COUP IN DALLAS

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Bill, that is another document that proves JFK was withdrawing and its by JCS chief Max Taylor.

I kind of think he knew what he was talking about.  Since he was actually against the withdrawal plan and tried to pull it out of the Taylor/McNamara Report.

 

This is the third time I will post this chart.  Kennedy did not oversee one of the biggest defense build ups in history.  That is simply false.  https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

Kennedy's depreciation credit was for domestic plant and development.  He was trying to encourage investment in productivity and employment.  And this was also  to try and discourage companies from going off shore, which Kennedy was opposed to.  Seymour Harris once wrote that Kennedy had a better knowledge of the way the economy works than any other president he knew.  And JFK's  synergistic plan worked: lowered unemployment, expanded GNP.  Kennedy also increased unemployment benefits and raised the minimum wage.

How anyone can talk about Kennedy's economics and unions without saying one word about the steel crisis is amazing. John Blair, one of the finest economic analysts of the 20th century, called this face off "the most dramatic confrontation in history between a president and a corporate management." (Blair, Economic Concentration, p. 635) And how you can ignore the war on Kennedy from both the Wall Street Journal and David Rockefeller is also kind of surprising. (See Chapter 4 of Don Gibson's Battling Wall Street, which is, by far, the best examination of JFK's economic policies.). 

And what about his appointment of James Saxon, through which he was trying to open up more state banks and make borrowing money easier.  Its pretty clear that Saxon was his point man against the Fed.  Or did you fail to read this also? (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/james-saxon-and-john-kennedy-vs-wall-street)

Gibson said that Kennedy's overall economic policy plan was probably the most far reaching and most effective since FDR's. Monika Wiesak, in her book, The Last American President, says Kennedy had planned on having maximum economic synergistic impact by 1965. Which it did.  We know what happened after with LBJ and Nixon. The marginal rate ended up at 70 per cent.  Which as Sandy says is OK, and its OK with me.  It was Reagan who lowered it to a rather sickening and preposterous 28 per cent, in which Buffet's secretary paid a higher rate than Buffet. Timothy Noah in the New Republic wrote a good article about how the Kennedy tax cut was so different than Reagan's, Ryan's, what Romney proposed, and the supply siders.  Kennedy's benefits were skewed to working class and small business, it was  demand oriented.  The supply siders were essentially a giveaway to the top ten per cent.   (https://newrepublic.com/article/108536/heres-why-ryan-no-jfk)

FInally, there is this on unions: https://www.afge.org/article/jfks-executive-order-changed-our-union-forever/

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Here is the takeaway from TIm Noah's article about JFK vs the Supply Siders:

"Indeed, what Kennedy really wanted was to stimulate the economy through government spending, but he didn’t have the votes in Congress for that. So he went with the tax cut instead. The giveaway that Kennedy's wasn’t really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top. If you want to stimulate consumer purchasing, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts in the middle and at the bottom. If you want to stimulate investment, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts at the top—or, if that’s politically impossible, you make the cuts the same across the board. Ronald Reagan’s tax cut in 1981 was pretty obviously a supply-side cut because it lowered the top tax rate more than it did rates at the middle or the bottom. After it passed, White House budget chief David Stockman got in a lot of trouble for admitting what was obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention: The only cuts Reagan cared about were those at the top. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" Stockman blurted out to William Greider in the Atlantic, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

Edited August 28, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Leslie Sharp]

Michael Griffith,

Thank you for seeing past your political bias to include our book,  Coup in Dallas, in your twelve recommendations.

I have to say though, I find it so ironic that your concern with Coup  seems to be what you perceive as an ultra-liberal stance, when you fail to even mention the names, or history of, SS Otto Skorzeny and his wife Ilse — both of whom were avowed Nazis.  

We reported the facts, though the heavens fall. 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

16 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Michael Griffith,

Thank you for seeing past your political bias to include our book,  Coup in Dallas, in your twelve recommendations.

I have to say though, I find it so ironic that your concern with Coup  seems to be what you perceive as an ultra-liberal stance, when you fail to even mention the names, or history of, SS Otto Skorzeny and his wife Ilse — both of whom were avowed Nazis.  

We reported the facts, though the heavens fall. 

 

 

Leslie - I said something similar a few pages back. It’s a curious way to view a book that is clearly pointing history towards the far right with facts to prove it. Michael - read some of the recent material on Otto Skorzeny and his wife. Scholarship is deep and getting deeper in Spain, where other researchers are unearthing more about Skorzeny and his links with the US - and Mossad btw. 

[Leslie Sharp]

Thanks Paul.

Just to be clear, had Lafitte left any clues that Mossad was active in the assassination, Hank wouldn't have hesitated to expose that explosive revelation.  The closest hint from Lafitte would be Angleton who had a long history with the Israelis and their intel, so no,  it's not illogical to consider the possibility.

However, if we're studying "boots not the ground", what are the names of those within Mossad or the Israeli government directly involved in meetings in the lead up to Dallas?  Are there Mossad shooters in Dealey?  Is Otto Skorzeny still liaising with Rafi, for example?

Much has been made of Skorzeny's (alleged) role in taking out Nasser's scientists at the behest of the Israelis.  But how long did that association last? And why concentrate on that episode at the expense of studying Skorzeny's other clients during the Cold War?  

My answer (and I believe this would have been Hank's), the Jews were an easy target in this investigation. Conversely, we are just now, in the past couple of years, looking seriously at the remnants of the n a z I Reich that Mae Brussell alerted us to in the 1980s.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Leslie Sharp

[Paul Brancato]

Agree - I mentioned Skorzeny and Mossad just to fill in some history, not to point at Israel. Otto is on film saying he worked for many governmental entities, as well as for Castro and later for Castro’s enemies. 

[Ron Bulman]

I probably shouldn't comment here, I've got A Secret Order but not Coup yet.  Not really familiar with the details on Skorzeny about his teams, work for different governments.  Not like Paul or Leslie for sure.

But I wonder, given his n a z i  background.  Might he have ever been utilized by Allen Dulles?  Given Dulles actions in Sweden in WWII, his involvement in Paperclip/Gehlen/Von Baun/the rat lines through Israel to Soth America.  Might they have shared similar thoughts/objectives? 

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/28/2022 at 11:48 AM, Bill Fite said:

Here's the evidence right here -- a memo from the head of the JCS on Oct 4, 1963:

Link to article w more evidence

First, yes, I've read Galbraith's article. Unlike some folks here, I like to read both sides before I make arguments on a subject. 

Two, the problem is that you are ignoring that these were plans, objectives, goals, but they were not absolute and unalterable--they were conditional, and the crucial condition was that South Vietnam be able to defend herself. 

Three, you folks keep ignoring the plain language of NSAMs 263 and 273 (first draft) that the U.S. would continue to aid South Vietnam even after the withdrawal had been executed. 

This is why it is problematic and discrediting when Stone's JFK documentary has Newman citing the secret McNamara debrief to the effect that JFK was prepared to pull out even if South Vietnam fell to the communists. In April 1964, RFK made it crystal clear that this was not the case. NSAM 263 and 273 both clearly envision U.S. aid even after a withdrawal and even in the absence of any American troops on the ground--however, one of Taylor's recommendations approved in NSAM 263 stated that a small number of trainers may have needed to remain in country.

You folks would be fine if you would just stick to what the facts support: JFK wanted, intended, desired to withdraw all troops as soon as possible and to avoid using regular combat troops. Yes, absolutely. That is totally clear. But, any total pullout would be based on the situation on the ground. He had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam to communist tyranny. He was going to continue to give South Vietnam weapons and supplies, and he was even willing to provide air support if needed. 

Have any of you watched Dr. Selverstone's 2016 video yet? The evidence he presents therein is a fraction of the evidence that will be in his upcoming book The Kennedy Withdrawal: Camelot and the American Commitment to Vietnam.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Sandy Larsen]

NSAM 263 does not specify the continuation of support to the South Vietnamese beyond 1965.

It includes only the equivocation, "It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time," with "that time" referring to the presumed 1965 withdrawal date.

But there is absolutely no promise that that U.S. would provide ANYTHING beyond 1965.

And NSAM 273 has nothing to do with JFK.

 

[Bill Fite]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

First, yes, I've read Galbraith's article. Unlike some folks here, I like to read both sides before I make arguments on a subject. 

Two, the problem is that you are ignoring that these were plans, objectives, goals, but they were not absolute and unalterable--they were conditional, and the crucial condition was that South Vietnam be able to defend herself. 

Three, you folks keep ignoring the plain language of NSAMs 263 and 273 (first draft) that the U.S. would continue to aid South Vietnam even after the withdrawal had been executed. 

This is why it is problematic and discrediting when Stone's JFK documentary has Newman citing the secret McNamara debrief to the effect that JFK was prepared to pull out even if South Vietnam fell to the communists. In April 1964, RFK made it crystal clear that this was not the case. NSAM 263 and 273 both clearly envision U.S. aid even after a withdrawal and even in the absence of any American troops on the ground--however, one of Taylor's recommendations approved in NSAM 263 stated that a small number of trainers may have needed to remain in country.

You folks would be fine if you would just stick to what the facts support: JFK wanted, intended, desired to withdraw all troops as soon as possible and to avoid using regular combat troops. Yes, absolutely. That is totally clear. But, any total pullout would be based on the situation on the ground. He had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam to communist tyranny. He was going to continue to give South Vietnam weapons and supplies, and he was even willing to provide air support if needed. 

Have any of you watched Dr. Selverstone's 2016 video yet? The evidence he presents therein is a fraction of the evidence that will be in his upcoming book The Kennedy Withdrawal: Camelot and the American Commitment to Vietnam.

 

 

The fact is the orders were given from the President to the JCS and then noted in the memo.

Have fun in the imaginary land it seems you inhabit.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

17 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I probably shouldn't comment here, I've got A Secret Order but not Coup yet.  Not really familiar with the details on Skorzeny about his teams, work for different governments.  Not like Paul or Leslie for sure.

But I wonder, given his n a z i  background.  Might he have ever been utilized by Allen Dulles?  Given Dulles actions in Sweden in WWII, his involvement in Paperclip/Gehlen/Von Baun/the rat lines through Israel to Soth America.  Might they have shared similar thoughts/objectives? 

Yes, Ron, as Albarelli writes in Coup, Skorzeny was recruited to serve American intelligence. Bill Donovan and Allen Dulles put him to work post WWII in their World Commerce Corporation scheme where he worked in league with WCC president Frank Ryan, then posted to Madrid. Skorzeny also set up shop with the likes of Rexist Party leader Leon DeGrelle, global arms dealer Victor Oswald (former OSS asset) who was a close friend of Ryan, and SS Johannes Bernhardt who was providing support to Franco in reequipping his military. 

One could say that the Gehlen Org (Uphill) was responsible for facilitating US control over the brains of German science and industry, while Skorzeny was responsible for stabilizing n a z i brawn in the event the Soviets made a move. It appears Otto and Reinhard worked in tandem, but with a predictable degree of competition for resources. There's a lengthy memo from Skorzeny to John McCloy proposing, in detail, that McCloy support his efforts to maintain some 200,000 former n a z i soldiers.  We all know McCloy's later role alongside Allen Dulles with the Warren Commission. 

Of interest, in 1961, Frank Ryan came to defense of General Edwin Walker:
 

The action taken regarding Major General Edwin Walker is amazing. Is it a crime nowadays to be a patriot? Is it a crime to teach Americanism to our troops? Must a general be “relieved of command” when he is giving his troops something to fight for? Who is relieving of command those in government who are responsible for the Communist foothold in this hemisphere? Who is being “relieved of command” for other Communists favoring actions in our State Department? 

—Frank T. Ryan, President 

  World Commerce Corporation

                                                        June 25, 1961

Edited September 1, 2022 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

5 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

The fact is the orders were given from the President to the JCS and then noted in the memo.

Have fun in the imaginary land it seems you inhabit.

 

Has General Theodore Mataxis surfaced in your studies?

[Leslie Sharp]

10 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

First, yes, I've read Galbraith's article. Unlike some folks here, I like to read both sides before I make arguments on a subject. 

Two, the problem is that you are ignoring that these were plans, objectives, goals, but they were not absolute and unalterable--they were conditional, and the crucial condition was that South Vietnam be able to defend herself. 

Three, you folks keep ignoring the plain language of NSAMs 263 and 273 (first draft) that the U.S. would continue to aid South Vietnam even after the withdrawal had been executed. 

This is why it is problematic and discrediting when Stone's JFK documentary has Newman citing the secret McNamara debrief to the effect that JFK was prepared to pull out even if South Vietnam fell to the communists. In April 1964, RFK made it crystal clear that this was not the case. NSAM 263 and 273 both clearly envision U.S. aid even after a withdrawal and even in the absence of any American troops on the ground--however, one of Taylor's recommendations approved in NSAM 263 stated that a small number of trainers may have needed to remain in country.

You folks would be fine if you would just stick to what the facts support: JFK wanted, intended, desired to withdraw all troops as soon as possible and to avoid using regular combat troops. Yes, absolutely. That is totally clear. But, any total pullout would be based on the situation on the ground. He had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam to communist tyranny. He was going to continue to give South Vietnam weapons and supplies, and he was even willing to provide air support if needed. 

Have any of you watched Dr. Selverstone's 2016 video yet? The evidence he presents therein is a fraction of the evidence that will be in his upcoming book The Kennedy Withdrawal: Camelot and the American Commitment to Vietnam.

 

 

Michael, I'm curious if you've wrestled with President Kennedy's having been ultimately responsible for increasing US presence in Vietnam — regardless of the role those advisors/servicemen are alleged to have been filling — from some 700 when he took office to approx. 16,000?  Agreed, he made it quite clear he intended to begin a slow withdrawal, but I've yet to find an explanation for the over 20 fold increase during his nearly three years as Commander in Chief.  Does that number reflect rotation?  Were his hands tied? Were the increases in such small increments he didn't truly absorb the escalation?  You may know better than I whether experts in this field of research have addressed the increase. I've requested documents, but none to date have resolved the dilemma.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Leslie Sharp

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/29/2022 at 11:29 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

Michael Griffith,

Thank you for seeing past your political bias to include our book,  Coup in Dallas, in your twelve recommendations.

I have to say though, I find it so ironic that your concern with Coup  seems to be what you perceive as an ultra-liberal stance, when you fail to even mention the names, or history of, SS Otto Skorzeny and his wife Ilse — both of whom were avowed Nazis.  

We reported the facts, though the heavens fall. 

I didn't mention Skorzeny and his wife because they have nothing to do with the non-assassination-related liberal political preaching in the book. My point is that the book would appeal to a wider audience if it did not have such a heavy dose of liberal politics and did not tar-brush conservatives. 

I don't know of anyone who thinks that identifying Skorzeny and his wife's role in the plot is either liberal or conservative, since 99% of Americans detest Skorzeny's racist, fascist ideology.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/28/2022 at 5:07 PM, Bill Fite said:

You're ignoring what the tax rates were and what they are now.

Why don't you post them?  

Uh, I stated what the tax rate was for the top bracket, which bracket JFK was cutting, and I stated the lower rate that JFK proposed. This is in the part of my reply that you quoted.

JFK cut taxes more than Reagan did.  JFK’s tax cut was larger than the Reagan tax cuts and any single Bush tax cut compared with national income, and it was larger than all three Bush tax cuts combined in relation to the federal budget.  In addition, JFK gave a huge tax cut to the rich.

The Tax Foundation:

Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.

Comparing the size of these tax cuts with the federal budget shows that the Kennedy’s tax cuts represented 8.8 percent of the budget. In 1981, Reagan’s tax cuts represented 5.3 percent of the budget. Each of Bush’s tax cuts are smaller than Reagan’s—EGTRRA (3.8 percent), JCWA (2.5 percent) and the 2003 Tax Cut (1.8 percent). When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1 percent), they would be larger than Reagan’s tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedy’s tax cut. ("Fiscal Facts," Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html)

Two articles of mine on the facts about tax cuts, revenue, and growth:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/settingrecordstraight.htm

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth (miketgriffith.com)