixon realized the war was hopeless before he was sworn in. But he wanted to try for a Korea type settlement, first with Duck Hook, and then with the invasions of Laos and Cambodia. Neither one worked, but it got millions of Cambodians killed later. So who was correct? Kennedy who just did not think that Vietnam was worth anywhere near 5.8 million corpses? Or Nixon who knew it was hopeless but still tried to get a Peace with Honor--he got neither. But he did not mind all those millions of dead bodies along the way. Mac Bundy told Goldstein that Kennedy understood Vietnam because of his experience in Saigon from 1951, when he saw that the French effort was futile and was told so by Topping and Gullion. He knew that if it became a white man's war, America would lose because they would be perceived as the imperial power suppressing nationalism. This colored all he was doing from 1961. The key moment being when he sent Galbraith to Saigon after the November debates. The clear reason was to get different advice from the man he knew would give it to him. As Galbraith told his son, he wanted to counter the hawks. These are all facts. To me, they make Kennedy look much better than LBJ and RMN. Why anyone would argue the contrary is simply weird.

Now, let me ask this: When did JFK ever propose sending in combat troops to fight the war for Saigon? Sound of crickets in the night. When did JFK ever call in the Pentagon to design going to war with the north? Sound of crickets in the night. The amazing thing about Johnson is he reversed both of those policies quickly. He called the Pentagon into his office in January, and they were advising him on war plans, which were then written up in NSAM 288 in March. In the summer of 1964, the Pentagon moved 93 planes from Thailand to South Vietnam. Even Taylor objected to this. Why? Because he knew you were going to need American combat troops in theater to protect such a large air arsenal from the Viet Cong. Therefore, by early August of 1964 Kennedy's policy had been completely negated, largely reversed. Just recall, the volumes of the Warren Commission would be released three months later. Try to find any major news source which related one to the other.

The policy in Vietnam changed almost immediately and Newman notes this at the first 11/24 meeting. And it is there to see: "I am not going to lose Vietnam, I am not going to be the president who saw Southeast Asia go the way China went" (Newman, p. 459). LBJ then added that he had never been happy with our operations in Vietnam. He felt we spent too much emphasis on social reforms, he has little tolerance with spending time being "do-gooders". He then added that if there was any future bickering on the issue, that person would be removed. (Ibid, p. 460). John McCone for one noted the difference in tone. Any idiot can contrast this with the last words of Kennedy both officially and not officially. It was Kennedy who pushed through 263. He put back in the withdrawal program to the Taylor/McNamara Report, which Sullivan wanted to take out. As Newman notes, Kennedy more or less steamrolled the opposition. (p. 411) William Sullivan bitterly disagreed with what Kennedy was doing. He thought that instead of withdrawing people and finishing the withdrawal by 1965, it should be contrary: we should be putting more people in by the end of 1963. During the NSC discussion over the 1000 man withdrawal in October, it was McNamara who pressed the issue of taking our men out and training the ARVN to replace them.(Newman, p. 413). This indicates that as Gordon Goldstein and John K. Galbraith have noted, and has been proven, Kennedy designated McNamara as his point man on the withdrawal. Privately, on November 12th, Kennedy told Sen. Morse that he was in the midst of a review and when he was done he wanted to share it with him for a couple of hours. Morse was one of the strongest critics of American involvement in Vietnam. (Newman, p. 432) When Johnson took over he was clearly aware of all this. He attacked McNamara for withdrawing men from a conflict we were losing. And he appointed Sullivan to a secret mission inside the White House to plan for direct American entry into the war, including the "causus belli", the Tonkin Gulf incident. If anyone thinks that was a coincidence you need some serious counseling with your priest, reverend or rabbi. Because it was not.

Here is another interview, this time by Jeff Crudele of JFK: The Enduring Secret. This his first You Tube video. I thought it was good. His audio podcasts gets hundred of thousands of views, and this will transfer there soon.

Here is another article about good old Hugh. This one is even more extensive than mine. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/02/13/hugh-aynesworth-cia-media-asset-fbi-informer-friend-of-lyndon-johnson-white-house-and-medias-darling-jfk-assassination-lone-nutter-journalist-dies-at-92/

Oh no. Not that one. Kennedy said that he would be branded an appeaser after the election.

Johnson was obsessed with RFK's candidacy, and I think one reason he dropped out is that he could not take the humiliation of losing to him. But he did not want to see him win so he tried to get Rockefeller to run against him. Thinking that Rocky could appeal to a wider spectrum, including students and African Americans as he was perceived as being more liberal. This is how LBJ was intent on injuring his own party in 1968, by limiting what Humphrey could say on the one hand, and by handpicking a safety valve in case RFK won.

The Daily Beast was the publication that first exposed Max Holland's nutty idea that somehow the Permindex story was a creation of the KGB. A piece of manure if you ever read one.

And he told three different people about those threats: Lane, Garrison and Summers. I find it so interesting that Oswald told him he was being paid to leaflet.

I hope you understand that not even the Warren Commission, or the HSCA bought into Marina? Most people understand where you are coming from, but Marina? Whew.

Famous line from Stone's film JFK, scene between Garrison and Andrews. Taken as title for new book focusing on Andrews. Review by Paul Bleau, only at K and K. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/pipe-the-bimbo-in-red

Its really startling that the Post would still support the war after the Tet offensive. In fact, what they did was switch reporters to Peter Braestrup. Because the guy they had on the beat was reporting Tet carefully and honestly. So they switched to Peter. Peter was utterly nutty about Vietnam. He tried to blame America's failure in Vietnam on the media. BTW I think Johnson wanted Rockefeller to run because he had a better chance of beating RFK.

My obit for Bradlee: As many commentators have noted, what was astonishing about the Bradlee/Graham loyalty to Lyndon Johnson was not that it was a clear reversal of Kennedy, but that it continued even after the Tet offensive. This is why, in 1968, Kate Graham would have preferred Republican Richard Nixon over antiwar Democrat Eugene McCarthy. (ibid, p. 246) In the general election between Nixon and Johnson’s Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the Post did not make an endorsement. (James Brian McPherson’s The Conservative Resurgence and The Press, p. 234)

Carol Felsenthal's book, Power, Privilege and the Post.

No, what Bundy admired in retrospect was that Kennedy had the good sense to see that we should not commit combat troops and begin a withdrawal program. Unlike Rostow, Mac Bundy later realized he was wrong. Walt Rostow never admitted it.

Let me add, the media was complicit in all this. And it was not all because of ignorance or stupidity. In late summer of 1964, when everyone knew Johnson would crush Goldwater, LBJ brought in Kate Graham and her senior editors to the White House. He then told them about his escalation plans in Vietnam. Graham made no objections to them. And right then and there became a dyed in the wool Johnson fan. Knowing that what he was telling the public was simply false, and unfair to Goldwater. She liked being at the center of power. And Johnson liked having her in his hip pocket. He said, "She is worth two divisions to me." Kind of disgusting eh? But that is the way the game works.

RI: Changing Vietnam policy was a major focus of those planning to murder Kennedy. They knew what they wanted to happen after they got rid of Kennedy. They were set up to quickly put their policy in place after the murder. This is what is so striking about the Vietnam issue, and its why I think it was a major reason for the coup, perhaps the major reason. Most people who study this aspect, and I have spent a lot of time doing so in the last few years, are just startled how this was missed by almost everyone for so long. But by the time Kennedy was buried, the policy was in the process of being changed. But at the same time, the signals are going out that, hey, we are in sync with Kennedy's policies, we are continuing them. Which was simply false. This is called consciousness of guilt by prosecutors. And I go back to the November 27th meeting in 1961. If you recall, Kennedy arrived late, and this was after he had fought so hard to get NSAM 111 through, which allowed for more aid and advisors but no combat troops. And he more or less bellowed: once policy is decided, those on the spot either abide by it or they get out! He knew that even at that time higher ups wanted combat troops in Vietnam. And he was not going to do it. His next questions was: Now who is going to implement my policy in Indochina? McNamara raised his hand. This is why in October of 1963, when Kennedy and McNamara are talking about getting out, Bundy doesn't know what they are talking about. And Bundy retroactively realized that Kennedy had gone around him because he knew he was too hawkish. And when confronted with these facts decades later, he had nothing but admiration for what Kennedy had done. Whether or not LBJ was part of the plot, he was the perfect guy to lead an all out escalation in Indochina because he was such a natural xxxx who could literally be saying one thing and thinking something else. It almost makes you feel sorry for Goldwater. Since LBJ was accusing him of doing exactly what he was doing and would do.

I for one do not see the resemblance. Not even close.

Nice one George, the Apple TV one is probably the best.

William, that is a good question. But just recall, Jeff's article is from Prouty's words. Prouty sensed out of the box that he and Stone would be assaulted because of the film's thesis on Vietnam. Because it seemed so revolutionary. And in one sense it was. Scott, O'Donnell and Powers and Prouty himself had written about the subject before. But for the first time a mass audience actually saw what really happened. Plus there were new details in the presentation. What the film did was clobber the MSM twice. First on the Warren Report and then saying that hey, not only did they fall for that, but they completely missed the fact that within three months of the releases of the final volumes of the Commission, LBJ was now sending combat troops to Vietnam, something JFK did not do in three years. (I should add, a follower told me he does not think they missed the story, they ignored it.) Consequently, people like Epstein--a huge cover up guy--and Anson--a saliva dripping Garrison hater--decided to go after Prouty. Out of those three persons, I would take Fletcher any day of the week. His information on Vietnam and the San Antonio base was quite valuable for Oliver and everyone else.

Pat Speer is correct. The intent was to get out the newer info, most specifically from the ARRB. Tunheim says in the film that they put out over a hundred press releases, but got very little notice.

I think this was at least partly caused by the success of the Shout Factory version of JFK Revisited. Which, incredibly is still in the top ten for documentary sales at Amazon. You wonder how did Warner Brothers screw up the previous transfer so badly?

No person--like Mike G-- should ever rely on one authority for an event as complex as what happened in Vietnam after Kennedy was killed. I do not care who that authority is. McMaster or anyone else. As James Blight proves in Virtual JFK, Johnson had two estimates on his desk by the JCS in 1965. They both said it would take at least five years and 500,000 combat troops to defeat the Viet Cong and repel the North. So please do not cherry pick any one author, since the field of Indochina studies is quite large today. According to Gordon Goldstein, LBJ also knew that the air war over the North would not be enough to convince Hanoi to withdraw from the south. In other words, he was advised in advance that a combination massive air war and 500,000 combat troops would take five years to get a Korea type settlement. Let us not selectively choose materials that whitewash Johnson's reversal of Kennedy's policy. And this was an utterly conscious decision that was manufactured in secret. Today there are three books on this particular subject--by Moise, Goulden and Logevall-- that all prove beyond doubt that as LBJ was saying one thing in public, he was planning the contrary in private. That is a direct intervention in Indochina by land and air. And he knew where to go to get that planning done: Sullivan and Bill Bundy. If you recall, Sullivan was the guy who wanted to take out the withdrawal plan from the Taylor/McNamara report. But JFK got wind of it and made them put it back. This planning included even allowing for a "causus belli" event that would make a congressional resolution possible. In other words, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was planned two months in advance. LBJ carried it around in his jacket pocket before it was passed. And then every guy who he sent up to the Hill lied his butt off about what really happened. Even though at least two of them, one being Mac Bundy, admitted that it was all a deliberate provocation. VIrtual JFK also proves that Johnson later hired that unmitigated hawk Walt Rostow to write papers to deceive the public into thinking Johnson had not really broken with JFK's policy, which is utter and complete crap. Recall, JFK got so sick of Rostow that he transferred him out of the White House. When even Mac Bundy could not take Johnson's fruity escalations, and retired, Johnson then brought the nutty Rostow back and gave him Mac Bundy's job. Every major Kennedy advisor left over this issue. The Bundy brothers ended up secretly supplying Humphrey with information on how around the bend Johnson was on Vietnam. He did not use it until it was too late. Lyndon Johnson was a classic Cold Warrior, a Truman Democrat all the way. Kennedy was not, and he was a Roosevelt Democrat since 1957. They year of his great Algeria speech. One can call LBJ tragic, but its a MacBeth kind of tragedy, not Hamlet. PS I do consider Vietnam one of the major issues behind Kennedy's murder.