James DiEugenio

Wow Jon, sorry this hit home so personally with you. But I'm sorry, the record is the record. 1. Dulles, Nixon, and Ike got us into Vietnam. They did this by essentially creating South Vietnam under the aegis of Lansdale. They then picked an Americanized Catholic, Ngo DInh Diem, to be the leader of this country. They then propped him up with an American support system, including anywhere from 750-1,000 advisors. And an open ended commitment. This was a mistake. That commitment should have never been made. 2. LBJ knew that those VC were on the border of Cambodia and Vietnam. He knew all about the Ho Chi Minh Trail. He dropped something like 31 tons of bombs there and authorized some special forces units. That was it. Nixon and Kissinger authorized the massive secret bombing of Cambodia. Which went on for 14 months. In which thousands of tons of bombs were now being dropped on a neutral country. It was not stopped until it was exposed in congress. Nixon also authorized an invasion of the country. In support of seeking COSVN, a mythical VC HQ which was never found. This destabilized Cambodia and Sihanouk was overthrown. Now, there was a war between General Lon Nol and the Khmer Rouge. The latter barely existed under Sihanouk. We all know how this ended up. 3.) I could not disagree more with your comment about JFK not having a chance to understand Vietnam. He was there in 1951. Edmund Gullion of the State Department told him that France could never win the war. That message stuck with him forever. And it impacted his view of colonial struggles. In November of 1961, he objected to sending combat troops into Vietnam using the same arguments he learned from Gullion. He did understand it was unwinnable by 1963, after the battle of Ap Bac, and was getting out.

This is how bad Richard Nixon was. And this is why he had to rehab himself. It did not work because of the declassification process. Those records make it manifestly clear that, as Henry Kissinger once said--when working for Nelson Rockefeller--that Nixon was unfit to be president. And this is why Nixon fought not to have those records open to the public. As time goes on, and as scholars delve deeper and deeper into the declassified record, Kennedy looks better and better; while Nixon looks worse and worse. Which makes people like Chris Mathews with his nutty book Kennedy and Nixon look like a fool. Along with ideologues like Chomsky who see no differences in policy with any occupant of the White House. The people in the Third World knew better. As Gen. Giap's son told Mani Kang, he knew Kennedy was withdrawing in 1963. http://www.ctka.net/2013/General_Giap_Knew_Kang.html Moral of the story: the only thing more interesting than trying to figure out the plot to kill JFK, is sorting out the changes in the Big Picture after his death. They were immense, and we still don't have all of them. One pattern reinforces the other. Which is why DVP wants us to keep on arguing about Nick McDonald, and not those three million dead civilians in Indochina. Anyway, I hope this peaked your curiosity about the upcoming article. Everyone here, except for maybe two people, should enjoy it. I will post it when its up.

But he's only 53. Maybe there's hope?

End of story? As Nagell used to write in his letters exposing the Kennedy conspiracy from prison: "Not hardly." Nixon had lied to LBJ about what he had done. But as is the case in Washington,when he became president, through Hoover, Nixon found out about the FBI investigation. Nixon alway liked running his own covert operations. And this penchant would bring the story full circle. So he ordered Haldeman to find the file. Not knowing LBJ took it with him, Haldeman said he could not find it. When he failed, he gave the job to Thomas C. Huston, of the infamous Huston Plan. Huston could not find it. But he finally got a lead that it might be at Brookings Institute. This was around the time the Pentagon Papers were preparing to be published. When Nixon heard about this, he said he wanted to have the Brookings Institute raided, and blow the safe to get it. As Ken Hughes writes in his book Chasing Shadows, this is the real beginning of the Plumbers Unit. In a story that might have been written by a gifted playwright, over fear of exposrue of his Anna Chennault mission, Nixon was eventually undone through Watergate. Now, did Saigon get a better deal through Nixon than with LBJ? Hard to say, but probably not. What this all did was simply guarantee Nixon's election, and then his reelection. With four more years of bombing, fighting and horror in Indochina. Including now, the destruction of Cambodia.

As I said, there are two indications of Nixon attempting to lengthen the war. The second instance is much more clear. It happened in 1968 during the presidential race between Humphrey and Nixon. LBJ was trying to get a peace agreement with Hanoi negotiated before he left office, or at least serious negotiations in place. And he was careful to let both candidate's know what was going on. But Nixon thought that this would work to his detriment if successful. Especially if it was a close election, which it was. Therefore, he enlisted Anna Chennault, the veteran GOP China lobbyist to sandbag the negotiations. And she did so through contact with Saigon. Nixon told Theiu and Ky to hold out and he would get them a better deal. LBJ suspected as much. So he told the FBI to investigate. They confirmed his suspicions about Nixon's perfidy. LBJ now had a choice, expose it and go public thereby helping HHH. Or bury it for the mythical good of the country. He chose the latter and Nixon won the election. Read the sordid details here. https://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/03/lbjs-x-file-on-nixons-treason/

The link below leads to an utterly fascinating, but much overlooked article by the exemplary investigative journalist Jim Hougan. (Who, among other things, has written what I--and many others-think is still the best book about Watergate, Secret Agenda.) http://jimhougan.com/NixonInTheJungle.html Once you read it you will see that it poses a mystery that almost defies explication. What the heck was Nixon, a private citizen at the time, doing in the jungles of Vietnam in 1964? As Jim notes, the explanation given does not really wash. I am not saying I agree with Jim's interpretation, but it seems to me that the timing of the visit is more than a bit suggestive. It does seem to jibe with the beginning of the end of Kennedy's efforts to exit, and the start of Johnson's to escalate. Was Nixon giving a bit of a boost to the latter?

The argument I will make in this essay is simply this: If any President's name deserves to be attached to the VIetnam War its Nixon's. Direct US involvement was from 1954-1973. NIxon was in the White House for 11 of those years. LBJ was there for 5, and JFK for 3. Further, it was Eisenhower/NIxon/ Dulles who made the initial commitment and who actually created South Vietnam. And it was really Nixon who extended the war in a very large way into Cambodia and, to a lesser extent, into Laos. Somehow, Halberstam discounted all that. But there are two other things he missed about Nixon, which he probably should not have. Because they are indications that Nixon helped extended the war. Even when he was out of office.

Let me tell you something about Halberstam's book Ken. When McGeorge Bundy started doing his memoir about Vietnam, with Gordon Goldstein, he went back and revisited the whole declassified record. That, combined with his memory, made him conclude that JFK would have never gone into Vietnam. In fact, he had nothing but admiration for what Kennedy had done. He even said that JFK was so smart that he perceived that Bundy was too hawkish on the issue, so he went around him and through McNamara to enact his withdrawal program. In fact, there is a phone dialogue in the book Virtual JFK where McNamara and Kennedy are talking about getting out of Vietnam, and Bundy does not know what the heck they are talking about. When he listened to it, he told Goldstein that Kennedy had appointed McNamara as his emissary to get out of Indochina. Therefore bypassing him, which he had no problem with. He then went back and reread Halberstam's book. He said Halberstam got it all wrong because he completely missed out on who JFK was, especially in comparison to Johnson. And you are right Ken, his book is a bloody bore to read today. Especially in relation to books like Kaiser's and Douglass' and Newman's. Since he did not have the pertinent facts and evidence, he padded it out with peripheral and irrelevant attempts at biographies. I want to know what a guy did in relation to an epochal event, not how long he was married, or what his town folk thought of him or how he could memorize term papers in high school. I mean Indochina resulted in the death of about 3 million innocent civilians. The vast majority were killed after 1954, when the USA took over the situation. I want to know how that happened, not about Bob McNamara's or Dean Rusk's reading habits.

Davey: Did you tell everyone about Ruth's asterisk? Or do I have to?

But before we get to that, I want to demonstrate just how badly secrecy can harm a democracy. See, way back in the late sixties, David Halberstam started writing a mega bestselling book called The Best and the Brightest, which was supposed to be about America's involvement in Vietnam. It was not about that really. It was about Kennedy's and Johnson's involvement in Vietnam. In other words, the Democratic Party in Vietnam. I mean he started the book as a magazine assignment suggested by rightwing nut Midge Decter. So how could it be anything else? (Halberstam, p. 607) But further, Halberstam's book was largely based on interviews. In fact, he admits that. (p. 668) Further, in many cases, he did not source the interviews. And he did not catalog the people he interviewed. And although he says he managed to look at the Pentagon Papers before publication, it could not have been for very long. Since they had only just been published as his book was being completed. So he relied on interviews with Leslie Gelb, the editor of the Pentagon Papers. (p. 671) These decisions have made his book pretty much superfluous today. In fact, its worse than that really. Its pernicious in the face of the declassified record. Here is my analysis of his book today, as I show how imbalanced it is. Nixon could not have hoped for anything better. Kennedy could not have been done much worse. http://www.ctka.net/2011/Halberstam_pt1.html

I just taped a long interview today for Len Osanic's upcoming Black Op Radio show, this Thursday. I spent a lot of time on two topics: 1.) The historical impact of the assassinations of the sixties on that decade 2.) Nixon vs. JFK on VIetnam The reason I did so is that I have a long two part essay coming up on Bob Parry's fine site Consortium News based on the latter subject. See, Nixon fought for a long time not to have the NARA take over and start declassifying his tapes and papers. In fact, when a former friend of mine tried to get a look at his papers in the nineties, he told me, "Jim, there is almost nothing there. Its a disgrace." Well, after Nixon died, this situation changed. And now scholars can go through a lot of his stuff. I based my essay on two new books dealing with Nixon on Vietnam: Nixon's Nuclear Specter, and Fatal Politics. The combination of these two books pretty much covers most of what the guy did while he was president on Vietnam. The net result is devastating to Nixon's attempt to rehab himself after Watergate. He should have burned the tapes. When you compare him talking about Vietnam, with Kennedy talking about Vietnam, there is simply no comparison. Kennedy is an intelligent analyst and statesman. Nixon is a smartass/stupid thug: a man who has little or no regard for how many innocent people die in a war he knew could not be won. In my article I say that if these tapes had been available to David Frost, Nixon would have been eviscerated in public. In fact, he would have never agreed to be interviewed. They are that bad.

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy? If so, then I agree with him.

I brought this back because of this: I just checked the stats marker today: This Bugliosi essay has become the most successful article posted at CTKA in the last three years. Its getting something over 1400 hits per day, and over 900 visits per day. That is a phenomenal ratio, ask anyone. I am forced to deduce that very few people knew very much about Vince, or certain aspects of his legal, and political career, and his personal life. He certainly managed to avoid them in his interviews. Anyway if you want to join the party, here is the link again: http://www.ctka.net/2015/the_prosecutor_bugliosi.html

DSL: The first time these doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from the front, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings, and which was not sent to the Warren Commission until December 20, 1963 or to the FBI until December 23, 1863. Was the SS agent not Elmer Moore?

Wasn't that rich? Talk about a Freudian slip. McCains' father was very high up in the Navy. In fact, he was an Admiral who was off the coast of Vietnam. He was very much involved with the actual bombing and blockading of Indochina. Look him up in William Shawcross' Sideshow.

DVP: I think that is an extremely minor and peripheral point LOL, oh really Davey? Who cares when the rifle was ordered? Who cares who picked it up. Who cares how Oswald sent the order in. Don't go near the mysteries of Ruth Paine's calendar.

I should add, Pat's video was pretty much an original production. And the director did a nice job in many of the techniques he used.

Completely wrong Ken. The evidence says it was the other way around. And the whole Iran Contra affair is further proof of it. Carter is at least being halfway honest. BTW I should add, Gore brought up the assassinations in the debates with W in 2000. I found out through Dan Alcorn and Pat Orr that Gore fully believed Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.

The HSCA interviewed Mather informally. They found that the two couples had known each other for five years. That is what McBride sourced it to. But Mather would not submit to a formal deposition. Even after Blakey offered him immunity. (Think about that one for a minute.) Now, see if you find Mather in the WR.

In Weisberg's book Whitewash 2, he quotes from Baker's first day affidavit, about the 3rd or 4th floor. (See page 42.) He then shows how this evolved over time into something else in another affidavit by Baker which contradicts the first one. (See page 44) He then writes that certain documents he found since his first book, "destroy the basic parts of Baker's story" as portrayed in the WR. (ibid, p. 42) Johnson said Baker identified Oswald as the man on the fourth floor. Harold refers to Johnson taking an affidavit from Baker. Which is what led me to Johnson. If you are willing to do that kind of cheap smear against me, you can count me out of speaking at your conference. And goodbye Greg.

How good of a witness is Applin? He later said Ruby was in the theater. Good going Davey. You sure can pick them. PS The WC interviewed 2 of the 24 patrons.

Now, comes the coup de grace. The Carl Mather incident. (ibid, pgs. 526-33) Just six blocks south of Oswald's rooming house, was the El Chico fast food restaurant. This is where a mechanic named TF White saw a car with a man behaving furtively in the parking lot. He and his partner had heard the news of JFK's death. They heard all the squad cars with their horns on in the area. So they knew something was up. His partner convinced White to go up to the car and look at the guy. He did. And he then wrote down the license plate number. The car then drove away, speeding. When he got home, he told his wife about it. Then on TV he saw Oswald's picture--and jumped out of his chair and said: this was the guy hiding in the car! No one interviewed White until local reporter Wes Wise heard of the story. Wise tracked down the license plate number to Carl Mather. Mather worked for Collins Radio, a CIA proprietary company that did high level communications work for the Pentagon and the CIA. Colins supplied the ship the Rex with telecommunications equipment in violation of Kennedy's ban on the CIA outfitting Cuban exile ships with such stuff in 1963. The Rex worked out of JM Wave. They had also been awarded in 1963 with a large contract to build a transmitters system in Vietnam. Mather had been with the company for 21 years Need I add that George DeMohrenschildt knew Admiral Bruton, a Collins VP, and met with him in October of 1962. He introduced Bruton's wife to Marina. And tried to get Oswald a job with the company. But it now gets even better. Mather and his spouse were very close friends with TIppit and his wife. And Mather said he visited the TIppit home on 11/22/63 at about 3:30. Wes Wise said that when he had dinner with the Mathers shortly after the assassination, Mather was so upset he could not even eat. When Jim Douglass asked WIse to try and explain what had happened, Wise said "Well, you're aware of the idea of two Oswalds, I guess." Before Davey goes spastic about Wise being a tinfoil nut, Wise ended up being the mayor of Dallas.

Why did Oswald go to the Texas Theater in the first place? We know there are no stenographic tapes made of his detention. We only have a few pages of notes, from the hours upon hours of questions he submitted to. DId Fritz ask him this question? Did he test him with questions like: Give me the directions to the theater from your rooming house? Had he ever been there before? What was the name of the film playing there? Why did he go to that particular theater? These are all important questions, which to my knowledge have never been answered. Yet they are fundamental to the official story. Here is another one: Who did Bernard Haire see going out the back, while Oswald was led out the front? See, as McBride notes--you did read this book right Davey?--the first police dispatches about the theater were, "Have information a suspect just went in the Texas Theater on West Jefferson...Supposed to be hiding in the balcony." (ibid, p. 521) How did that info get there if Oswald was not in the balcony at all? Yet, as McBride notes, the homicide report on TIppit reads, "Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater at 231 W. Jefferson." (ibid) Haire of course saw the cops take a white male, about 25 with dark hair out the rear of the theater. Haire watched as the man was driven away in a squad car. Haire thought he saw Oswald being arrested. When Oliver Stone came to town to film his movie, he told the film crew that, hey they were wrong, Oswald went out the back. When the assistants showed him the pictures they based their depiction on, Haire said, "Well, then who did I see being taken out of the rear of the theater?" (ibid)

Now, if the order to go to Oak Cliff was actually on the broadcast tapes on 11/22, then why did TIppit disobey the order? We know this since five witnesses saw him sitting in his squad car at the GLOCO filling station at1502 North Zang Blvd. WhIch is at the northernmost point of Oak Cliff; but the order said to move into the Central Oak Cliff area. (ibid, p. 422) Further, this was not where he said he was when he allegedly replied to the dispatcher that he was at Kiest and Bonnie View. (ibid) That was five miles away. The witnesses said he was looking at a viaduct which connected up at the other end with Dealey Plaza. In fact, from where TIppit was watching, you could be in Dealey Plaza on that viaduct in about two minutes. He then headed out and drove down tenth street, but he stopped a business man named James Andrews. This was a couple of blocks from the theater. Tippit cut in front of Andrews and forced him to stop. TIppit got out and motioned for Andrews to stay still. He then looked in the back seat of the car. When he saw nothing, he went back to his car and drove off. (ibid, p, 448) PS Davey never answered the question I submitted to him. Where did the list of 24 witnesses go, and why could the FBI not find it? Keep blowing smoke Davey, I am about to demolish you again.

Now, let us really question this series of events the way a good DA, or any skilled attorney would. But we must add the rubric, "if he was looking for the truth." Bugliosi was not, and neither is Davey. First, how and why did Oswald go to the Texas Theater? 1. If Oswald shot TIppit, why did he leave his wallet there? And if he did not, then who did? Because as we know the official story says he gave it to a cop in the squad car on the way to the station after his arrest. But yet, we now know that a second Oswald wallet was left at the scene. 2. Why did he make it to Tenth and Patton in world record time for a walker, yet make like a turtle with arthritis to get to the Texas Theater from 10th and Patton? In Bugliosi's book, what he does with this is amusing. After walking so fast--like the comic book character Flash-- that no one saw him get to 10th and Patton, Vince now says that it took him so long to get to the theater because he was hiding behind trees, in doorways, in the gutter etc. Yeah sure Vince, and no one saw him either way, right? 3. Why did Tippit stop Oswald? I think everyone here understands that the whole Brennan story is baloney. I mean as Ian Griggs shows, Brennan very likely was never at any Oswald line up. And we also know he refused to be cross examined by the HSCA. Who requested an interview something like nine times. And there were no SS agents to give a description to in DP.. 4. Why was TIppit in the wrong area of the city? The DPD did all they could to hide this fact. They rearranged the signal tapes 3 times to explain this. (McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 422) And in the third version, finally appearing on March 20th, the order to go to Oak Cliff finally appeared. Naming only two cops to go to Oak Cliff, when almost the entire force was headed to Dealey Plaza. Even though, and its a kicker, there was already a cop stationed in Oak Cliff. (ibid) By the way, McBride's book pretty much demolishes the conflicting stories that dispatcher Murray Jackson gave over the years as to why this order finally showed up the third time around. As McBride now pungently notes: is it just a coincidence that Oswald had an Oak Cliff address?