Scott Kaiser

kennedy was trying to disguise withdrawal plans and johnson escalation plans

Oh, please! Who wrote this nonsense?

i believe it was you

What you can prove is one thing, what you believe, doesn't count, someone once said, I'll be soon swimming with a pool of sharks, I replied, more like guppies.

When all else fails, order a complete and immediate withdrawal from the topic. Interesting, I for one must expand my cranium, my brain needs the room.

kennedy was trying to disguise withdrawal plans and johnson escalation plans

Oh, please! Who wrote this nonsense?

I suppose if we don't want to learn something new, we should "dictate" how the threads should post, an interesting theory for lack of education.

i am ordering a complete and immediate withdrawal from this topic.

Here-here! LOL... Perhaps, I might help you in your dilemma, don't click on the post, problem solved? LOL... Greg, "I've demonstrated a lack of willingness to expand your view", and you know nothing about Mansfield. Yet, everything you've posted I already know. Now, who's truly misinformed? LOL...

Greg, I just did a quick search on your site regarding Mansfield, am I overlooking it, or you really had no earthly idea the part in which he played in the scale back and withdraw in the Vietnam war? Shall I give you a few days to provide info?

Scott,

Don't talk about silly wagers. If you have something which proves Greg wrong then provide it so everyone can read it and make up their own minds.

If Greg is making an unsupported claim, ask him to provide the evidence to support the claim. Once again, readers can make up their own minds.

I've already done this. The "original" story about Galbraith going to Vietnam in 1961 came from James K. Galbraith himself. At that time Kennedy was already dealing with the Bay of Pigs. He, (Kennedy) DID NOT INVOLVE himself as much in the Vietnam war as he did with Cuba in 1961.

It was during this year of 1961 the administration was also sending "millions" of dollars to president Diem, had Kennedy sent Galbraith to Vietnam why then is there no mentioned of that in the minutes? Secondly, if Galbraith [had] gone to Vietnam, why then did he not report what Mansfield obviously saw what president Diem was doing with the money the United States was giving them?

Just because of a few books that contradict themselves, don't know whether Galbraith is coming or going never left India. He did "observe" the war from afar, and wrote Kennedy how he felt about the war, that's it, that's as far as it went. History has this all wrong, after Kennedy received Galbraith's "letter" it was still a few months before Kennedy sent Mansfield to Vietnam to find out what's going on, surely, the president wouldn't need a second opinion about money being squandered in Vietnam would he?

In closing, if you Mr. Burton read my number #48 post to Mrs. Beckett you would have [understood what I said to her, which should have helped in making up your mind,] with that I said, I did say, "it wouldn't happen again", your follow up posts only tells me that one, you read my post but didn't understand it, or two, you read my post, understood it, but, couldn't make up your mind. Which is it Mr. Burton?

Introduction to NSAM 263 [JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Policy]

Introduction to NSAM 273 [LBJ's Reversal of NSAM 263]

Greg, you really have a pretty sight I meant site, ha-ha. I bet you've spent a lot of time working on it, and thanks for backing up the NSAM withdraw policy I was discussing in post #57 which was based off Senator Mansfield's report.

I said in post #57 "I'm willing to bet" I didn't say money though!

Following Mansfield's trip to Vietnam at the request of President Kennedy, Senate Majority Leader Mansfield "became the first U.S. official to refuse to make an optimistic public comment on the progress of the war." Basically, what Kennedy is asking is that Mansfield not say ANYTHING about going to Vietnam and or reporting back to the president, or his opinion about the progress of the war, thus the story of Galbraith visiting Vietnam is later created. I'm willing to bet that most folks here including Jim had no earthly idea that Mansfield who was originally a supporter of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, but, Mansfield would change his opinion due to the situation in Vietnam after his visit. He claimed that the $2 billion of the United States had poured into Vietnam during the previous seven years and had accomplished nothing. He placed blame squarely on the Diem regime for its failure to share power and win support from the South Vietnamese people. He suggested that Americans, despite being motivated by a sincere desire to stop the spread of communism, had simply taken the place formerly occupied by the French colonial power in the minds of many Vietnamese. Mansfield’s change of opinion surprised and irritated President Kennedy.

During a September 2, 1962 meeting with the press Kennedy believed that a full withdraw would be wrong, meaning in way of support, but without "troops" due to the report by Mansfield a scale back of troops were to start to happen, and Kennedy signed the bill. He would later be assassinated in Dallas, but not over Vietnam, although, LBJ reversed Kennedy's decision. The United States would refuse to contend a defeat in a county no bigger then California.

​The brass believed there was a way of winning by an escalation of air raids, Robert Kennedy knew that by 1965 we needed to pull out, and while at that time of having more then 500,000 troops in Vietnam, by 1965-66 it scaled down to a little over 300,000.

Galbraith did write a letter or two, I'm not contending or disputing that, however, Kennedy did not, and I repeat myself for the sake of history. The President did NOT send Galbraith to Vietnam for any report.

To fully understand the Vietnam war, you must include President Truman and Eisenhower. Now, both Truman and Eisenhower believed the only way we would win this war was to escalate the war, McNamara also believed the same, as of December 1961, 15,000 "advisers" in Kennedy's administration was killed, Galbraith had not gone to Vietnam in no time in 1961 or at anytime in December of 1961.

​Most of Kennedy's speeches about Vietnam have been in September of 1962-63, and beyond. Kennedy sent Mansfield towards the end of November 1962 which he then reported to Kennedy on December 2, 1962. It was in Senator Mansfield's report that persuaded president Kennedy to begin his withdrawal of troops. But, Kennedy's outlook was not to fully withdraw from Vietnam meaning we would provide arms, money, advisers and training. However, after Mansfield reported that President Diem was "squandering" the money we were giving them is when Kennedy decided to start pulling our "troops" out, just take a look at the roaster as when when they started coming back Here is an interview of Kennedy on September 2, 1963 just nine months out from Mansfield's report to the president.

http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/statistics.html

Does it matter? Nixon, with the swoop of a pen ended the war, but because of Watergate he was unable to see it though, and president Ford did that for him while granting ex president Nixon a pardon because Ford believed Nixon really had no involvement in Watergate.

In-fact, most of Kennedy's speech's in 1961 deal with Cuba, not the Vietnam war. The only thing that matters here, in the end is whether nor not I know the truth. I really shouldn't care what others believe, everyone will form their own opinion, however, history has this wrong, and that's all I'm going to say.

Scott,

Don't talk about silly wagers. If you have something which proves Greg wrong then provide it so everyone can read it and make up their own minds.

If Greg is making an unsupported claim, ask him to provide the evidence to support the claim. Once again, readers can make up their own minds.

I've already done this. The "original" story about Galbraith going to Vietnam in 1961 came from James K. Galbraith himself. At that time Kennedy was already dealing with the Bay of Pigs. He, (Kennedy) DID NOT INVOLVE himself as much in the Vietnam war as he did with Cuba in 1961.

It was during this year of 1961 the administration was also sending "millions" of dollars to president Diem, had Kennedy sent Galbraith to Vietnam why then is there no mentioned of that in the minutes? Secondly, if Galbraith [had] gone to Vietnam, why then did he not report what Mansfield obviously saw what president Diem was doing with the money the United States was giving them?

Just because of a few books that contradict themselves, don't know whether Galbraith is coming or going never left India. He did "observe" the war from afar, and wrote Kennedy how he felt about the war, that's it, that's as far as it went. History has this all wrong, after Kennedy received Galbraith's "letter" it was still a few months before Kennedy sent Mansfield to Vietnam to find out what's going on, surely, the president wouldn't need a second opinion about money being squandered in Vietnam would he?

In closing, if you Mr. Burton read my number #48 post to Mrs. Beckett you would have [understood what I said to her, which should have helped in making up your mind,] with that I said, I did say, "it wouldn't happen again", your follow up posts only tells me that one, you read my post but didn't understand it, or two, you read my post, understood it, but, couldn't make up your mind. Which is it Mr. Burton?

Several books contradict themselves about Galbraith in the Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War that Tom Scully also posted talks about Galbraith and how he opposed the war in Vietnam, however, in his son's book, he says his father and McNamara agreed with how the war was going and McNamara wanted to see it escalate.

In this book, it talks about how Galbraith wrote Kennedy a letter posing his views, however, it also goes on to say that "Galbraith" who was ALREADY in Washington was to fly back to India via Saigon, now does that really make any sense if Galbraith was to fly back to Washington, (your words not mine) and report to Kennedy?

Can you see? If you were to read every book Tom put up they EACH contradict themselves, and I'm not sure Tom even realized that. I believe he was in just too much of a hurry to prove me wrong, which I don't blame him. I'm sure there were multiple researchers looking for the answers, but when it comes down to it, by the time it was all said and done. The bottom line is this, it was Mansfield's report that ultimately had Kennedy realize the seriousness in Vietnam which made him consider the withdraw.

It was because of Galbraith and his later speaking up against the war sending "letters" to Kennedy that had Kennedy send Mansfield to Vietnam.

The End!

https://books.google.com/books?id=qh5lffww-KsC&pg=PA405&lpg=PA405&dq=galbraith+returned+to+india+saigon&source=bl&ots=jCFZC3xpRv&sig=CGQu0VLTgqWcW66LZjodGgheT28&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTmqP-varLAhXGNT4KHa28AgIQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=galbraith%20returned%20to%20india%20saigon&f=false

I respect that, it won't happen again, however, I would like to clear one thing up. After speaking to my attorney over the phone, if the bet itself is not considered a "gaming gambling bet" it is not unlawful.

Peace,

Scott

What in the world is going on with these Republicans? Thank God I'm a Liberal.

Knock it off, Scott.

Yes daddy, because you say so? Dunning-Kruger effect? Hmmmm?

If I want an ally? I'll open a bank account.

Another thread fatally infected by the musings of the disinformed.

Greg, your ally BS doesn't work with me. I don't play favorites, you were so eager to put up your sight after a question was asked by some woman who wondered why you didn't have this information, I'm sure her question had something to do with your ego. Lets make a wager, is $5,000 a little too much for you? Someone I'm sure would be happy to hold both our monies. Why don't you prove to me where Galbraith was asked by Kennedy without quoting some book, and I'll provide you the minutes, before doing so lets get the approval of any monitor of this sight to wire the money in their account. Time to put your money where your mouth is. Either put up, or shut up, you sir have no dog in this fight.

The first thing someone should do is reach out to David Kaiser, ask him where he got his information from, then, I'll provide mine.

In the very beginning of this thread, I believe I was respectful, truthful and I provided the information to back it up. I said, Jim, this is "partially true." Then, I explained myself, no one here believed me when I posted Mansfield as the person Kennedy elected to send to Vietnam and report back, this whole thread had to turn into one big hoopla because of a few books and no proof. Then, Jim had to continue arguing with me about who went. If I wanted to, I could have really dragged this out only to embarrass him, but, I didn't. I immediately gave him my information, however, that still didn't stop him from continuing on, perhaps, he likes to get punished? I don't know?

May be, just may be, I may need to agree with Roy, perhaps, it is the Dunning-Kruger effect? on the part of others, would you say?

Good try Roy.

Scott - how do you know that Galbraith never went to Vietnam?

Yeah, good try Roy. To answer your question Paul, I have the minute meetings with Kennedy, and nowhere in it does he mention Galbraith, now, if Galbraith and McNamara agreed with the way they saw things about Vietnam, ask yourself this, why then did Kennedy "choose" and elect Mansfield to go to Vietnam, and "report" back to Kennedy?. It was because of Mansfield's report that the Kennedy administration started months of culmination in their planning efforts of getting the Diem brother's out of Vietnam. I can provide those minutes, can Jim, David Kaiser or even the Pope provide any minutes that proves Kennedy asked Galbraith to go to Vietnam in place of Mansfield? Surely, Kennedy wouldn't need a second opinion.

This is exactly what I mean when I say, I will call out BS. Eight years later, and I'm still waiting on someone to challenge my information without opinions and theories, most folks won't simply because they disagree, ask me if I care?

Dunning-Kruger effect?

FIne, no comment. We disagree.

Is that what this is to you a matter of agreeing, so, if I just agree with everything you say would that make us best friends?

Jim, I think you're truly overlooking the what's really important here, I would agree with you if you were correct, that's what agreeing is about, but this isn't about who should agree with who, but rather who's right and who's wrong. No worries, mums the word Jim, I won't tell anyone you're wrong. Not me Jim!