Interesting account of JFK affair, Gore Vidal

[Kirk Gallaway]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim said that JFK knew about the coup plan early on (in August 1963 apparently). And he said that JFK was looking for a way for Diem to be removed without bloodshed. He said that some of JFK advisors had come up with such a plan, but it was really a con job on JFK.

Again, I'm not sure why the disconnect Sandy?

You can hear with your own ears.. JFK is told by Cabot about ongoing plans for a coup to assassinate Diem and members of his family. .

Ideally, I would suspect JFK wouldn't have wanted Diem and his family killed,  and would want to have ushered them off to some exile.

But clearly here, JFK is not being "conned" in any way at all!  And unless there's some other record of revision over the next couple of months, he clearly expected bloodshed!

He's being told of the assassination plot, and in essence says. "Aw shucks" I wish we didn't have to kill him, and his family. I'm not sure if the next guy's going to better but maybe he will be, so i guess we'll have to do it." Read the text!

We can't say after JFK went through the Cuban Missile Crisis, that he's not aware that words result in actions! And he gave his approval!

****

Paul, I don't understand either. This is clearly JFK's voice. Are you talking about a greater tape sequence of this same meeting?

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Paul, apologies if I missed it above but, is there a link to the whole call? I have listened to the media story and a small part of the call and I do have some opinions. I would prefer to listen to the whole thing before airing them. 
 

Am I also right in thinking such a call will have now been digitalised, as opposed to on that old film tape? 

The link is to a snippet of the call, transcribed accurately in print. It is taken out of context, and it’s a stretch to say it shows JFK green lighting an assassination. 

[Paul Brancato]

2 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Again, I'm not sure why the disconnect Sandy?

You can hear with your own ears.. JFK is told by Cabot about ongoing plans for a coup to assassinate Diem and members of his family. .

Ideally, I would suspect JFK wouldn't have wanted Diem and his family killed,  and would want to have ushered them off to some exile.

But clearly here, JFK is not being "conned" in any way at all!  And unless there's some other record of revision over the next couple of months, he clearly expected bloodshed!

He's being told of the assassination plot, and in essence says. "Aw shucks" I wish we didn't have to kill him, and his family. I'm not sure if the next guy's going to better but maybe he will be, so i guess we'll have to do it." Read the text!

We can't say after JFK went through the Cuban Missile Crisis, that he's not aware that words result in actions! And he gave his approval!

****

Paul, I don't understand either. This is clearly JFK's voice. Are you talking about a greater tape sequence of this same meeting?

Kirk - I’m referring to his response. Lets assume it’s really JFK and there’s been no editorial funny business. He doesn’t actually say what you imply is the ‘essence’ of his response, and as you point out this would have been a few months prior to the assassination. It’s simply going too far to take it as a green light to killing Diem and his family. Can’t you see this is taken out of context, both in the phone call - where’s the rest of it? - and in what surely ensued thereafter. 

[Matthew Koch]

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Paul, apologies if I missed it above but, is there a link to the whole call? I have listened to the media story and a small part of the call and I do have some opinions. I would prefer to listen to the whole thing before airing them. 
 

Am I also right in thinking such a call will have now been digitalised, as opposed to on that old film tape? 

I'll try to find the Diem tape. I bought a book that had it and other JFK tapes on a CD, I've heard it before. From what I remember which is a little fuzzy. I think the Diem Coup from the tapes is Kennedy being indecisive about supporting or stoping it, and because of that and some events discussed in this recording about the cable being sent on the weekend, he lost control of the situation and the worst possible outcome happened. If what Kirk is insinuating was true, I don't think E. Howard Hunt would have had to fabricate cables making JFK out to assassinate fellow Catholic Diem. 

[Matthew Koch]

34 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Kirk - I’m referring to his response. Lets assume it’s really JFK and there’s been no editorial funny business. He doesn’t actually say what you imply is the ‘essence’ of his response, and as you point out this would have been a few months prior to the assassination. It’s simply going too far to take it as a green light to killing Diem and his family. Can’t you see this is taken out of context, both in the phone call - where’s the rest of it? - and in what surely ensued thereafter. 

Here's what the author has to say, it doesn't sound to me like a smoking gun. 

 

[Matthew Koch]

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Paul, apologies if I missed it above but, is there a link to the whole call? I have listened to the media story and a small part of the call and I do have some opinions. I would prefer to listen to the whole thing before airing them. 
 

Am I also right in thinking such a call will have now been digitalised, as opposed to on that old film tape? 

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/diem-coup

[Sandy Larsen]

59 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Again, I'm not sure why the disconnect Sandy?

You can hear with your own ears.. JFK is told by Cabot about ongoing plans for a coup to assassinate Diem and members of his family. .

Ideally, I would suspect JFK wouldn't have wanted Diem and his family killed,  and would want to have ushered them off to some exile.

But clearly here, JFK is not being "conned" in any way at all!  And unless there's some other record of revision over the next couple of months, he clearly expected bloodshed!

He's being told of the assassination plot, and in essence says. "Aw shucks" I wish we didn't have to kill him, and his family. I'm not sure if the next guy's going to better but maybe he will be, so i guess we'll have to do it." Read the text!

We can't say after JFK went through the Cuban Missile Crisis, that he's not aware that words result in actions! And he gave his approval!

****

Paul, I don't understand either. This is clearly JFK's voice. Are you talking about a greater tape sequence of this same meeting?

 

Kirk,

You're gathering the dots, but not connecting them. Each dot is a piece of evidence. When you have space between dots, that doesn't mean nothing happened between them... it means only that you're missing evidence. Connect the dots.

Having said that, when I read Jim D. being interviewed, this is what I got from it:
      (Ignore #2 for now.)

1. The S. Vietnamese Military was planning a coup against Diem.
2.  
3. Word of the planned military coup got back to JFK.
4. JFK set out to make sure it was a bloodless coup.
5. JFK's advisors told him of their plan to make it a bloodless coup. JFK okayed it.
6. When the coup actually happened, the bloodless coup did not take place. Because JFK's advisors had conned him. Instead, the S. Vietnamese generals killed Diem.
7. JFK was shocked by the killing.

Then when I read the transcript of the tape you linked to, what I got was one more dot of evidence:

       2. The coup plan called for Diem and everybody else to be killed.

Plug this #2 dot of evidence into the list above.

So you see, the new evidence didn't change Jim's story. It only added to it. In the end JFK was surprised by the killing because he had been told that Diem and his family would willingly be flown out of Saigon.

 

BTW, when I earlier said that you're gathering the dots, that's not quite true. For some reason you want to ignore the dots gathered by Jim. You really should take what he says about JFK and Vietnam more seriously. I mean, the man has studied the living daylights out of the subject. He knows what he's talking about. I'm sure he's wrong about some things, but he's far ahead of anybody here at the forum.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:

Kirk - I’m referring to his response. Lets assume it’s really JFK and there’s been no editorial funny business. He doesn’t actually say what you imply is the ‘essence’ of his response, and as you point out this would have been a few months prior to the assassination. It’s simply going too far to take it as a green light to killing Diem and his family. Can’t you see this is taken out of context, both in the phone call - where’s the rest of it? - and in what surely ensued thereafter. 

Yes I was thinking you were referring to having heard a more detailed recording of this meeting.

In any such release such as this , and all such releases from Government archives, as well as film of public appearances, and press conferences we do presume have a certain "good faith" that these recordings are being fairly and accurately disseminated. Do you suppose this researcher has an "axe to grind". 

For example, for purposes of brevity, he may have abbreviated a segment where JFK expresses more concern about killing Diem and his family, but he goes to the bottom line statement where JFK approves the action. It would be nice to know everything that was said, but if that was the case. I don't think it's unfair.

*****

I checked out the first of Matthew  posts. It's not with Lodge,  But it's the greater version of JFK's own notes on Nov. 4th. 

JFK: i should not have given consent to it without a round table.

He admits to consenting to Lodge's will in the August conversation. But regrets later that he didn't consult with Taylor and Lodge about it. He talks about who of his advisors  is on each side of the  issue of Diem's assassination.  but curiously skirts the issue himself! He's very unclear about whose specific actions were taken here.

But JFK  expresses regret at what happened, and the bottom line is, he says he bears some responsibility!

I checked out Matthew's second clip, an interview with Nisker. It is longer.The biggest highlight of it I could find that wasn't in my shorter clip, is that he, at least  thinks that JFK would have withdrawn some troops after he won re election, but was probably not ready to leave the commitment to Vietnam altogether. Just his thoughts.

 

 

 

[Cory Santos]

I put the WiFi back on.   Cliff, do spare a moment as this is your forte.  

[Douglas Caddy]

I am somewhat partial to this topic because Gore Vidal is in its title.

The June 9, 1961 issue of LIFE Magazine has a photo on its cover of JFK. The cover also promotes an article, Gore Vidal Meets Goldwater. In the Interview Senator Goldwater singles me out at age 23 for special praise because of my role in the then emerging Conservative Movement, which today would have little in common with what passes for Conservatism in America. I believe that if Goldwater were alive today, he would be a liberal and possibly a member of this Forum.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/194965473233?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A163gVmjm9QSiYjxZjyeifUQ14&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=194965473233&targetid=1583904486362&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=9027609&poi=&campaignid=15275224983&mkgroupid=131097072938&rlsatarget=pla-1583904486362&abcId=9300697&merchantid=570770203&gclid=EAIaIQobChMImp7F4ZjC-wIVehvUAR0JZAUIEAQY

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Douglas Caddy

[Cory Santos]

Well, I interrupted Cliff with this.   He has a deadline.   So his response for now is:

Cliff says he’ll chime in once his question is addressed:

“Does the buck for the Diem OVERTHROW stop with JFK?”

They want to sugarcoat everything the guy did!

End quote

Note, Cliff rightly uses the proper historical term overthrow.   

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Well, I interrupted Cliff with this.   He has a deadline.   So his response for now is:

Cliff says he’ll chime in once his question is addressed:

“Does the buck for the Diem OVERTHROW stop with JFK?”

They want to sugarcoat everything the guy did!

End quote

Note, Cliff rightly uses the proper historical term overthrow.   

IMO overthrow probably yes, assassination no. 

[Sandy Larsen]

Regarding Diem's assassination...

I believe that some people here are conflating the plan to remove Diem from power with the plan to kill Diem and his family. Jim D.'s take is that JFK approved of the coup only.

Also, I believe that some people may be conflating the South Vietnamese military with the U.S. military in terms of whose plan it was. I'm certainly no expert, but it appears to me that the South Vietnamese military planned to killed Diem and his family, and that JFK agreed to the coup but rejected the killing. JFK was trying to have the family extricated from the country in a bloodless coup.

Jim D. apparently has evidence showing the the bloodless coup plan was developed by some of JFK's advisors. The plan was to offer to remove Diem and his family from the country. And if Diem didn't take the offer, the U.S. military wouldn't save him.

Jim D. apparently also has evidence showing that this plan never took place... that JFK had been hoodwinked. And that is why Diem was killed and why JFK was shocked by his murder. Those JFK's advisors wanted Diem dead, I guess.

 

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Regarding Diem's assassination...

I believe that some people here are conflating the plan to remove Diem from power with the plan to kill Diem and his family. Jim D.'s take is that JFK approved of the coup only.

Also, I believe that some people may be conflating the South Vietnamese military with the U.S. military in terms of whose plan it was. I'm certainly no expert, but it appears to me that the South Vietnamese military planned to killed Diem and his family, and that JFK agreed to the coup but rejected the killing. JFK was trying to have the family extricated from the country in a bloodless coup.

Jim D. apparently has evidence showing the the bloodless coup plan was developed by some of JFK's advisors. The plan was to offer to remove Diem and his family from the country. And if Diem didn't take the offer, the U.S. military wouldn't save him.

Jim D. apparently also has evidence showing that this plan never took place... that JFK had been hoodwinked. And that is why Diem was killed and why JFK was shocked by his murder. Those JFK's advisors wanted Diem dead, I guess.

 

Did JFK ever do anything wrong or was it just a series of gosh shucks?

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that some people here are conflating the plan to remove Diem from power with the plan to kill Diem and his family. Jim D.'s take is that JFK approved of the coup only.

Really?

at 3:46--LODGE telling  JFK: They're all going to be assassinated: her daughter , son in law, Nhu. and the President Diem, they're all going to be assassinated! I don't think there's any question about it.

JFK:" I assume that probably this fellow is in a impossible situation to save, I don't know if we'd be better off, if the alternative would be better-- maybe it will be. If so we well have to move in that direction".

 

Your the only one whose conflating this Sandy. This is clearly  Lodge relating  the plan to kill Diem to JFK, and it's apparent that  JFK doesn't have any outright moral qualms against it or he would have said it. Maybe some confusion started here. Oh how could that be so!

 

"Jim Di ." "Jim Di apparently" Sandy, You keep claiming your dependence on Jim Di. If he has that source and information of JFK "being conned". Maybe you should ask him?  He retreats from any direct question I ask him.