Greg Burnham
-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by 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.
-
if bundy was in fact "not in on Kennedy's real Vietnam policy," how could be expected to draft a document reflective of that policy?
Hi Martin,
I disagree (I think) with Jim on this issue. I don't buy the idea that Bundy was "out of the loop" on JFK's real Vietnam (withdrawal) policy. Not for a second. NSAM 263 was authored and signed (on behalf of JFK) by Bundy! NSAM 263 is unequivocal. Again, it was the result of the McNamara-Taylor Mission Report. The ONLY part of the ENTIRE report that was approved by JFK was the portion placing a time limit on completing the "military campaign in Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965." McGeorge Bundy, as the president's Special Advisor on National Security, was definitely IN THE LOOP on this issue. How could he NOT be? He wrote the National Security Action Memorandum 263 that ordered the withdrawal of the bulk of all US personnel by the end of 1965! If we claim that Bundy didn't know what the policy was, I really don't know how we can "get there from here" -- ?? -- After all, he wrote the damn official documents!
Such guidance could only have come during the drafting procedure (which I believe we are relatively certain it didn't) or during a post-drafting editing phases (which it never had a chance to be subjected to under kennedy). why would someone who was known to be in the dark on this issue relative to "real policy" be given the task of drafting this document in the first place?Again, I think you raise very good points here. I don't think that he was "in the dark" at all. He was the President's Special Advisor on National Security for God's sake! He was definitely privy to the most sensitive material without question. That is why he was given tasks such as writing NSAM's. However, the fact that any NSAM was spawned from the Honolulu Conference is possibly the smoking gun. There doesn't appear to be any reason to expect a new NSAM would have come from that meeting at all, let alone an NSAM that reversed the direction of a very recently implemented policy.
Moreover, there is NOTHING in the JOINT "STATE DEPT / DEFENSE DEPT" Cable indicating that the agenda would include discussions about a change in Vietnam policy. In fact, the opposite is true! There is also NOTHING in the Honolulu Conference memorandum (FRUS Volume IV) that indicates ANY discussions took place that would have spawned the content of the DRAFT of NSAM 273--NOT ONE THING...
-
Hello everyone. New here as a member though I have been reading the forum for some time.
Welcome to the forum, Martin!
I read the posts in this thread a few weeks ago and have been thinking about them since. In particular, I was interested in the discussion of this section of the draft of NSAM 273:4. It is of the highest importance that the United States Government avoid either the appearance or the reality of public recrimination from one part of it against another, and the President expects that all senior officers of the Government will take energetic steps to insure that they and their subordinates go out of their way to maintain and to defend the unity of the United States Government both here and in the field.
Ultimately, I came to believe that this section had more to do with a context that already existed than it was a portent of a context yet to come. That context is reflected in the reporting of Arthur Krock and Richard Starnes (and others) that concerned an “Intra-administration War in Vietnam” and the “ ‘Arrogant’ CIA Disobey(ing) Orders in Viet Nam.”
In this context, the section of the draft NSAM 273 reflects Kennedy’s desire to retain control of Vietnam policy and he is instructing the entities and individuals (CIA, military) who are opposing his moves in Vietnam and elsewhere to cease and desist, stop running to the press, and get in line with the program. A tall order, indeed, given the circumstances.
While this section may have portended further moves by Kennedy in this conflict, I don’t believe it was indicative of the planned assassination.
After the assassination, this section of NSAM 273 was no longer necessary because those entities mentioned previously were to be given the playground they wanted in Vietnam by Johnson. All opposition, such as it was, would now be swept aside, muted, or co-opted. A different team with a different coach was now in charge.
I agree with much of what you have written here. Unfortunately, due to the lack of reliable records and "reportage" from the STATE Dept., et al, we are unable to reach definitive conclusions in this regard. However, even though I tend to defer to the judgment of my good friend (the late) L. Fletcher Prouty, I still prefer to suspend judgment on that particular portion of this document. Make no mistake, "push come to shove" (absent any further proof otherwise) I would bet on Prouty's judgment without question.
However, my interest concerns other items of this [DRAFT] document. Many very intelligent and scholarly individuals have written extensively on the FINAL VERSION of NSAM 273. Some have indicated their belief that it wasn't a big departure from the DRAFT--I agree with that. However, where they cite that fact as an exculpatory indicator, I take exception. The problem is that the DRAFT document was no more a KENNEDY document than is the subsequent FINAL version. Neither document is consistent with Kennedy policies or intentions. There exists NO documentation to even suggest otherwise and the existing documentation refutes such a claim.
My thesis deals with how (NSAM 273 DRAFT) the prima facie evidence--BEFORE the FACT--relates to the apparent perfidy during and after the fact...which is a subject that has not been adequately addressed.
-
Is there any third choice in the US? Could a third party ever gain power?
Perhaps. Would you like to head one up?
-
Greg,
Do you think so? I've been disappointed with Obama's performance, but is it enough to drive people to the likes of Sarah Palin?
As in the UK the people of the US seem disillusioned with mainstream politicians. The Tea Party candidates seem both politically and economically, illiterate.
You've got it right, John. In my opinion, The T-Party is a "shot in the dark" at best...at least the "Palin-nite" version is. God help us if they ever come to power! The Rand Paul wing of the T-Party is much more promising. There exists little, if any, distinction between the "Republicans and the Democrats" these days.
It's become a lot of "smoke and mirrors" between them--a ruse, of sorts--to keep the masses placated. And it goes on, and on, and on, and on....
It's not the donkey who gets f*&%^ed in the arse--it's the rest of us...
-
Jim,
Has Glenn become "teacher's pet" or something? You gave him the answers to the FINAL EXAM!
GO_SECURE
monk
Start with David Mantik's research establishing two shots to the head and the argument from addition and subtraction which I present in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). Then turn to David's brilliant synthesis of the medical evidence and Douglas Weldon's exceptional study of the shot to the throat, which passed through the windshield, in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). Then consider the shot to the back in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you can download as a pdf or else read at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/reasoning-about-assassinations.html
That makes four shots to JFK: one to the throat (from the south side of the Triple Underpass), one to the back (from the top of the County Records building), and two to the head (one from the Dal-Tex and one from the north side of the Triple Underpass). In addition, Big John Connally was hit from one to three times from the side (which appear to have been fired from the west side of the Book Depository). One missed and injured James Tague, another hit the chrome strip (both from the Dal-Tex), and another hit the grass left of the limo (fired from the "grassy knoll").
That makes 4 to JFK, 1-3 in Connally, and 3 that missed, which makes 8-10 shots altogether (where very recent research suggests there may have been yet one more shot, in which case the number would increase by one). For an overview--including a diagram of the shot sequence--visit "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy", http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ and download Chapter 30, "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", which I presented during a conference at the University of North Dakota and was introduced by The Honorable John R. Tunheim.
-
Glenn,
You've posted a quote (presumably accurately represented here) without citing the published source from which it was attained. For those unfamiliar with Jim's work, it places them at a disadvantage when attempting to evaluate the validity of the claim. Can you cite the publication wherein this appears, so that it can be considered within context? I know you cited Jim Fetzer, but alone, that is insufficient to represent the argument upon which the assertion is based.
Many thanks.
-
-
I received a very encouraging email from Paris Flammonde this evening after his having reviewed my thesis on NSAM 273. He wrote:
"It was with dubiety that I approached the "report" by Greg Burnham, having,
during the past near half-century remarked the torrent of ill-informed
"analyses" (much drawn from astonishing ignorance of the subject),
misunderstanding and misinterpretation of speculative if not wholly specious
postulations regarding the assassination and concomitant conjecture,
consummately wearied by the density and dubiety of all but a limited effort
by a handful of genuine experts and scholars of the subject. Yet, I was not
surprised that a few words, recognized by a remarkably astute perception,
carried more convincing intimation of the prelude to the perfidy than
volumes of self-important fictionalizing."
-
Good stuff, Bill. As usual, I don't find myself disagreeing with you--just approaching the same truth from a different direction. Indeed, Bundy was not in charge--but, he was apparently "dancing to the beat of the drum" of someone other than his boss, JFK--and whoever that was (or they were) did not have the best interest of the POTUS in mind. Still, the fact remains...BUNDY KNEW SOMETHING!
As I posted elsewhere:
My position is that the wording of this DRAFT document is much too CERTAIN. After all, it is a REVERSAL of the then "central object" of the US Government, i.e., WITHDRAWAL, as per NSAM 263. However, Bundy isn't even mildly concerned with the appearance of impropriety. He drafts a document that dramatically altered the focus of the military from total withdrawal to total commitment!
If it was true that JFK had just signed a NSAM (263) in a half-baked manner, without all the facts, from a position of ignorance--then maybe--maybe, we could dismiss this as a very macabre coincidence.
But, that version of history is contrived.
JFK did NOT sign NSAM 263 without knowing exactly what he was doing. After all, he authored the McNamara-Taylor Report himself (through the work of General Victor Krulak and Colonel L Fletcher Prouty).
The entire purpose of the McNamara-Taylor Mission was to allow JFK the appearance of having responded to a military recommendation; to order our personnel home, but do it in a manner consistent with his having received a recommendation from the MILITARY to that effect.
There is no question as to JFK's intentions to withdraw from Vietnam. That Bundy wrote a NSAM (that's not a "normal" memo--it's a National Security ACTION Memo), which began the REVERSAL of such a well considered withdrawal policy--and worded it so confidently, against all odds that JFK would have EVER signed such a thing, is extremely suspect. Bundy knew something.
IMO: It is a "bridge" document. It is meant to deceive. Its purpose was to attempt to link JFK's policy before his assassination to the policy that LBJ adopted 4 days thereafter. It has taken decades to unravel what is perhaps the simplest and most obvious act of treason in the JFK assassination. Why obvious, you ask? Because it's been right under our noses all along...
I agree with you, and I think that the most significant evidence Mac Bundy knew something was going down - is the fact that Prouty managed to get a copy of the pre-11/22/63 version of this NSAM and it contained the alarming statement that was later removed, that:
"4. It is of the highest importance that the United States Government avoid either the appearance or the reality of public recrimination from one part of it against another, and the President expects that all senior officers of the Government will take energetic steps to insure that they and their subordinates go out of their way to maintain and to defend the unity of the United States Government both here and abroad."
PROUTY: Read that carefully! This draft places the "highest importance" on the fact that the "U.S. Government avoid either the appearance or the reality of public recrimination (FOR WHAT?) from one part of it ("it" is a singular pronoun and limits this subject to the U.S. Government, alone, and does not include Vietnam!) against another."
What type of "recrimination" was Bundy expecting on the day before Kennedy died; and what was this "recrimination" by one part of the U.S. Government against another? For some obscure reason did these men believe that there would be some enormous uprising in the United States as a result of "WHAT?" After all, these first draft memos were dated Nov 21, 1963. (Copies of memo to McCone of CIA, and to William Bundy,.....
BK: While Bill Bundy, Mac's brother, was at the Honolulu conference, and Mac at the White House Sit Room, the director of the CIA John McCone, at the time of the assassination, was briefing the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, talking mainly about Cuba and Vietnam, with Vietnam taking up most of the minutes of the meeting. McCone complained about the New York Times reporter James Reston's articles blaming the CIA for the Vietnam coup and assassination of the Diems, which he strongly denied and was wondering how he - they could counter these accusations. The meeting was interupted by the news of the assassintion, and Reston became one of the first to suggest that the assassination was the work of a Lone Nut case.
Now having read all that about the original wording of the draft, and knowing that it might be an expression of some looming catistrophie, it is also interesting that William Manchester and Teddy White were permitted to read an unedited transcript of the radio communicaitons from AF1 on its return flight from Dallas. And according to Vince Salandria, they quote excerpts that are not on the existing, edited transcript and audio tape currently available from LBJ Library.
The original tape and unedited transcript allegedly contains a report emanting from McGeorge Bundy in the Situation Room at the White House that a suspect has been caught and there was no conspiracy.
But If you listen to Bundy in the Situation Room talking with Gen. Clifton aboard AF1 on the audio tapes:
On Reel 2, Side One - Patch #7, there's a really interesting exchange, with Gen. Clifton giving the orders to Bundy, as to who to invite to the bipartisan meeting with LBJ when they get back to DC, and where in the White House they were to have the very first meeting between LBJ, Mac Bundy, MacNamara and the few key people that were to take over the helm of government.
It's quite clear from this tape that it is Clifton who is giving the orders and calling the shots, and not Mac Bundy - who Clifton clearly yells at at one point -
http://jfkcountercou...anmissions.html-
.......That is correct. For about seven thirty. Over.
- Seven thirty at the White House? Over.
- Seven thirty in the Cabinet Room. Over.
- Tell the Vice President [sic ] the Cabinet Room is under rearrangement, but the Oval Room will be ready. Over.
- The Oval Room it will be, you mean the Fish Room?
- I mean, both the Fish Room, and the President's Study and we will try to have the Cabinet Room. But that's a detail, we can work that out. Over.
- This is Watchman. [Gen. Clifton] HE DOES NOT WANT TO GO IN THE MANSION OR IN THE OVAL ROOM OR THE PRESIDENT'S STUDY OR THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE. (Loud and with emphasis)
- Correct. [bundy].
- IF THE CABINET ROOM ISN'T READY PUT IT IN THE FISH ROOM. OVER.
- I have you. I understand. Always in the West Wing. Over.
- I have nothing further. Over.
- This is Watchman, now please brief Duplex about the changes, so we don't confuse it. Duplex is Jerry Behn. Over.
- Alright I will.
- See you in a little while. Over.
- Okay.
So while Mac Bundy may be in the Situation Room in the basement of the White House, he is certainly not in charge, or calling the shots, as he was suspected of doing.
BK
-
As I posted elsewhere:
My position is that the wording of this DRAFT document is much too CERTAIN. After all, it is a REVERSAL of the then "central object" of the US Government, i.e., WITHDRAWAL, as per NSAM 263. However, Bundy isn't even mildly concerned with the appearance of impropriety. He drafts a document that dramatically altered the focus of the military from total withdrawal to total commitment!
If it was true that JFK had just signed a NSAM (263) in a half-baked manner, without all the facts, from a position of ignorance--then maybe--maybe, we could dismiss this as a very macabre coincidence.
But, that version of history is contrived.
JFK did NOT sign NSAM 263 without knowing exactly what he was doing. After all, he authored the McNamara-Taylor Report himself (through the work of General Victor Krulak and Colonel L Fletcher Prouty).
The entire purpose of the McNamara-Taylor Mission was to allow JFK the appearance of having responded to a military recommendation; to order our personnel home, but do it in a manner consistent with his having received a recommendation from the MILITARY to that effect.
There is no question as to JFK's intentions to withdraw from Vietnam. That Bundy wrote a NSAM (that's not a "normal" memo--it's a National Security ACTION Memo), which began the REVERSAL of such a well considered withdrawal policy--and worded it so confidently, against all odds that JFK would have EVER signed such a thing, is extremely suspect. Bundy knew something.
IMO: It is a "bridge" document. It is meant to deceive. Its purpose was to attempt to link JFK's policy before his assassination to the policy that LBJ adopted 4 days thereafter. It has taken decades to unravel what is perhaps the simplest and most obvious act of treason in the JFK assassination. Why obvious, you ask? Because it's been right under our noses all along...
-
I might need to "stir the xxxx storm" in a new thread, I guess. It just seems to me that this isn't a NEUTRAL issue, right? Seems to me that this is important. Either I'm on to something here or I'm "on crack" -- but it isn't neutral!
-
Hey Bernice,
I guess this means everyone agrees that, "I got it right" -- since there's been no rebuttal? Cool...
-
Again? I was expecting something like that from you Greg, or a few others. It's the American University that is incorrect. The rest is spot on. But thank you for something.
John,
How can "American University" possibly be incorrect? It's Barry's topic! The estimation that it was JFK's greatest speech is his opinion and one to which he is entitled!
It's typical for some folks to divert attention away from those who killed Kennedy due to his anti-war / pro-peace position by placing the blame on "red necks" instead. So much ignorance in such little minds.
-
No It would not, BK. Late June 11 Kennedy gave the speech that revved up the impulse that led to his death. The June 10 speech and the assassination of Medgar Evers two hours after the june 11 speech bracketed this speech and brought instability at home so that the ideals of socialism was firmly planted with a cause in the US itself. That was the frontline now and that was where the battle was fought.
The title of this TOPIC is American University. The American University Speech was delivered on June 10th not June 11th. Barry was commenting on THAT speech. Bill was correcting the error in the "date" of that speech that Barry erroneously cited. You're off topic...again
but I agree with you that the June 11th Civil Rights speech is another great one. -
Steve,
Please forgive my curiosity, but you said that this was the first forum on which you EVER posted? Really?
I seem to have started something, which wasn't my intent. I read a few comments about James before I created my own, and in fact, it was the first post I created on ANY forum, so forgive me if it came across brash and crude. James' work was one of the reasons I wanted to start posting, and it seemed he was a "controversial" figure, if I can use that term, on the boards. I wanted to get a majority feel about a particular researcher/author whom I was having trouble understanding, on the basis of one book and some articles I had read. It wasn't, in hindsight, how I should have gone about it. Forgive a newbie.
First of all, your inquiry/post wasn't brash nor was it crude. Most "newbies" have never even been exposed to the word "newbie" at all! You're catching on fast...
As for questions that I may have, well I've ordered James' other works, and will read them in turn. If I have any further questions or inquiries, I'll pm James directly, I think. (If that's agreeable). So, I've nothing else to add, sorry again if anyone was offended. I do try to be respectful to all, as I expect to be treated in turn. Thanks Steve.Welcome to the forum.
-
I was emailed the following and got such a grin out of it, I wanted to post it here. I know it is WAY off topic. If inappropriate, moderators, know that I won't complain if you choose to delete it.
Remember Cliff Clavin from the TV show "Cheers"? Well, he had this theory on the benefits of drinking beer that went like this:
"Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
-
John,
The version I reproduced here is the one that is quoted in Buckminster Fuller's book, Critical Path, as I said.
-
I'm reading an awesome book called: Critical Path -- by author Buckminster
Fuller (a book highly recommended to me by Fletcher Prouty). Fuller is one of my
favorite authors. He also wrote a book called "Synergetics" that I read many
years ago.
In this book (Critical Path) he quotes an American Indian Chief (Chief Seattle)
who gave a speech in 1854 in response to an offer by the President (Franklin
Pierce) to "buy their land" (20 million acres) from them for $150,000! The
"Great White Chief" (President) also promised to provide a "reservation" for his
people.
The chief of the tribe, Chief Seattle, replied eloquently. In fact that is who
the city of Seattle is named after!
SPEECH:
How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to
us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and sparkle of the water, how can
you buy them? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining
pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and
humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which
courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man.
The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk
among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the
mother of the red man.
We are part of the earth and it is part of us.
The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle,
these are our brothers.
The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and
man--all belong to the same family.
So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy land, he
asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that
we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his
children. So... we will consider your offer to buy our land.
But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us.
This shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water but
the blood of our ancestors.
If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach
your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear
water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people.
The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.
The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our
canoes, and feed our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and
teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers, and yours, and you must
henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give any brother.
We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is
the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and
takes from the land whatever he needs.
The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he
moves on.
He leaves his father's graves behind, and he does not care.
He kidnaps the earth from his children, and he does not care.
His father's grave, and his children's birthright, are forgotten. He treats his
mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plundered,
sold like sheep or bright beads.
His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert.
I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways.
The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man. But perhaps it is
because the red man is a savage and does not understand.
There is no quiet place in the white man's cities. No place to hear the
unfurling of leaves in spring, or the rustle of an insect's wings.
But perhaps it is because I am a savage and do not understand.
The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man
cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs
around a pond at night? I am a red man and do not understand.
The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond,
and the smell of the wind itself, cleaned by a midday rain, or scented with the
pinion pine.
The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath--the
beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. The white man does not
seem to notice the air he breathes.
Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the stench.
But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us,
that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that gave
our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh.
And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where
even the white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow's
flowers.
So we will consider your offer to buy our land. If we decide to accept, I will
make one condition: The white man must treat the beasts of this land as his
brothers.
I am a savage and I do not understand any other way.
I've seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the prairie, left by the white man who
shot them from a passing train.
I am a savage and I do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more
important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive.
What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from
a great loneliness of spirit.
For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are
connected.
You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of
your grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that
the earth is rich with the lives of our kin.
Teach your children what we have taught our children: that the earth is our
mother.
Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the
ground, they spit upon themselves.
This we know: The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This
we know.
All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are
connected.
Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth.
Man did not weave the web of life: he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.
Even the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as friend to friend,
cannot be exempt from the common destiny.
We may be brothers after all.
We shall see.
One thing we know, which the white man may one day discover, our God is the same
God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land; but you
cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal for the red man and
the white.
This earth is precious to Him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its
Creator.
The whites too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Contaminate
your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.
But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of God who
brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over
this land and over the red man.
That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the buffalo are
all slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest
heavy with scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking
wires.
Where is the thicket? Gone.
Where is the eagle? Gone.
The end of living and the beginning of survival.
====================================
-
Huh? What are you rambling about now, Len? The USG is NOT an "organization" in the same sense that Wiki Leaks is an organization. Apples and Oranges. Moreover, you are playing both sides of the fence. In one breath you said that the critics of Wiki Leaks are unlikely to get anyone killed, thus implying that Wiki Leaks' revelations run such a risk-- and in the next breath you said you are unaware of any documented or even alleged cases that Wiki Leaks has caused anyone to be killed. Wow, you said two things which cancelled each other out.
And, you outed yourself...AGAIN! Perhaps, you need not worry about enemies like Wiki Leaks... what, with friends like yourself--who needs them?
-
Very, very funny!
Whether or not he laundered money, and given the fact that his control of the print media in several countries is very negative, I still fail to understand why his religious affiliations should be in any way relevant. Why mention it?
Being Jewish is a religious affiliation?
I thought it was like being Irish.
Everybody knows Jews know how to handle money and the Irish are obnoxious.
BK
My Lord, this is hilarious! Hey, and what about Sammy Davis Jr.? Huh, what about THAT!
Monk,
Sammy was really a satanist. I believe he received an award from Anton Levay for his portrayal of the Devil's helper on NBC titled Poor Devil.
-
Mr Von Pein has never been a member here unless he joined under a different name.
It's just that he's been booted from so many venues that he can't remember which ones are which...
-
Cliff,
After JFK was assassinated, why did we fail to even attempt an invasion of Cuba, then?
My comments in burgandy
Thank you, Monk. I've been looking forward to having a discussion with you like this for a decade...Waiting for the right subject matter.Well, after a decade we better make it a good show...
So far so good...
[snip]When Kennedy went along with Harriman and the overthrow of Diem, and the back channel talks with Castro, the plug was pulled on the Chicago, Tampa and Miami plots.[snip]
I tend to believe that no one was more in shock that Diem was assassinated than JFK. We know that a series of cables were exchanged over the weekend between the WH and Ambassador Lodge in Saigon. We know that these were "ill advised" cables since several of those in Washington, who should have been in "the loop" were away, ostensibly, for the weekend. This led, as incredibly as it may sound, to a "rough draft" actually being sent. Because these cables contained communications whose meaning could be stretched enough to be interpreted as support for an immediate coup, which was the course to which Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge was already inclined, US support for same was communicated to General Big Minh and his co-conspirators in Saigon--and it was off to the races. This is hardly evidence of JFK's complicity, JFK's acquiescence to a Harriman plan against Diem (although Harriman clearly supported such a plan on behalf of the State Department), or a JFK "order" to eliminate Diem.
Gareth Porter, The Perils of Dominace, pg. 178 (emphasis added):
(quote on)
Kennedy's withdrawal strategy was based...on the premise that the Diem regime
would not be overthrown by a military coup, and that its repressive character and
political weakness probably would provide a convenient rationale for early withdrawal.
Immediately after Kennedy had achieved the objective of legitimizing the withdrawal
plan (contained in the 10/2/63 McNamara-Taylor Report-cv), the CIA reported
on Oct. 5 that Saigon generals were now moving ahead with a coup plan. Kennedy
was reluctant to oppose a coup plan that had already been set in motion. Instead, he
tried to tread a fine line between not "thwarting" a coup and encouraging such a coup.
Once the United State decided to establish liaison with the coup plotters, however, this
line was meaningless. Even though Kennedy tried to insist shortly before the coup that
Lodge discourage the generals unless it was certain to succeed, the administration was
irrevocably compromised by such contacts.
(quote off)
What I gather from the above is that JFK placed the withdrawal plan at the top of
his priorities. Prior to the Oct. 5 CIA report on the So. Vietnam coup moves, JFK
had been happy to let his top advisers McNamara and Taylor carry his water for
a phased withdrawal. After Oct. 5 JFK "went along" with Harriman and State on
the Diem coup -- maintaining a hands-off "fine line" -- in order to more aggressively
push for the phased withdrawal. And in pursuit of that, NSAM 263 was issued on Oct. 11.
As for back channel talks with Castro...I agree that JFK and Harriman both agreed same was desirable for US interests and "business" interests, respectively. I might add, same was also desirable in the eyes of Kruschev who was fighting his own battles with Soviet hard liners in his own country. If Castro and Kennedy could find a way to rapproachment Kruschev would no longer be faced with the bleak prospect of another "showdown" with the west, which could potentially force another choice between political defeat or global thermo-nuclear war.
Agreed.
IMO: the main entity that viewed themselves as "losing" from a policy that sought to disengage from further entanglement in Vietnam was the US Military. The main entity that viewed themselves as "losing" from a policy of seeking rapproachment with Cuba was the US Military. The coup in Vietnam, therefore, was designed to "upset" the planned withdrawal of US support from that region.
Agreed. But Kennedy looked at the coup as a means to establish a withdrawal
timetable as official US policy.
IMO: it was an Operation Northwoods type action that suffered from a public relations guffaw. It was never credibly "blamed" on the North--in fact, no such credible attempt was ever made. However, had JFK survived Dallas, it would have been packaged that way. Note that as soon as JFK was dead, CUBA was no longer even a small concern for the military.
Not for lack of trying to make Cuba of supreme importance on 11/22/63!
I'm convinced the killers of JFK fully intended to blame the assassination on agents
of Fidel Castro, one of whom would have been Lee Harvey Oswald had he not been
captured.
There is your measure of spook incompetence, Monk -- they failed to kill the patsy
who'd carefully been sheep-dipped as a pro-Castro Commie.
It was ALL Vietnam, which was a much preferred "theater" of action than was Cuba. And LBJ was their perfect little "Pork Chop" to go along with the program.
The assassination was a failure in regards to Cuba, the ultimate target.
(snip...) The 1,000 troop withdrawal at the end of '63 would have given the Republicans a campaign issue in '64 -- it was never going to happen -- but it was a bargaining chip to set the end of '65 date in stone in exchange for Kennedy going along with the Diem coup. (emphasis mine)But, IT DID HAPPEN! The first 1,000 troops that JFK ordered out of Vietnam by the end of 1963 were, in fact, withdrawn. This was AFTER LBJ had signed NSAM 273--the 1,000 were STILL withdrawn.
But these troop movements did not occur in the context of a phased withdrawal,
but happened in the midst of renewed US escalation, and thus did not present
a political problem going into the 1964 election campaign.
In short: Kennedy made a political trade with the State Department foreign policy establishment so they got their damn coup and Kennedy got NSAM 263 and a withdrawal time-table as official US policy.I disagree. I think this is backwards from the way that things actually work. I don't see the State Department as cynically as others do, perhaps. The Secretry of State "serves at the pleasure" of the POTUS. Unlike many of the "old guard" in the Intelligence Community (DULLES, BISSEL, ANGLETON--even HOOVER), who were all "in place" before JFK took office, the Cabinet members, including Rusk at State and Bobby in the Justice Department, were selected because they were his own personal preferences. JFK's withdrawal policy (NSAM 263 of October 11, 1963) went into place BEFORE the Diem's were assassinated (3 weeks later on November 1, 1963).
But as we see inThe Perils of Dominance NSAM 263 was issued after the rebel generals
had begun to make their move toward coup. Kennedy tried to keep a distance from the
push for the coup but he did in fact "go along" with the US support for the Diem overthrow.
Harriman got his way with the over-throw of the Ngo brothers. Diem was negotiating with the North on his own, and Harriman feared Diem would ask the Americans out because that was something Kennedy would have accepted, Buddhist repression be damned.I agree with this part. But even though Diem was negotiating with the North on his own, again: JFK's withdrawal policy (NSAM 263 of October 11, 1963) went into place BEFORE the Diem's were assassinated (3 weeks later on November 1, 1963). So, there was NO NEED to assassinate Diem since JFK had already enacted the policy BEFORE Diem requested it!
I think the record is clear that Kennedy didn't expect Diem to be assassinated in
the overthrow. Harriman and the hawks felt the need to get rid of Diem because
his talks with the North had certain "anti-American" implications Kennedy was
willing to ignore.
Moreover, I am not convinced that this "evidence" proves that JFK ordered, approved, or caved into pressure--to have Diem murdered. Quite the contrary. I believe it was a message being sent to JFK: "We will have our war in Vietnam with or without Diem, his brother, or you--or else..."
I believe the view of Harriman was this: "On November 2, 1963, one of two guys
is going to be dead: Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon, or John F. Kennedy in Chicago."
I think the view of Kennedy's killers was this: "We're going to have an invasion
of Cuba and an end to Vietnam withdrawal by killing two birds with one ambush."
And they were going to perform this task with or without Harriman.
Harriman had no reason to have Kennedy shot at that time, post-Diem coup. Harriman was okay with the end of '65 pull-out date because Gulf of Tonkins are difficult -- but not impossible -- to produce. Two years gave Harriman plentyof time, just like in Iran and the Shah's two year wait for Mossadegh to be overthrown. Around the Harriman house-hold they called for NSAM 263 every time they ran out of toilet paper.
Now, Cliff, there you go being "entertaining" again! The toilet paper story is the funniest thing I've ever heard about that--indeed about ANY--NSAM in my life!
I'll go one of those "angles" better, Monk. Looks to me possible that George H. W. Bush was assigned to help abort the assassination and he screwed the pooch. (snip...)Which pooch, Barney or Miss Beazley? I shouldn't need to ask, but I've heard rumors he was... But, seriously, I have real trouble with this concept of "abort teams" being placed. By whom?
In my view the ruling elites and the institutions and agencies they control are
not monolithic entities. The military high command and the people running the
CIA were/are not all of like mind. They serve different masters. In that context
I cite the following by Tosh Plumlee:
(quote on -- 'William Plumlee' date='Feb 25 2010, 04:37 PM)
As I have said, I was never at the level, or in the loop to really know the planning stages of the Abort Team and how or who put it together. However, the following are my thoughts and calculated assumptions based on the connections I had from the JM/WAVE, CIA Miami Station and the Pentagon in Washington D.C., at the time.
I believe a group operating out of the Pentagon intercepted Intel information from south Florida concerning a hit to be made on the President around November 17 th. The Special Group (not the 5412th) working MI, then took this information and started their own independent investigations. This was not a CIA, per say team or investigation; nor did the CIA dispatch this team. At the last minute they (Military Intell, Pentagon) put together a "specialized", top secret.., (undercover) team to be dispatched to Dallas. The Secret Service knew of this team but did not work with them, because they (MI) did not have enough information to support their evidence.
(quote off)
A pro-Kennedy and/or pro-Harriman faction within military intel dispatched Tosh Plumlee's
abort team.
By those who are going to relay a "pardon" at the last minute that was granted by the "top" co-conspirator?
Bush was Harriman's man in Texas.
Under what POSSIBLE conditions would such a "stop" order be issued?
The Chicago plot was aborted, after all. The plots in Tampa and Miami fell through.
There was the teletype to FBI HQ warning of a plot to kill JFK in Dallas. There were
all those hot and heavy rumors in Houston that Kennedy was definitely going
to be killed in Dallas...All of this activity on behalf of saving Kennedy's life is largely
over-looked, imo.
I really don't think the following (invented) scenario or any similar version is likely:
"Before JFK left AF 1 at Love Field he sent a memo to McGeorge Bundy reversing his withdrawal from Vietnam policy. We intercepted the communication and have, therefore, "changed our minds" about killing him. Get this abort order to George H W Bush who is on the ground in Dallas immediately."
I really think this scenario is likely: Harriman: "We have everything going for us in Vietnam
(Diem out), in Laos (the commies have the Ho Trail and we've got the opium fields), and in
Cuba (our back-channel to Castro will enable us to cut our own dope smuggling deals.)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our reach extends to Chicago, Tampa, Miami and Los Angeles.
Dallas is a problem."
Nah... I really don't think so. If it was true, then the military/intelligence/National Security apparatus was already in control of the executive branch of the government even BEFORE Dallas.
Since the end of WW2, more than likely. All Presidents are ultimately hired hands.
Those who forget this are shot or set up in third-rate burglaries and removed.
If JFK had caved in on Vietnam before the assassination to save himself, then he was never (or no longer) the commander-in-chief, and thus there would have been NO NEED to assassinate him.
Agreed! Which is why I argue that the ultimate goal of the plot was to provide a rationale
for the invasion of Cuba.
But they did. I don't buy the idea that it wouldn't have happened but for a "failed abort" signal.
For the Yankee blue-bloods it was a contingency plan that they attempted
to postpone. For the Texas boys and their military allies it was the last shot
at Castro. Cowboys killed JFK, and their Yankee accessories covered it up.
-
Whether or not he laundered money, and given the fact that his control of the print media in several countries is very negative, I still fail to understand why his religious affiliations should be in any way relevant. Why mention it?
Being Jewish is a religious affiliation?
I thought it was like being Irish.
Everybody knows Jews know how to handle money and the Irish are obnoxious.
BK
My Lord, this is hilarious! Hey, and what about Sammy Davis Jr.? Huh, what about THAT!
NSAM 273
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Great article, Bernice. Thanks for posting it!