Calvin Ye
-
Posts
314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Calvin Ye
-
-
34 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:
What about Civello in Dallas?
Peter Dale Scott wrote in his book that Civello is informant for the DPD
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
Who is the Guest who posted this?
Is it Chris B.?
It is Chris B who either delete his account or got banned from this forum
-
22 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:
I was not aware that guests could post topics, especially bizarre ones, since there is no accountability unless the guest gives their identity.
Mike, those guests are actually former members who were banned from this forum for violating the rules excessively
-
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:
Reading it now. Haven’t gotten to that part, but when I do I’ll try to find your post and comment. Really interesting history book.
I would appreciate knowing how ‘guest’ posts topics on the Forum.Paul, those guest(s) are actually former members who were banned from this forum for violating the rules excessively
-
On 5/1/2023 at 9:22 AM, Pamela Brown said:
Another thorn in the side of the Israelis was the fact that JFK's policy on Israel was fair-minded. He wanted both sides to be treated equally. He wanted reparations for the homes and land appropriated by Israelis...
Angleton, on the other hand, was a Zionist.
So was LBJ.
The book Secret War Against Jews implied that the Jews blackmailed Angleton into becoming an Zionist
-
On 6/1/2023 at 4:25 AM, Chris Bristow said:
EDIT: I mistakenly referenced Carlos Marcello as Sam Giancana throughout this post. It has been corrected.
This is not going to be about creating a new theory of the assassination. This is simply an exercise that may spark new lines of thought around some limited aspect of an overall conspiracy. Trying to adhere to the premise which considers the smallest amount of people required for a conspiracy, may be contrived at some point, but that's okay. This is just an exercise in Creative thought that is meant to stimulate fresh perspectives.
Carlos Marcello hated the Kennedys and wanted to get even after his deportation by RFK. His personal pilot David Ferrie was connected to Oswald through the Civil Air Patrol and may have known of Oswald's employment at the TSB.
The original Dallas motorcade route went down Main Street and was close enough to the TSB for an assassin to take a shot from there. These connections may have presented an opportunity for Marcello to initiate a murder plot. Ferrie could have contacted Oswald to make him a shooter in the plot, or maybe Oswald was enlisted to be the Inside Man who helped get the shooter in and out of the building unnoticed. Maybe he just helped set up the snipers nest, hide the rifle and possibly run interference to help a shooter egress after the deed was done. So the beginning of the conspiracy could have as little as five people if we add a second shooter at the South Knoll and another mob person to assist in the organization of the plot.
The mob has been known to set up a patsy and then have them killed to wrap up the Loose Ends. Oswald may have been a valuable asset as a shooter and the Patsy.
Oswald being well known to agent Hosty and having been in recent contact with him could have tied the hands of the FBI to some degree and benefited Marcello. The FBI may have wanted to bury their connection to Oswald. They would have seemed less than competent for failing to keep track of Oswald's employment and inform the Secret Service of Oswald's proximity to Dealey Plaza and the motorcade route.
An infinitely larger problem for the FBI and intelligence communities was Oswald's connections to Russia. On the afternoon of the assassination Oswald's presence as an employee at the TSB and as a possible suspect were revealed. At that very early stage of the investigation the FBI would have seriously considered the possibility that the assassination was carried out by Russia. They would not know if in the coming hours other connections to Russia might have come to light.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that uncovering a Russian plot could lead to a nuclear Exchange between our countries. Even if the US did not initiate such an action we could not be sure that the Russians, having been found out, would not attempt a first strike.
The FBI would have been forced to proceed very carefully with their investigation and not release information on suspects who could soon be found to be associated with the Russians. This could have benefited Marcello. If he had used a person with a Russian name as the primary contact to Oswald from the mob, what would the FBI do with that? The only smart thing to do would be to cover that up, at least for a while.
We know a majority of the Parkland staff reported a large blowout in the occipital parietal. If the reports were correct it would be pointing to a possible 2nd gunman and a conspiracy. if true, The Prudent action would have to be to cover up that fact, at least temporarily. By the time the autopsy was done it had been less than 24 hours since the assassination, they would still be very much in the dark. This is where the conspiracy would expand. That cover-up would be safest course of action for the country at that moment.
Most of the staff at the autopsy were naval military and had to sign secrecy statements that came with severe penalties. they would not be willing participants in the cover-up as much as loyal Personnel that had to keep their mouth shut. At that point The Conspiracy to cover up the autopsy would expand to maybe a dozen intelligence agents?
It would also require the assistance of a few peripheral players like Arlan Spector who according to agents Sibert and O'Neill 'lost' much of the photographic evidence and notes from the autopsy.
Maybe a few well-placed people within the Warren Commission were brought into the loop. Maybe some FBI agents were required to cover up some evidence like bullet fragments or maybe a hole in the windshield.
Jack Ruby was thought to be a low-level mob person. It may be that Marcello knew in advance that Ruby had access to the Dallas Police Department and could come and go without suspicion. They might have decided to use Ruby to kill Oswald before Ruby even knew it.
Ruby showed up at the last second before Oswald was transferred. It is thought that there needed to be another Inside man at the police department to make sure Ruby was in place before the transfer. That would require one more conspirator. But maybe Ruby was trying to run late so he would have an excuse for not killing Oswald. if he was tapped to kill Oswald his life was basically over. He would likely be killed himself if he failed to follow orders. So maybe he tried to miss the transfer, but because Oswald ran late his plan didn't work.
So maybe a couple dozen people had to remain silent about the cover-up. But if it was not a cabal of nefarious traitors, just a group of loyal Americans doing what needed to be done to prevent nuclear war, it might have been easier to keep the lid on it.
On 6/1/2023 at 4:25 AM, Chris Bristow said:EDIT: I mistakenly referenced Carlos Marcello as Sam Giancana throughout this post. It has been corrected.
This is not going to be about creating a new theory of the assassination. This is simply an exercise that may spark new lines of thought around some limited aspect of an overall conspiracy. Trying to adhere to the premise which considers the smallest amount of people required for a conspiracy, may be contrived at some point, but that's okay. This is just an exercise in Creative thought that is meant to stimulate fresh perspectives.
Carlos Marcello hated the Kennedys and wanted to get even after his deportation by RFK. His personal pilot David Ferrie was connected to Oswald through the Civil Air Patrol and may have known of Oswald's employment at the TSB.
The original Dallas motorcade route went down Main Street and was close enough to the TSB for an assassin to take a shot from there. These connections may have presented an opportunity for Marcello to initiate a murder plot. Ferrie could have contacted Oswald to make him a shooter in the plot, or maybe Oswald was enlisted to be the Inside Man who helped get the shooter in and out of the building unnoticed. Maybe he just helped set up the snipers nest, hide the rifle and possibly run interference to help a shooter egress after the deed was done. So the beginning of the conspiracy could have as little as five people if we add a second shooter at the South Knoll and another mob person to assist in the organization of the plot.
The mob has been known to set up a patsy and then have them killed to wrap up the Loose Ends. Oswald may have been a valuable asset as a shooter and the Patsy.
Oswald being well known to agent Hosty and having been in recent contact with him could have tied the hands of the FBI to some degree and benefited Marcello. The FBI may have wanted to bury their connection to Oswald. They would have seemed less than competent for failing to keep track of Oswald's employment and inform the Secret Service of Oswald's proximity to Dealey Plaza and the motorcade route.
An infinitely larger problem for the FBI and intelligence communities was Oswald's connections to Russia. On the afternoon of the assassination Oswald's presence as an employee at the TSB and as a possible suspect were revealed. At that very early stage of the investigation the FBI would have seriously considered the possibility that the assassination was carried out by Russia. They would not know if in the coming hours other connections to Russia might have come to light.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that uncovering a Russian plot could lead to a nuclear Exchange between our countries. Even if the US did not initiate such an action we could not be sure that the Russians, having been found out, would not attempt a first strike.
The FBI would have been forced to proceed very carefully with their investigation and not release information on suspects who could soon be found to be associated with the Russians. This could have benefited Marcello. If he had used a person with a Russian name as the primary contact to Oswald from the mob, what would the FBI do with that? The only smart thing to do would be to cover that up, at least for a while.
We know a majority of the Parkland staff reported a large blowout in the occipital parietal. If the reports were correct it would be pointing to a possible 2nd gunman and a conspiracy. if true, The Prudent action would have to be to cover up that fact, at least temporarily. By the time the autopsy was done it had been less than 24 hours since the assassination, they would still be very much in the dark. This is where the conspiracy would expand. That cover-up would be safest course of action for the country at that moment.
Most of the staff at the autopsy were naval military and had to sign secrecy statements that came with severe penalties. they would not be willing participants in the cover-up as much as loyal Personnel that had to keep their mouth shut. At that point The Conspiracy to cover up the autopsy would expand to maybe a dozen intelligence agents?
It would also require the assistance of a few peripheral players like Arlan Spector who according to agents Sibert and O'Neill 'lost' much of the photographic evidence and notes from the autopsy.
Maybe a few well-placed people within the Warren Commission were brought into the loop. Maybe some FBI agents were required to cover up some evidence like bullet fragments or maybe a hole in the windshield.
Jack Ruby was thought to be a low-level mob person. It may be that Marcello knew in advance that Ruby had access to the Dallas Police Department and could come and go without suspicion. They might have decided to use Ruby to kill Oswald before Ruby even knew it.
Ruby showed up at the last second before Oswald was transferred. It is thought that there needed to be another Inside man at the police department to make sure Ruby was in place before the transfer. That would require one more conspirator. But maybe Ruby was trying to run late so he would have an excuse for not killing Oswald. if he was tapped to kill Oswald his life was basically over. He would likely be killed himself if he failed to follow orders. So maybe he tried to miss the transfer, but because Oswald ran late his plan didn't work.
So maybe a couple dozen people had to remain silent about the cover-up. But if it was not a cabal of nefarious traitors, just a group of loyal Americans doing what needed to be done to prevent nuclear war, it might have been easier to keep the lid on it.
The Dallas Mafia, the Civello family is an ally of Marcello. The Civello family has links to the DPD.
-
35 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:
Mike, you are the one mischaracterizing Vietnam scholarship by pushing hardcore revisionism as though it somehow aligns with the prevailing scholarly interpretation of the war. In reality, revisionism is a minority viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of academic historians. Many of these scholars take the tenets of revisionism seriously and still conclude that they are lacking evidence, rely too much on counterfactuals, and are politically motivated to the point that many of the core arguments border on polemics.
“Regarded as perhaps” is not the same thing as “literally call him extreme”. Even the supportive reviews I’ve read of Moyar’s book say that he goes farther to push the revisionist perspective than just about anyone, often at the expense of his analysis. I did find this in a quick google search though. I’m not sure if this lady is a revisionist in the traditional sense, but she is an academic historian, favorably reviews a revisionist book over an orthodox one, and still labels Moyar’s book as “extreme”.
https://cindyanguyen.com/2017/07/16/orthodox-revisionism-vietnam-war/
Regarding the North Vietnamese sources Moyar uses, I’m still not sure if you’ve even read the reviews you posted. Moyar is slammed in I think the first review of that roundtable for not reading Vietnamese and using select translated sources to push his arguments. That is not an isolated interpretation either:
To be clear, my reference here is to the work of scholars conducting primary research on the Vietnamese side of the war and/or relevant aspects of modern Vietnamese political history. The scholarship to which I refer does not include Mark Moyar’s Triumph Forsaken…which relies on select translated sources in order to substitute tendentious revisionist arguments about the Vietnamese dynamics of the war for tendentious orthodox ones.
https://www.newmandala.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Zinoman-on-Bradley.pdf
I could go on, but the point is that you are pushing all these pro-war analyses as fact while completing ignoring that the the vast majority of experts strongly disagree with you, and immediately rejecting any alternate interpretation of the evidence by tossing around dismissive terms like “liberal historian”, “far left”, “fringe”, etc. Basically, you are accusing others of cherry picking and falling victim to confirmation bias while doing exactly that to promote your theories.
I agree with your assessment about Mike. Mike fail to read my other answers on certain aspects of Vietnam. He instead chose to focus on cherry picking my answer on Kennedy's stance. He is clueless when it comes to the human creature's motivation and cautiousness
-
5 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:
Mike is presenting the arguments of revisionist school of Vietnam scholars as if they are established facts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Moyar in particular is regarded as perhaps the most extreme pro-war revisionist on the planet, even by other revisionists. His attempt to rehabilitate Diem in Triumph Forsaken is ridiculed by just about everyone, and many of his arguments are every bit as “fringe” as the positions Mike criticizes here on a daily basis, if not more so. Here’s a nice summary of Vietnam revisionism from a scholarly review of Moyar’s book from JSTOR:
A majority of observers and scholars perhaps. But not all. A more exculpatory narrative of American intervention in Vietnam has fiercely challenged those who see the war as a mistake. Given popular expression by Ronald Reagan in a speech before the 1980 Veterans of Foreign Wars conference in Chicago when he called Vietnam a “noble cause,” self-styled “revisionists” - among them Vietnam generation military figures and diplomats, as well as some journalists, political scientists and historians - argued that Vietnam was a necessary war…
…As the failures of the ongoing Iraq war have once again unleashed the ghosts of Vietnam into national political debate, revisionist accounts of American policy in Vietnam have become increasingly visible and are often employed to underscore arguments that military solutions to the chaos engulfing Iraq can work.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40007304?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
Here’s another informative article on revisionism that I recommend everyone read:
https://commonreader.wustl.edu/c/revisionism-as-a-substitute-for-victory/
There are a lot of great quotes in this one. For example:
“More recently, the vast majority of historians have reviewed revisionist texts by Moyar and Boot unfavorably, critiquing their books for questionable use of sources and politically inspired wishful thinking.”
“The real problem with revisionism, as the last 50 years have shown, is that it is driven not so much by an honest desire to fine-tune what we know about the war as by a desire to use the Vietnam War as a cudgel in political and policy-making battles. On the political side, it is no coincidence that revisionism has surged in moments of polarization when right-of-center leaders have found advantage in emphasizing nationalist themes and degrading liberals as out-of-touch elites incapable of using American power to maximum effect.”
In other words, a lot of Mike’s arguments on Vietnam are based on a politically motivated minority viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of experts in the field - the exact same scenario he uses to invalidate arguments made by Jim D by calling them “extreme far-left”, “fringe”, etc.
Everyone’s arguments should be judged on merit, but let’s not pretend like we’re getting an objective history lesson here.
The problem is that Mike is too ignorant to read the other books
-
17 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:
I read several of your replies. You cited the record of the 5/6/63 SECDEF conference as evidence that I was wrong in my reply regarding Dr. Moyar's books on the Vietnam War, but that conference has nothing to do with the material presented in Moyar's books. You apparently have not read any of Moyar's books on the war, especially his two most recent ones.
In another one of your replies, you told me that the withdrawal plan was real, as if I had denied the withdrawal plan. But I have never disputed the fact that JFK had a withdrawal plan. What I have disputed is the inaccurate liberal claim that the withdrawal was going to be an unconditional and complete disengagement from South Vietnam. The JFK White House tapes and a wealth of other evidence soundly refute this claim.
In another reply, you said I rely too much on the "official narrative." The "official narrative"? What is that? There is no "official narrative" about the Vietnam War. One can find a wide range of views on the war in government publications on the subject. The closest thing to an "official narrative" is the false narrative that the news media, Hollywood, most liberal politicians, and the majority of historians have been pushing since the 1960s. My view, although shared by most Vietnam veterans, and although supported by numerous scholars and historians, official military reports, and newly released/available North Vietnamese sources, is still the minority view in the academic community.
You read only books on Kennedy's stance on Vietnam but didn't read enough on that other aspect of Vietnam
-
50 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:
I take it you are new to the subject of JFK and Vietnam. The White House tapes prove that JFK's hawkish public comments were not posturing. McNamara's memoir is a joke and was shredded by both liberal and conservative historians.
Kennedy did have a withdrawal plan, but it was a phased and conditional plan, and under that plan we would have continued to provide military and financial aid to South Vietnam.
Repeat: Do some balanced research instead of only reading one side of the story before you talk about issues such as fraggings in South Vietnam. I notice you ignored my questions on the issue. Are you ever going to read research that challenges what you want to believe this subject?
You think it is "ridiculous" to argue that ARVN was usually an effective fighting force because your reading on the subject has been pitiful. You do not know what you are talking about. Do you recall in our previous exchanges in another thread that I provided quotes from North Vietnamese sources that proved that ARVN often fought well, even "ferociously," even after the U.S. withdrawal?
I take it you did not bother to watch the lecture by Dr. Wiest on ARVN that I linked in my previous reply. Instead, you doubled down on the liberal myth about ARVN's performance. The lie that ARVN was an incompetent, cowardly fighting force remains a key part of liberal mythology about the war, even though this falsehood has been demonstrably refuted by the North Vietnamese sources alone, not to mention by the research of numerous historians and Vietnam War scholars.
In an earlier reply, you claimed that ARVN was "no match" for the Viet Cong. Obviously, you are unaware of the fact that during Tet I, which was led mostly by Viet Cong forces, ARVN either defeated the Viet Cong or fought them to a standstill in most cases, much to the shock of the Hanoi regime.
How long did it take for Saigon to fall in 1975? Like three months?
This sentence deserves special attention, and severe ridicule. It took the NVA two years of bitter, costly fighting before they were able to get in position to take Saigon, and for half of that time ARVN was fighting with a fraction of the American aid that had been promised to them.
Your argument is as ridiculous as saying, "Gee, the German army must have been pathetic and weak, because, shucks, how long did it take Berlin to fall to the Soviets? Like three weeks?" No credible person would make this ludicrous argument because they would know that it took the Soviets four years of horrific fighting to put themselves in position to take Berlin.
The only thing holding South Vietnam together was the US military: all 3 branches. And this was what Kennedy said should have never happened. Because once American combat troops were entered, it would become a white man's war, one that we could not win. Because it would unite the populace against America.
More far-left drivel. All you ever do is repeat far-left myths about the war because most of the little reading you have done has been among far-left sources.
If you can ever muster up the objectivity to read studies on the North Vietnamese sources, or the North Vietnamese sources themselves, you will learn that after the Tet Offensive, the vast majority of South Vietnamese strongly supported the American presence and the effort to keep South Vietnam independent, because Tet gave them a bitter and revealing preview of what Communist rule would be like.
And I notice that you never talk about the fact that the only thing that kept North Vietnam afloat was massive Soviet-Chinese military and financial aid. When you harp on South Vietnam's reliance on American aid, you never say a word about North Vietnam's even heavier reliance on Soviet and Chinese aid.
From 1950-1953, South Korea depended far more heavily on American aid than South Vietnam ever did. Yet, only a few far-left wingnuts lament that America kept South Korea afloat and helped her defeat the North Korean-Chinese invasion.
I am not new to the subject JFK and Vietnam. It is obviously that you didn't read my older posts on this subject
-
8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Huh? Trump is risking his life?
What planet are you living on, Karl?
Trump has committed multiple serious crimes against the U.S. government and the public-- for his own benefit.
And he and his Minister of Trumpaganda, Rupert Murdoch, have been pushing false M$M narratives since 2017-- blaming the "Deep State" for Trump's crimes.
Trump "managing foreign policy?"
So, you approve of Trump insulting our EU allies and NATO, as ordered by his KGB handler, Vlad Putin?
And Trump taking bribes from the Saudis to green light the genocide in Yemen?
Withdrawing from the international Iran Nuclear Disarmament Treaty and assassinating Soleimani?
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords?
Trump taking bribes from Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer, to abandon traditional U.S. mediation of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
Everything Trump has ever done has been motivated by greed and self interest.
He even violated U.S. policy goals in Ukraine in an attempt to extort dishonest, personal political favors from Zelensky.
Karl is probably an Trump supporter
-
3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
When you raised the Winter Soldier issue in the thread on Stone's documentary and the Vietnam War, I pointed out some of the problems with the Winter Soldier claims and cited sources that address them. Let me guess: You still have not read any of the sources I cited, right?
Have you read a single article or book that answers the liberal spin on fraggings in the Vietnam War? Did it ever occur to you that you should read both sides of the issue before discussing it in a public forum? Would it surprise to learn that most of the fraggings in Vietnam occurred in rear areas, far removed from danger, not in combat zones? Are you aware that fraggings also occurred in WW II and in the Korean War? Do you have any idea how the numbers compare?
You again expose the inadequate, one-sided nature of your research when you repeat the myth that "every American there knew that the ARVN was no match for the Viet Cong and the Hanoi regular army." What utter nonsense. Such drivel shows you have no business talking about the war in a public forum, much less reviewing books by authors, such as Dr. Marc Selverstone and Dr. Mark Moyar, who have read 20 times the number of books and studies that you have read on the subject.
As I have told you several times before, we know from North Vietnamese sources alone that ARVN was a formidable fighting force that fought well in the substantial majority of cases. When we discussed this subject many months ago, I pointed out the facts about ARVN's performance and cited several scholarly sources on the subject, but you obviously have not bothered to read a single one of them. Yet, here you are repeating the liberal myth about ARVN.
If you ever want to educate yourself on ARVN's performance, you could start with what is considered one of the best books, if not the best book, on the subject: Dr. Andrew Wiest's book Vietnam's Forgotten Army (NYU Press, 2009).
If you cannot bring yourself to read the book, perhaps you could bring yourself to watch Dr. Wiest's lecture on the subject (it's just over an hour long): LINK.
Leaves James alone. It is obvious you rely too much on the official narrative
-
30 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:
There is no argument about the Decent Interval concept. It was the operative doctrine for Kissinger and Nixon.
You have not read enough on the subject to be making such statements, not to mention that your statement is a misleading oversimplification.
I would direct interested readers to my previous replies on the decent interval in this thread.
And I do not use Turse to make it and neither does Tom.
I did not say that you cited Turse on the decent interval. I did not even imply this.
How can there be when people like Kimball actually found the term in Kissinger's notebooks.
Wow. You see, these are the kinds of silly, sophomoric arguments that get made when your research has been badly deficient. You keep acting like any reference to the decent interval somehow automatically proves your spin on the subject. Did you even read my replies on the subject in this thread?
You using someone like Neil Sheehan, of all people, as to be anti war is, I mean whew. Sheehan never got over Jean Paul Vann. And Vann was one of the earliest critics of Kennedy not committing combat troops since he thought the ARVN was so hapless that they were no match for Hanoi. Sheehan was still praising Vann for his actions during the Tet Offensive!
Please read this in full:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/obituaries/neil-sheehan-in-retrospect
Halberstam and Sheehan were two of the worst writers about Vietnam. Because they were out and out hawks, while Kennedy never was. They were so bad, and proved to be so wrong, that Halberstam went back and revised his first book on the war, The Making of a Quagmire, to edit out the most hawkish parts. Why? So he would not betray himself to later generations who he wanted to buy into his godawful book The Best and the Brightest. Which Warren HInckle called one of the greatest BS books ever written. Both men in their later works tried to blame how badly Vietnam had turned out on, of all people, Kennedy! This was part of their cover up of their own advocacy for escalation. Which, when they got their wish, turned out to be a disaster.
One of the most disgusting things about Sheehan was his betrayal of Mark Lane, which you can read about above. The second most was his portrayal of Vann's funeral as trying to forget the war. When, in fact, there would have been no war had Kennedy not been killed. But this is something Halberstam and Sheehan could never admit. A perfect example would be, when Stone's JFK came out, Halberstam said there was no Pentagon machination to drive the war forward. When, in fact, his hero, Jean Paul Vann, wanted to do just that. And in his first book Halberstam regretted not doing it earlier.
Sweet Mother of Pearl! This is a dazzling mix of far-left mythology, distortion, and falsehood sprinkled with a few isolated facts. Only fringe-left idealogues view Sheehan and Halberstam the way you portray them here. If you ever do break down and decide to do some balanced research on the Vietnam War, you will be embarrassed over these claims.
Halberstam and Sheehan would not "admit" that "there would have been no war had Kennedy not been killed" because they knew this was abject nonsense.
As for your remark about John Paul Vann's view of ARVN (who was "Jean Paul Vann"?), you once again show just how deficient your reading has been. FYI, Vann soon came to respect ARVN's fighting ability. His initial negative comments about ARVN were part of his effort to hide his own blunders in the Battle of Ap Bac.
Now, about civilian casualties, are you going to say that everyone involved in the Winter Soldier protest was a l--r? Are you going to say that the estimates of civilian deaths by epidemiologists for Cambodia and Vietnam are false? Are you going to say that the study showing the steady increase by American soldiers fragging their commanding officers thus causing the collapse of the US Army in Vietnam, all that was really inconsequential because some rightwing hack writer like Moyar says that, well see, we blew it. Both McNamara and Clifford were wrong, and so were Nixon and Kissinger. Only I am correct.
Another diatribe loaded with far-left myths. You are in no position to be making these kinds of pronouncements. Your research has been so minimal and one sided as to be unserious and disqualifying. You call a reputable, highly credentialed historian like Dr. Moyar a "rightwing hack writer" and then turn around and cite bungling amateurs like Mike Swanson and genuine hacks like Nick Turse (who, again, was forced to issue a formal retraction to settle a libel lawsuit over bogus claims made in his book).
You know, if you just cannot bring yourself to read centrist and conservative American scholarship on the Vietnam War, why not read center-left British historian Max Hastings' book on the war or Vietnamese scholar Lien-Hang Nguyen's book on the war (she is a professor of history at Columbia University) or University of Montreal history professor Dr. Christopher Goscha's new book on the French phase of the Vietnam War (which has received effusive praise from historians from all across the spectrum)?
Mike, that is Newsmax stuff. It won't fly here. We know too much. Vietnam was a disaster that should have never happened.
"Newsmax stuff"? Your far-left ideology is showing again. And, pray tell, what is wrong with Newsmax? Newsmax has a readership in the millions, and Newsmax TV is one of the fastest growing cable TV news channels in the country. In fact, in the first quarter of this year, Newsmax TV's viewership growth outpaced that of every other cable TV news channel. FYI, Newsmax TV frequently includes liberals in their discussion panels (whereas MSNBC rarely includes conservatives in their discussion panels).
And if Kennedy had lived, it would not have.
This is delusional wishful thinking that ignores Kennedy's own statements, private statements that were recorded on the White House tapes, and statements that he made in public up to the very day he died. You brush aside all these statements as election posturing, even the ones on the White House tapes, which were never meant to see the light of day. You also dismiss RFK's statements in his April '64 oral history, claiming he was suffering from PTSD. I should mention again that even most liberal historians reject your theory that JFK was going to disengage from South Vietnam after the election.
For all the good work you have done on the JFK assassination itself (and you have done a great deal), you have done severe damage to the case for conspiracy by peddling the Stone-Prouty myth that JFK was determined to abandon South Vietnam after the election.
Mike, please understand that Kennedy was giving an version of events that the public and hawkish colleagues wanted to hear. In fact, his secretary of defense wrote in his own memoir confirming the fact that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam. Declassified documents also confirmed the Kennedy withdrawal plan to be real
-
1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:
One, you ignored the positive comments that were made in those negative reviews.
Two, I am guessing you did not bother to read any of the favorable reviews that I linked. If you did, you chose not to comment on the arguments they make in support of Moyar's book.
Three, did you notice that not one of the negative reviews even tried to deal with the historic evidence that Moyar cites from newly released/available North Vietnamese sources? Why do you suppose not one of those liberal historians tackled the most crucial, historic part of Moyar's book? (And Moyar is not the only scholar who has cited this evidence, either, but he was the first to make major use of it.)
Four, did you read Moyar's detailed response to the negative reviews? I notice you said nothing about his rebuttal arguments.
Five, you obviously have not read Moyar's book.
Six, I have not personally attacked Jim DiEugenio. It is not a personal attack to point out to him that his research on the Vietnam War has been woefully inadequate and one sided. That is not a personal attack.
Just look at the fringe, substandard sources he has cited, such as Nick Turse's book Kill Anything That Moves (which even famous anti-war journalist Neil Sheehan condemned in strong terms) and Michael Swanson's embarrassingly amateurish book Why the Vietnam War? (which contains junior-high grammar errors and twice identifies McNamara as the Secretary of State, among other problems that I pointed out to Jim when he first cited the book). In one post, Jim said that the awful far-left propaganda documentary Hearts and Minds was "the best" documentary on the war. Are you kidding me? Go watch that video. Among other things, it includes Daneil Ellsberg denying that North Vietnam received substantial aid from the Soviet Union and Red China.
Also, Jim has heaped great praise on Fletcher Prouty's writings on the Vietnam War. Fletcher Prouty? Again, are you kidding me?
Go back and read my exchanges with him on the Vietnam War. Before I mentioned the North Vietnamese sources, he had no clue about them and what they reveal. When I mentioned the mass executions and the concentration camps that North Vietnam imposed on the South Vietnamese after the war, he said I must have been referring to what happened in Cambodia because, he claimed, the North Vietnamese only executed a few thousand people; next, he argued that I was merely relying on Nixon's statement about the mass executions in No More Vietnams. When I provided several scholarly studies that document that probably closer to 60,000-65,000 South Vietnamese were executed, not counting the tens of thousands who died in the concentration camps, he fell silent on the issue. And on and on I could go.
And I repeat, yet again, the fact that even the vast majority of liberal historians reject Jim's claim that JFK was going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. That view is on the very far left fringe of the spectrum and is nearly universally rejected by historians--again, even by most liberal historians, not to mention moderate and conservative ones.
All this being said, I have always praised Jim's work on the JFK assassination itself. I continue to strongly recommend JFK Revisited and feature it on the front page of my JFK site. I am just saying that Jim is simply unqualified to posture as a credible scholar on the Vietnam War because his reading has clearly been very limited and extremely one sided.
Finally, regarding the decent interval: I see that in another reply, you again posted a handful of cherry-picked, out-of-context statements to support the liberal spin on the decent interval. You did not address a single point that I made in my two long replies on the decent interval. Here are the links to them, if you ever decide to address the points I made therein: LINK. LINK.
Mike, I disagree. Here is the link that proves you wrong: https://whowhatwhy.org/files/Musgrove2.pdf
-
Here is the best books:
1. CIA rogues and the killing of the Kennedys
2. A Certain Arrogance
3. Me & Lee
4. JFK vs. Allen Dulles: Battleground Indonesia
5. JFK and the Unspeakable
6. Why The CIA Killed JFK and Malcolm X: The Secret Drug Trade in Laos
7. The Man Who Knew Too Much
8. The Devil Chessboard
9. The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up by Donald Gibson
10. George Bush: An unauthorized biography
-
8 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:
Yeah, that's hilariously fake.
What makes you think it is fake
-
On 6/27/2023 at 5:21 PM, Benjamin Cole said:
Great find Matt. Yes In April 1963, the Diems didn't like so many Americans in SV. Little did they know.
They were not long for the world.
Was it a CIA-organized hit squad that got them?
Cole, this is an top secret Marine document that Rodney Stich obtain from an source and put it in his book:
-
13 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
Preposterous.
It is not preposterous. Did you read the book The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia or Kennedy anti-drug speech (1962)
-
The books Why CIA killed JFK and Malcolm X: The Secret Drug Trade in Laos, Doctor Feelgood and Defrauding America implied that Kennedy was killed cuz his withdrawal would harm the drug trade
-
The book Man Who Knew Too Much explain that ex-OAS members worked with DIA in the past. I believe that this could explain why DIA destroyed files because the files may exposed their links to the OAS
-
Pamela, there is no deal to begin with. Most of the presidents are implied to be products of CIA. In fact, they only made these promises to secure votes
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article222591760.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/clinton-was-cia-informer-as-student-new-book-claims-1.61558
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-President-Insertion-Barack-Obama/dp/1478260645
https://prospect.org/power/joe-bidens-love-affair-with-the-cia-william-casey/
-
RIP, Richard Belzer, author of Hit List
-
22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
"Everyone should look at Tucker Carlson's program yesterday on the JFK files releases. I do not think anyone with that big an audience has ever said what he did. Its a milestone in broadcast history I think."
The above tweet of mine has gotten over 31,000 impressions in one day on twitter.
I am trying to fight a guerilla war on Facebook and Twitter.
Do we have people on Instagram and Tik Tok? Who will volunteer?
Who is fighting a guerilla war on FB and Twitter? You need volunteer on Instagram?
-
5 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:
Agree Tom. O'Neill put decades of research into his publication & made 'Helter Skelter' a work of fiction. I would question just who Bugliosi was writing for....employed by the same agency as West.
Pete, someone wrote an article alleging that the Tate murders were false flag operations
Top 5 Books On JFK & Vietnam
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I agree with Chapman about Moyar's version of events