James DiEugenio

The reason I put that in italics is that it shows how in conflict JFK was with his main advisors on Vietnam. And this was late in 1961. At one of the meetings in the November 1961 debates, it was Bobby Kennedy who stepped forward and stated, "There will be no combat troops in Vietnam." That was clearly on advisement of his brother. That was a line that Kennedy was not going to cross and there is no evidence that he ever wavered on it. All the evidence indicates he was getting out after the 1964 election. That policy was clearly and deliberately altered by Johnson. And he did it within days of Kennedy's death. By late January, he was doing something Kennedy was vigorously opposed to--meeting with the Pentagon on planning for war against the north. In March those plan were complete, NSAM 288. (The tragedy of Robert McNamara is that he did not get out on that day.) For Selverstone to say that Kennedy might have committed 300,000 combat troops in theater is simply one of the wildest, most irresponsible, most bizarre statements one can imagine anyone making about this subject.

More evidence of how agenda driven Selverstone's book is: The third critical point, the November 27, 1961 meeting, is not even noted by Selverstone. Yet this event is of maximum importance. This White House meeting was attended by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, Joint Chiefs Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and Max Taylor among others. Although he called the meeting, Kennedy was the last to arrive. After making a bit of small talk, the president forcefully unloaded on the reason for the meeting. He was clearly frustrated by how hard he had to fight to get NSAM 111 approved, which denied combat troops but raised aid and advisors to Saigon. Kennedy said as clearly as possible, “When policy is decided on, people on the spot must support it or get out.” He demanded whole hearted support for his decisions. He then asked: Who was going to implement his Vietnam policy. McNamara said he would. (Newman, p. 145-46, emphasis added) Why is this so important? And why is it inexplicable that Selverstone left it out? Because, in April, Galbraith would be in Washington again. And what Selverstone does with this trip is once more, just strange. He seems to want to make Galbraith the MC running the whole agenda. But the record does not support that. Galbraith had written another report in early April arguing against any further involvement with the Ngo Dinh Diem regime. He even warned of the possibility of an escalation to a Korean War conflagration. (Letter to Kennedy of April 4, 1962). Kennedy was very taken by this communication. And he read it to diplomat Averill Harriman and NSC assistant Mike Forrestal. Galbraith was then directed by Kennedy to talk to McNamara about the memo. (Newman, p. 235) According to Galbraith McNamara got the message. (James Blight, Virtual JFK, p. 129; Pentagon Papers, Vol. 2, pp 669-671)

From my review of Selverstone's very poor and agenda driven book: "The book moves toward the famous last words of Kennedy to Mike Forrestal before JFK went to Dallas. Forrestal said in 1971 that before the president departed Washington he told him that there would be a review of Indochina policy when he got back, Selverstone writes that, since in an earlier interview Forrestal did not mention that, then somehow Forrestal was embellishing. Since Forrestal had long passed, that is easy to say. He then writes that this typifies the ‘expansion of claims about Kennedy’s intentions” at a time when they seemed most laudable and prophetic. Meaning, by 1971, the war was a mess. When I read that, I realized that this was what the book was really about. But, like any zealot, Selverstone is not aware that he has set himself up to have the plank sawed off beneath him. Because, as Peter Scott has noted, way back in 1967 Charles Bartlett and Edward Weintal wrote a book called Facing the Brink. It has a chapter dealing with the transition between Kennedy and Johnson on Vietnam. They confirmed what Forrestal said: That shortly before he was assassinated, JFK had ordered a complete review of American policy in Southeast Asia. (p. 71). That book was released in 1967, so it was likely being written in 1965-66. Which was before the war had gone south, before the media had altered course, and while Johnson was still rallying public opinion to save South Vietnam. Therefore, far from indicating any “expansion” of Kennedy’s intentions, what Selverstone has shown is his insistence on ignoring what the president was actually doing. That insistence extends much further than Forrestal. In my review of Newman’s 2017 revision of JFK and Vietnam, I listed 19 people who Kennedy had revealed his intent to withdraw from Vietnam. This included senators, generals, ambassadors and journalists. Were all these people being deceitful? Or was Kennedy a pathological xxxx? If you do not deal with this evidence in any real way, then you can simply—and, as we have seen, wrongly—chalk it up as an “expansion of claims about Kennedy’s intentions”."

I thought the reason for 273 was to coalesce a policy after Hawaii in relation to the overthrow of the government in Saigon. And as weird as Bundy's draft is, Johnson made it worse.

Here is another interview we did with Jeff Crudele of JFK: The Enduring Secret. This is the video for You Tube, but it will later go up as audio on his podcast, and that gets literally hundreds of thousands of views. I think this came out well, we talked about a wide variety of topics, the prior plots with Paul Bleau specializes in. e.g. Tampa and Chicago, Kennedy's civil rights program which enraged the rednecks like Milteer in the south, and the incredible negligence of the Secret Service which made the assassination possible in Dallas--and a lot more like no tone but three magic bullets. Andrew Iler knows the JFK Act quite well. Glad he was there. So enjoy and spread around. If you have not read The JFK Assassination Chokeholds, I think it came out fine.

Nice quote by Kilduff, in fact all three are good, thanks Robert.

Jeff: That is ironic that Fletcher should bring up Roosevelt in relation to Kennedy. In my talk at the Wecht Conference that was one of my central themes, how Truman had altered FDR's foreign policy, and Kennedy was trying to get back to Roosevelt: this included detente with USSR, getting out of Vietnam, and trying to change things in Iran. I said that Kennedy began as a Truman Democrat but during the year he spent researching and writing his Algeria speech, he became a Roosevelt Democrat. And I also agree that the Powers That Be were intent on getting rid of him in 1963, he was not getting out of that year alive: Tampa, Chicago, Dallas.

I did not know it was that hard to find Aaron. That is kind of weird since its been in the making for a very long time. Libby Handros did a Black Op Radio interview and she showed parts of it at the Wecht Conference. I know that is not like getting a spot on MSNBC. And yes it will be at least four parts and Aaron Good is the researcher. Please take a look at Amazon.

Lifton always claimed that his family supported him on the writing of his book. But he never claimed that, as far as I know, after his book became a best seller. And that was over four decades ago. Paula and Leslie I agree with both of you, there was more than one; and I think MFF will have a claim on the estate. They might even publish the book.

I think both of the above are correct. Lifton was living off of 'some entity". But I actually think it may have been more than one entity.

Sandy: On the back shot, I think that was a short shot. But people can honestly disagree about that one since the autopsy was such a mess. And it was not dissected.

Yes, I think everyone should. Its what this site is supposed to be about. How assassinations killed the sizzling sixties.

Mike: This is a controversial subject. And I predict you will not be able to find out the answer to that question. Lifton did make a lot of money off of Best Evidence, but that book came out in 1980. When Oliver Stone's film came out he made some more money off of a video of the same name. But that was in 1992. Trying to fill in those blanks is not easy.

Sandy that is not what I meant about fake entries. What I meant was the fake bullet holes in the body. Do you buy that?

This is my critique of the long preview section for what is going to be a multi part series. Finally, someone decided to take on the subject of all four assassinations of the sixties. This section is like an overview of the coming series. Generally speaking, I think its pretty good, at least so far. This review is from my substack column which is still free. https://jamesanthonydieugenio.substack.com/p/four-died-trying

Sandy: Do you think all the shots came from the front? Is that not a main thesis of Best Evidence? Would you not say that is a rather unusual tenet? From that thesis comes his other main tenet: that the body was altered to make it look like shots came from the back. Is that not the subject of Chapter 14, Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception? On page 350, he outlines the plot with fake entries, and the body being altered after the fact. On page 378, with a series of illustrations, he also says there were changes to the body. (References to trade paper edition, 1988 Carrol and Graf)

That is sickening, to name an award after this FBI/CIA asset. Rachel R told me that even though KERA is supposed to be part of public TV, Hugh must have been on it over a dozen times. Makes you want to throw up your hands in disgust.

Hugh was treated with respect in Big D for one main reason: that city has been in denial about what happened there in 1963 from the time it occurred. I mean just look at what they wanted to do with the TSBD, there was once a movement to raze it. Look at the whole Bello corporation and what they did at the 50th, a true disgrace. Hugh had been covering up and fabricating stuff since just about the beginning. As I wrote, he was essentially blackmailing the Warren Commission while it was in progress. As I also noted, he said on public TV that his job was to maintain the Oswald myth. What kind of reporter says that kind of thing. Then Gus Russo puts him on the Jennings special in 2003.

I never thought I would be learning something from DVP, but I was not aware of this either. Lifton thought Oswald was firing blanks from the TSBD? Is that really true? And Ready jumped in the car, and JBC was shot from the front during the tussle? OMG.

Let me get this straight: There was a fight in the car after Ready jumped in, and this is how Connally got shot from the front? I mean no wonder people abandoned him en masse.

The completeness with which the MSM missed this story is a little shocking. Why? Because three months after the Commission volumes were published, the first combat troops landed at DaNang. Never happened in three years under Kennedy. And the MSM completely whiffed on that.

Gary: Lifton thought Connally was shot from the front twice? Is that what you are saying?

Who was Erich? One of her sons? And why do you think she refused to meet Oswald?

Can you talk about this some more? DId Ernest know her also? I seem to have forgotten about her.

FRUS is invaluable, I agree. Interesting about Derrick Thomas. Thanks. I think that more than one factor was the reason for JFK's murder, but as time goes on, I tend towards Indochina as paramount.