Questions About Secret Agenda

[W. Niederhut]

8 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Hey dude.  No I didn't.  And you should get a quote by me that supports that.  Go on.  

 

What I said was it was not known what Kennedy would do -- and certainly 263 -- does not establish the question one way or the other.  Indeed, if you followed my analysis, you understand that I think that Kennedy was regarded for those pushing the Vietnam War as too conservative.  To Catholic.  Too traditional.  Like Diem.  And Lansdale.  And Kennedy too dedicated to special forces counterinsurgency and not mainline US troops on the ground.  That said, my point was also that if CIA can instigate a monk setting himself on fire every other week, and a terrorist -- actual VC or otherwise -- blowing up a cafe three times a month, as they could -- and did, Kennedy had he lived might have found himself under pressure that he could not refuse to send in US troops.  Indeed, some of those incidents were beginning to ramp up in the fall of 63 and yes 263 was reversed -- while Kennedy was alive.  

 

So get your facts straight.

Huh, dude?  Facts?

Have you studied Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's primary source material about the McNamara/Taylor Report and JFK's October 1963 decision (NSAM 263) to get out of Vietnam?

Prouty co-authored the McNamara/Taylor Report with General Victor Krulak, in his capacity as the Joint Chiefs' liaison to the CIA for Special Ops (including Saigon Station) in 1963.

As for Watergate, have you studied Jim Hougan's Secret Agenda and the other historical reference works cited on this thread?

If you have some hitherto unknown primary source information about Moynihan and Watergate, by all means, share it.

One of our Education Forum members was E. Howard Hunt's Watergate lawyer.

And some of us around here graduated from schools like Harvard and Georgetown, so I think we can contemplate your dazzling brilliance without going completely blind... 😎

 

[Matt Cloud]

3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Huh, dude?  Facts?

Have you studied Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's primary source material about the McNamara/Taylor Report and JFK's October 1963 decision (NSAM 263) to get out of Vietnam?

Prouty co-authored the McNamara/Taylor Report with General Victor Krulak, in his capacity as the Joint Chiefs' liaison to the CIA for Special Ops (including Saigon Station) in 1963.

As for Watergate, have you studied Jim Hougan's Secret Agenda and the other historical reference works cited on this thread?

If you have some hitherto unknown primary source information about Moynihan and Watergate, by all means, share it.

One of our Education Forum members was E. Howard Hunt's Watergate lawyer.

And some of us around here graduated from schools like Harvard and Georgetown, so I think we can contemplate your dazzling brilliance without going completely blind... 😎

 

You mischaracterized -- utterly -- what I said.  Completely wrong.  I said nothing of the sort which you alleged I did.  Those are the facts I am referring to.  Right?  Understand?

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

You mischaracterized -- utterly -- what I said.  Completely wrong.  I said nothing of the sort which you alleged I did.  Those are the facts I am referring to.  Right?  Understand?

Matt,

      Here's what you posted on Saturday, May 25th, in response to James DiEugenio's comments about LBJ's reversal of NSAM 263, shortly after JFK's assassination, with NSAM 273.  It's a subject that has been studied and discussed in exhaustive detail on this forum.  You have simply repeated the longstanding mainstream media pseudo-history denying JFK's decision in 1963 to get out of Vietnam.  One of JFK's main consultants on the issue was John Kenneth Galbraith.  As far as I know, Moynihan was not even in that loop.

        "No one knows what Kennedy would have done as events in Vietnam became worse and worse in the fall of 63 and into 1964-65.  Evidently, as this thread has pointed out, 263 was already being reversed, before the assassination.   But of course the only interpretation of this fact that gets considered here is that that somehow proves the assassination was over Vietnam.  It was not.  It had little to do with Kennedy personally, but no one can seemingly conceive of this inherent deception." 

     -- Matt Cloud/ May 25, 2024

 

       So, I'll ask you again.  Have you ever studied Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's primary source account of the drafting of the McNamara/Taylor Report and JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam?

       (BTW, please spare us the standard Operation Mockingbird/Liberty Lobby garbage focused on discrediting Prouty as an honest primary source about the JFK administration and the CIA's Saigon Station ops.)

[Matt Cloud]

16 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Matt,

      Here's what you posted on Saturday, May 25th, in response to James DiEugenio's comments about LBJ's reversal of NSAM 263, shortly after JFK's assassination, with NSAM 273.  It's a subject that has been studied and discussed in exhaustive detail on this forum.  You have simply repeated the longstanding mainstream media pseudo-history denying JFK's decision in 1963 to get out of Vietnam.  One of JFK's main consultants on the issue was John Kenneth Galbraith.  As far as I know, Moynihan was not even in that loop.

        "No one knows what Kennedy would have done as events in Vietnam became worse and worse in the fall of 63 and into 1964-65.  Evidently, as this thread has pointed out, 263 was already being reversed, before the assassination.   But of course the only interpretation of this fact that gets considered here is that that somehow proves the assassination was over Vietnam.  It was not.  It had little to do with Kennedy personally, but no one can seemingly conceive of this inherent deception." 

     -- Matt Cloud/ May 25, 2024

 

       So, I'll ask you again.  Have you ever studied Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's primary source account of the drafting of the McNamara/Taylor Report and JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam?

       (BTW, please spare us the standard Operation Mockingbird/Liberty Lobby garbage focused on discrediting Prouty as an honest primary source about the JFK administration and the CIA's Saigon Station ops.)

That's not my issue with you.  My issue is simple: You mischaracterized what I wrote.  Now you have provided the actual quote which doesn't say what you said it did.  It says in fact what I said it did.  If you want to hang your hat on 263 and the entirely speculative and hypothetical analysis it must rely on, to the exclusion of any realistic understanding of the fluidity of reality and any understanding of actual political behavior, and remain like some insect frozen in amber brought to life 60 years later go right ahead.  I know all about Prouty.  I know all about Secret Agenda.  None of these books bother anyone.  But they are neither here nor there as to my involvement on this thread.  More, I'm not interested in this dishonest method of engagement by you.  I have stated my thesis.  You can ask for elaboration, you can disagree, you can ignore it, whatever.  What I won't abide is misstatements of what I have said and then be subjected to some gotcha game of have you read this book?, have you read that book?   That has no analytical merit to it.  None at all.  Your comments along those lines, I mean.  If you want to say what do I think of the hookers at Columbia Plaza story just ask.  Or -- what do I think of Prouty?  Just ask.  Real simple.  No need for this manipulative "when did you stop beating your wife" queries and labeling by perceptive political association (which are completely without merit in the first place), which so frequently go on here, and which you specifically are doing right now.  

 

if you want to engage my analysis, do it -- straight up.  But evidently you don't -- you're blinded with partisan loyalties it seems.  Not my problem.  But you can't solve this story that way.  If that's what you are even interested in.  And if you don't want to engage my analysis, ignore me.  But don't go around saying I say things which I don't say, and then try and change the subject.  Again -- do you understand?

Edited May 28 by Matt Cloud

[James DiEugenio]

Matt, NSAM 263 is not what I or any other commentator chose to "hang their hat on" for a withdrawal thesis.

One of the most important, if not the most important, document released by the ARRB was the Sec Def conference meeting of May 1963. In that conference, McNamara had asked for withdrawal schedules. They were handed in to him. He looked at them and then announced, this is too slow.  We have the notes to that meeting.  Wheeler was there.  He wrote that any contra argument to withdrawal would meet with a negative response. 

We then have the tapes of the October meetings where Kennedy and McNamara are talking about withdrawing and Mac Bundy does not know what they are talking about. McNamara replies that they have to find a way to get out of Vietnam.  Many years later, Bundy heard this tape and told his biographer Gordon Goldstein that Kennedy had instructed McNamara to run the withdrawal program.  And he deliberately went around him since he thought he was too hawkish.  He told Goldstein that was the right decision and he had nothing but admiration for what Kennedy had done.

We then have the evidence of the handing in of the Taylor/McNamara report and how Sullivan had tried to pull the withdrawal plan out of it. Kennedy called them into a conference room and made them put it back in. He then rode herd over the dissenters and announced, we now have a plan.  He then told McNamara to announce it to the press.  But while he was walking out to do so, JFK opened a window and told him, "And tell them that means the helicopter pilots also!"

In Stone's film, John Newman talked about the McNamara debriefs.  How the Secretary said that he and Kennedy had agreed that America should only have a training and equipment program for Saigon. They could not fight the war for them. Once that training program was complete, America could get out.  And it did not matter if Saigon was winning or losing, we were getting out of Vietnam.

Now I could go even further in this, because I have not even included Galbraith and his strong influence over JFK on this issue. Or the advice of DeGaulle and MacArthur. Or the 19 witnesses who said that Kennedy told them he was getting out of Vietnam. Are they all lying?

I have done a lot of work on this angle in the last several years.  One reason being that I did not buy into at first. I can now see I was wrong.  Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam, and that decision was knowingly halted by Johnson within days, and it was then reversed by NSAM 288 in March of 1964. 

These are all facts. And only the Noam Chomskys of the world would beg to differ.

Edited May 28 by James DiEugenio

[Matt Cloud]

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Matt, NSAM 263 is not what I or any other commentator chose to "hang their hat on" for a withdrawal thesis.

One of the most important, if not the most important, document released by the ARRB was the Sec Def conference meeting of May 1963. In that conference, McNamara had asked for withdrawal schedules. They were handed in to him. He looked at them and then announced, this is too slow.  We have the notes to that meeting.  Wheeler was there.  He wrote that any contra argument to withdrawal would meet with a negative response. 

We then have the tapes of the October meetings where Kennedy and McNamara are talking about withdrawing and Mac Bundy foes not know what they are talking about. McNamara replies that they have to find a way to get out of Vietnam.  Many years later, Bundy heard this tape and told his biographer Gordon Goldstein that Kennedy had instructed McNamara to run the withdrawal program.  And he deliberately went around him since he thought he was too hawkish.  He told Goldstein that was the right decision and he had noting but admiration for what Kennedy had done.

We then have the evidence of the handing in of the Taylor/McNamara report and how Sullivan had tried to pull the withdrawal plan out of it. Kennedy called them into a conference room and made them put it back in. He then rode herd over the dissenters and announced, we now have a plan.  He then told McNamara to announce it to the press.  But while he was walking out to do so, JFK opened a window and told him, "And tell them that means the helicopter pilots also!"

In Stone's film, John Newman talked about the McNamara debriefs.  How the Secretary said that he and Kennedy had agreed that America should only have a training and equipment program for Saigon. They could not fight the war for them. Once that training program was complete, America could get out.  And it did not matter if Saigon was winning or losing, we were getting out of Vietnam.

Now I could go even further in this, because I have not even included Galbraith and his strong influence over JFK on this issue. Or the advice of DeGaulle and MacArthur. Or the 19 witnesses who said that Kennedy told them he was getting out of Vietnam. Are they all lying?

I have done a lot of work on this angle in the last several years.  One reason being that I did not buy into at first. I can now see I was wrong.  Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam, and that decision was knowingly halted by Johnson within days, and it was then reversed by NSAM 288 in March of 1964. 

These are all facts. And only the Noam Chomskys of the world would beg to differ.

I didn't enter this debate, at least not on this thread.  I am only here to correct the mischaracterization of what I had said.  That has now been done.  Why I was cited as stating one way or the other what Kennedy would do with respect to Vietnam is beyond me because as I stated it is unknown.  Period.  And I have never made such a statement.  Plenty of others are down on record factually on that.  Indeed, I have suggested on this forum that Kennedy was too conservative as regards US troop deployment.  In that sense, when he was gone, yes, there was perhaps a hindrance removed in terms of escalation of the war.  I do not however align with the view that that was the motive behind the assassination.  And now, to your point, May 1963 is a whole lot different than October 1963, as regards the situation in Vietnam, and more different still than the Gulf of Tonkin month(s).  My point all along has been that Kennedy was as susceptible as any president would be -- if not more so because of his rhetoric at least -- to pressure to commit further when and if facts on the ground so demanded.  As they would.  Whether he lived or not.  (Not unconnected, perhaps, if you don't know, 1964 btw saw a thaw in US-Soviet relations not a chill.)  In any case, even if Kennedy was reluctant even still at that point, in 1964-5, well, guess what, plenty of forces were in effect to create more terror in SVN, both "genuine" and "contrived" that would finally have forced Kennedy's hand.  I do not not see any reason to think JFK and RFK were prepared to take the blame for the loss of VN.  But again -- since I have an entirely different thesis as to the purpose behind the assassination, that is to say it was decades in the planning and simultaneously for protection of the Mole (i.e. Pat Moynihan) as well as to create the kind of lost mythos that has in fact happened -- the fantasia state of America that resulted with the conception of the lost king at the height of America's nobility and the ensuing paralyzing and distracting arguments over the next 60 years about who was responsible and what the motive was.  

 

All that aside, none of this has anything to do with the ostensible topic of this thread -- Secret Agenda.  Again -- which I wasn't participating in.  Why things have gotten so splintered around here, as to the discipline on the threads, I can't say.  Again, however, a cheap grenade was thrown in my direction and I have responded to it (although as with so many of your posts), I received no notification as to that mention.  Good thing I checked in to correct the record.  

 

 

Edited May 28 by Matt Cloud

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

That's not my issue with you.  My issue is simple: You mischaracterized what I wrote.  Now you have provided the actual quote which doesn't say what you said it did.  It says in fact what I said it did.  If you want to hang your hat on 263 and the entirely speculative and hypothetical analysis it must rely on, to the exclusion of any realistic understanding of the fluidity of reality and any understanding of actual political behavior, and remain like some insect frozen in amber brought to life 60 years later go right ahead.  I know all about Prouty.  I know all about Secret Agenda.  None of these books bother anyone.  But they are neither here nor there as to my involvement on this thread.  More, I'm not interested in this dishonest method of engagement by you.  I have stated my thesis.  You can ask for elaboration, you can disagree, you can ignore it, whatever.  What I won't abide is misstatements of what I have said and then be subjected to some gotcha game of have you read this book?, have you read that book?   That has no analytical merit to it.  None at all.  Your comments along those lines, I mean.  If you want to say what do I think of the hookers at Columbia Plaza story just ask.  Or -- what do I think of Prouty?  Just ask.  Real simple.  No need for this manipulative "when did you stop beating your wife" queries and labeling by perceptive political association (which are completely without merit in the first place), which so frequently go on here, and which you specifically are doing right now.  

 

if you want to engage my analysis, do it -- straight up.  But evidently you don't -- you're blinded with partisan loyalties it seems.  Not my problem.  But you can't solve this story that way.  If that's what you are even interested in.  And if you don't want to engage my analysis, ignore me.  But don't go around saying I say things which I don't say, and then try and change the subject.  Again -- do you understand?

Matt,

This is ad hominem gibberish.   There's nothing "dishonest," or "blindly partisan" about my quest to better understand America's "untold" history.  The precise opposite is the case.  That's true for most Education Forum members.

As for "changing the subject," there are two subjects under discussion here, IMO -- Watergate and JFK's Vietnam policy.  I have changed neither.

This is an old forum thread where we discussed Watergate history and theories about the identity of Deep Throat.  I bumped it as a reference thread, based on your recent comments about Moynihan being Deep Throat.

In that context, I also happened to refer to your May 25th claim that JFK would not have necessarily withdrawn from Vietnam.

Perhaps I did misstate your position by saying that you had "insisted" that JFK would not necessarily have fully implemented NSAM 263, based on military contingencies.   My mistake, and apology.

As a rule, I try not to misconstrue people's arguments.

 

 

 

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

Matt,

This is ad hominem gibberish.   There's nothing "dishonest," or "blindly partisan" about my quest to better understand America's "untold" history.  The precise opposite is the case.  That's true for most Education Forum members.

As for "changing the subject," there are two subjects under discussion here, IMO -- Watergate and JFK's Vietnam policy.  I have changed neither.

This is an old forum thread where we discussed Watergate history and theories about the identity of Deep Throat.  I bumped it as a reference thread, based on your recent comments about Moynihan being Deep Throat.

In that context, I also happened to refer to your May 25th claim that JFK would not have necessarily withdrawn from Vietnam.

Perhaps I did misstate your position by saying that you had "insisted" that JFK would not necessarily have fully implemented NSAM 263, based on military contingencies.   My mistake, and apology.

As a rule, I try not to misconstrue people's arguments.

 

 

 

Let's see: you misstate me, force a pointless defense by me, then when I return with "dishonest" -- which it was -- and "partisan loyalty" -- which we could explore, you then feel you can dismiss my defense as ad hominem.  Cute trick.  You went ad hominem to me.  First.  Period.  You quoted me wrong, and then labeled me as associated ("Liberty Lobby") with certain political points-of-view as well.  But you have now acknowledged the misquote, at least.  Good.  Could be better.

[Robert Morrow]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

William, if you have not read Secret Agenda, all the way through, you really should.

Even today, 40 years after it was published, its the best book on Watergate.

There is no doubt that Mark Felt was one of the main sources for Woodward.  But there appear to be a couple others, Robert Bennnett, as Hougan proves, was one.  The other two suspects are Haig and Bobby Inman.

I live in Austin, TX 9 houses down the street from Bobby Ray Inman. My take on him, from having met him several times and interviewing him once in 2009, is that Inman is an establishment cover guy who is very, very concerned with his own personal image. Inman was or is buddies with both the Bushes and the Clintons.

Inman, born April 4, 1931, is still at age 93 very active and he drives a fancy late model Lexus. On most days he still apparently goes to work and I often see him returning from work and going to the community mail boxes around 5PM.

I believe that Inman was WORKING INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE at the National Security office under McGeorge Bundy on the date of the JFK assassination. In 2009 Inman to told me he would go to his grave thinking Fidel Castro killed JFK. Isn't that convenient for Mr. CIA guy who I would not trust no farther than I could pick him up and throw him.

Inman was nominated for Defense Secretary by Bill Clinton but he withdrew - Inman told me - after the Mossad began a whisper campaign with journalists that Inman was a closet homosexual. Zionists were mad at Inman because they did not deem him pro Israel enough! Inman had a press conference and melted down like a candy bar in the sun, which makes me think that the Mossad rumors/whispering campaign about Inman being a closet homosexual might in fact be true. Years later in 2009, Inman was still hurt over the hardball tactics that the Mossad and their Zionist supporters in the American media used to get rid of Inman as Defense Secretary. Inman withdrew his nomination.

Inman strikes me as the kind of man who absolutely would lie to cover up crimes committed by the bipartisan political establishment.

So was Bobby Inman "Deep Throat?" I doubt it BUT being a leaker to journalist Bob Woodward definitely seems like something Inman would do.

My money is still on Mark Felt being Deep Throat source for Bob Woodward.

 

 

Edited May 29 by Robert Morrow

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Robert Morrow said:

I live in Austin, TX 9 houses down the street from Bobby Ray Inman. My take on him, from having met him several times and interviewing him once in 2009, is that Inman is an establishment cover guy who is very, very concerned with his own personal image. Inman was or is buddies with both the Bushes and the Clintons.

Inman, born April 4, 1931, is still at age 93 very active and he drives a fancy late model Lexus. On most days he still apparently goes to work and I often see him returning from work and going to the community mail boxes around 5PM.

I believe that Inman was WORKING INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE at the National Security office under McGeorge Bundy on the date of the JFK assassination. In 2009 Inman to told me he would go to his grave thinking Fidel Castro killed JFK. Isn't that convenient for Mr. CIA guy who I would not trust no farther than I could pick him up and throw him.

Inman was nominated for Defense Secretary by Bill Clinton but he withdrew - Inman told me - after the Mossad began a whisper campaign with journalists that Inman was a closet homosexual. Zionists were mad at Inman because they did not deem him pro Israel enough! Inman at a press conference and melted down like a candy bar in the sun, which makes me think that the Mossad rumors/whispering campaign about Inman being a closet homosexual might in fact be true. Years later in 2009, Inman was still hurt over the hardball tactics that the Mossad and their Zionist supporters in the American media used to get rid of Inman as Defense Secretary. Inman withdrew his nomination.

Inman strikes me as the kind of man who absolutely would lie to cover up crimes committed by the bipartisan political establishment.

So was Bobby Inman "Deep Throat?" I doubt it BUT being a leaker to journalist Bob Woodward definitely seems like something Inman would do.

My money is still on Mark Felt being Deep Throat source for Bob Woodward.

 

 

"That crazy admiral?"  Pat Moynihan (aka Deep Throat aka John McMahon) to me, 1999.  

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91-00901R000600210040-8.pdf

 

JOHN MCMAHON TO REPLACE ADMIRAL BOBBY INMAN

 

CIA (.gov)

https://www.cia.gov › readingroom › docs

 

 

PDF

 

Mar 22, 2024 — McMahon, the number three man in the CIA, to replace Admiral. Bobby Inman. Inman resigned last week saying that he wanted.

[James DiEugenio]

Well William, we did get a disclosure out of Matt.

Perhaps two. Maybe three.

1. Pat Moynihan was the deep cover Moscow mole inside the government.

2. Although I might have this wrong, he was Deep Throat.

3.  And he agrees with Marc Selverstone on Kennedy's (maybe) withdrawal plan 

[Robert Morrow]

11 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

"That crazy admiral?"  Pat Moynihan (aka Deep Throat aka John McMahon) to me, 1999.  

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91-00901R000600210040-8.pdf

 

JOHN MCMAHON TO REPLACE ADMIRAL BOBBY INMAN

 

CIA (.gov)

https://www.cia.gov › readingroom › docs

 

 

PDF

 

Mar 22, 2024 — McMahon, the number three man in the CIA, to replace Admiral. Bobby Inman. Inman resigned last week saying that he wanted.

Inman told me that VP George Herbert Walker Bush had a role in getting Inman place at #2 under William Casey. The reason Bush wanted Inman at top level CIA was to spy on what Reaganite and former Reagan campaign manager William Casey were doing.

There was bad blood between Bush and Casey and bad blood between GHW Bush and Reagan. Neither party liked or trusted each other.

Inman did not last too long in that position. He went into the defense industry and made a TON of money after he left the CIA.

 

[Matt Cloud]

3 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

Inman told me that VP George Herbert Walker Bush had a role in getting Inman place at #2 under William Casey. The reason Bush wanted Inman at top level CIA was to spy on what Reaganite and former Reagan campaign manager William Casey were doing.

There was bad blood between Bush and Casey and bad blood between GHW Bush and Reagan. Neither party liked or trusted each other.

Inman did not last too long in that position. He went into the defense industry and made a TON of money after he left the CIA.

 

Right ... the significant character in all of this -- from 1951 on -- is John McMahon, who was a living cut-out for Pat Moynihan.  Take a bite out of that and you're on your way to the whole enchilada.  

[Paul Brancato]

JFK planned gradual withdrawal from VN. Had he he lived he might have changed his mind. But that’s the straw man. So Matt, do you accept that he planned to exit? 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

Let's see: you misstate me, force a pointless defense by me, then when I return with "dishonest" -- which it was -- and "partisan loyalty" -- which we could explore, you then feel you can dismiss my defense as ad hominem.  Cute trick.  You went ad hominem to me.  First.  Period.  You quoted me wrong, and then labeled me as associated ("Liberty Lobby") with certain political points-of-view as well.  But you have now acknowledged the misquote, at least.  Good.  Could be better.

Your ad hominem slur accusing me of "dishonesty" and "partisan blindness" is complete bunk. 

And, to clarify, my minor misstatement was to write that you "insisted" that JFK would not necessarily have withdrawn from Vietnam, instead of writing that you "claimed" that JFK would not necessarily have withdrawn from Vietnam.

Whoop-dee-doo.

Nor were my comments ad hominem.  They were directly related to the subject of your post about JFK and Vietnam.