Glenn Nall Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 yeah, Bartholomew speaks of his post-military activities - he's described as having animosity for not being given "Nam"... due respect, Brian, but retirement from the Army can actually mean more freedom to counteract, not less interest in it... but i'm "just sayin'" - my jury's out on Lansdale's guilt or lack of it. i know he didn't hang out with a circle of boy scouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 Nixon spoke publicly about a secret plan to end the Viet Nam War in 1968, during the presidential contest. In the 1968 election, Americans chose between two old-line politicians: Nixon, a re-tread in some respects but still a good campaigner, and Humphrey, a VP tied to Johnson. It was hardly a choice. In some respects. Americans chose Nixon over Humphrey (i.e., the Johnson surrogate). that's right - he gets credit for "ending the war." but is it really that "they" allowed the war to come to an end...? just a question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 You may wish to look a little more closely to the author of NSAM 273 - McGeorge Bundy... This was the man representing the "Sponsors" on the inside and he pushed harder than anyone for this war... LBJ, like Nixon, was a pawn. If he had been doing what he was supposed to, he would have been assured a 2nd Term. I think the man was simply out of his class when he got what he wanted - the seat in the Oval - and realized he would never be in as much control as he had as Senate Majority leader... that and the Bush's, Harriman, Brown, Root and gang wanted their man Nixon in 1968. The way was most assuredly cleared for him... Thane Eugene Cesar nods in agreement... Agree David, but you have to look at infidelity in the case of Brown & Root. They would win either way. The war would go on in 61 if Nixon had won, but with JFK winning, the coast had to be cleared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 actually, that's a great point - i didn't think of it in those terms. the MSM have been such knee-biting Fed-humpers nary a one would admit to anything resembling conspiracy; that Maddow did is pretty newsworthy, in reality. maybe if another does so in the next decade we could call it a trend. a "movement," like Arlo incited... really, that's an important thing. the fact remains, i'll have nothing to do with any moving pictures of the b***** in my vicinity, much less the sound of her voice. Gosh, sounds as if you like her about as much as i do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 actually, that's a great point - i didn't think of it in those terms. the MSM have been such knee-biting Fed-humpers nary a one would admit to anything resembling conspiracy; that Maddow did is pretty newsworthy, in reality. maybe if another does so in the next decade we could call it a trend. a "movement," like Arlo incited... really, that's an important thing. the fact remains, i'll have nothing to do with any moving pictures of the b***** in my vicinity, much less the sound of her voice. Gosh, sounds as if you like her about as much as i do. if there's ever any need for me to clarify my admitted reserved feelings for Ratchet MadCow, please do not hesitate to ask. I will do my best to be more forthcoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Glenn: i'll read your review (i'll read the book one day, but there's a line...) - that's how i first saw your name before, a review you wrote of some quack who had at first gained my trust - i thought, "who's this jerk DiEugenio, being so hateful to this guy..." but soon learned you were right, i think. something made me think you were an SBTer, but learned differently. Oh no. But see, at CTKA we are as hard on the pro conspiracy books as we are on the anti-conspiracy ones. I mean just read my current review of Prof. Souza's book, or especially my work on Waldron and Hartmann. You don't get a pass just because you don't buy the WC baloney. That's not good enough. Especially today after the ARRB declassification process. as well you should be. WC bs is worse for the cause than LN bs, by far. if a CTer is legitimate, he or she should demand research and publication be as integrous as it can be. the "bad guys" don't need more fodder and ammo. they create enough of their own. we only hurt ourselves with shoddy work and theory. it's amazing that this even needs to be pointed out, but it does. Glenn, I believe there was a conspiracy, I think LHO was a Patsy. I have no clue who actually 'pulled the triggers (note;plural)' And don't think it's particularly important who the shooters were. Don't know who the 'mastermind' of the plan was, but suspect it was conceived by a group made up of the Oil men in Texas, Military, CIA. Sold to the FBI, LBJ and SS. LBJ gave the go ahead (he didn't have a choice). I find that most of the CTer's just seem to want to argue that 'their' concept of who and how it was done is right. There are those that are sure it was the mafia, some are sure it was the Cuban exiles, some think it was the Pro Castro Cubans, Some are sure it was GHW Bush, Don't ask Obama, he would say it is Bush's fault. Many think it was the oil men, LBJ, the military. I'm not really sure that it makes a lot of difference who it was, but I think it is revealing that no matter who started it, there was a whole lot more people covering it up than were ever involved in the operation itself. As pointed out, even RFK had to be in on the cover up. I do this as a hobby, I'm 74 years old, have been following it since it happened and do not expect to ever know absolutely who it was. But at least I think I have a general knowledge of how it came about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 actually, that's a great point - i didn't think of it in those terms. the MSM have been such knee-biting Fed-humpers nary a one would admit to anything resembling conspiracy; that Maddow did is pretty newsworthy, in reality. maybe if another does so in the next decade we could call it a trend. a "movement," like Arlo incited... really, that's an important thing. the fact remains, i'll have nothing to do with any moving pictures of the b***** in my vicinity, much less the sound of her voice. Gosh, sounds as if you like her about as much as i do. if there's ever any need for me to clarify my admitted reserved feelings for Ratchet MadCow, please do not hesitate to ask. I will do my best to be more forthcoming. An explanation for not liking MadCow is not necessary. It is well understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 NSAM 273: An Introduction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now