Why Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong

[Leslie Sharp]

2 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

JFK authorized all of those troop increases. Dr. Mark Moyar covers this in some detail in chapters 5 and 6 in his book Triumph Forsaken (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Thank you. I gather Moyar located documents?

[Leslie Sharp]

11 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Obviously JFK was holding off many major foreign policy actions until he was re-elected.

 

And does that not beg the question that the 1,000 was perhaps as much a campaign strategy as it was evidence he intended to withdraw significant numbers immediately after he was elected? No doubt there have been volumes written on the subject that I've not studied to date.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I don't know about you, W., but I've been experiencing cognitive dissonance whiplash following this debate!  Michael is invoking anti-fascist Berlet and you're in a position of either ignoring or defending Liberty Lobby and Carto?

 It wouldn't be entirely accurate to say I'm agnostic relating to Prouty, but in all candor, I've never relied heavily on his work. No doubt the issues under scrutiny here are partly the reason.  I've read other commentary on 263 and 273 and studied Max Taylor's role in depth, so it's possible my sources relied on Prouty's initial exposé.

[as an aside, Taylor had assumed control of Mexican Light and Power in MC when W. H. Draper returned to the states to head up America's first commercial nuclear company which suggests he rubbed shoulders with Win Scott just prior to being "recalled" to DC by President Kennedy. Draper, an original representative of NATO, shared financial connections with John McCone. All by way of saying, I think Max Taylor has danced between the raindrops in spite of his alleged friendship with JFK. He wouldn't be the first friend to betray him.]

I know Hank refers briefly to Prouty in A Terrible Mistake and A Secret Order; at one point he asks why Prouty waited until the early '90s to identify Lansdale — giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was only then he came across the photo. But I recognize Hank is primarily intrigued that Prouty makes quite clear the international scope of his caution, a fact that was ignored far too long in this investigation, in our opinion.

And . . .  at the risk of opening up another 'can of worms', I spent months trying to track down records to explain just how US presence in Vietnam went from some 700-800 when Eisenhower left office to 15,000 when Kennedy determined 'this far and no further'.  Who signed off on those 14,000+ deployments? As Commander in Chief wouldn't those orders have at least crossed K's desk, even if perfunctory or ceremonial?  I've searched high and low for signatures, dates, military bases, etc., including several requests of the JFK Library to no avail.  If you have any insight, or can refer me to source material, I would appreciate it.

Leslie,

     You must have overlooked my comments about the fact that this thread isn't about Carto or the Liberty Lobby. You seem to be colluding in Griffith's tireless highjacking of this thread.

     Focusing on the Liberty Lobby is a CIA propaganda straw man that has been used for the past 30 years to discredit Prouty's original whistleblowing about the CIA, Vietnam, and the JFK assassination.

      As for the timing of Prouty's revelations about his colleague Ed Lansdale, when did he and General Krulak first ID Lansdale in the Dealey Plaza photos?

     As for JFK's critically important decision to get out of Vietnam in 1963, surely you're not joining Griffith in denying that history are you?

Edited April 20, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

51 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Thank you. I gather Moyar located documents?

Moyar cites a boatload of primary sources in his endnotes. However, we need to understand that the President's signature will rarely be on a deployment order, if ever. The order will be discussed by the President and his NSC, etc., then he will give his approval, and then actual orders will be signed by someone else. Who signs the order will depend on the size of the deployment. In many cases, a deputy undersecretary or even his designee, such as a senior military officer, will sign the orders. 

The President will sign things like major policy statements, such as NSAMs, but he will rarely sign deployment orders. 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Leslie,

     You must have overlooked my comments about the fact that this thread isn't about Carto or the Liberty Lobby. You seem to be colluding in Griffith's tireless highjacking of this thread.

     Focusing on the Liberty Lobby is a CIA propaganda straw man that has been used for the past 30 years to discredit Prouty's original whistleblowing about the CIA, Vietnam, and the JFK assassination.

      As for the timing of Prouty's revelations about his colleague Ed Lansdale, when did he and General Krulak first ID Lansdale in the Dealey Plaza photos?

     As for JFK's critically important decision to get out of Vietnam in 1963, surely you're not joining Griffith in denying that history are you?

And my apologies for seemingly intentionally hijacking your thread. I was thinking it might be productive to expand the context to include the assassination specifically which for me implicates Carto and his direct association with General Edwin Walker.  From there, I had hoped to determine whether Col. Prouty actually ventured outside the official structures of military-intel, or does he focus solely on how "ops" work within the confines of established protocol?  that's a clumsy way of apologizing.  I'll launch another thread if it seems there might be an interest in pursuing this angle of Prouty's direct knowledge. 

Re. Kennedy and Vietnam.  Not unlike his predilection for extramarital dalliances, we/Hank and I agreed early on that elevating John Kennedy or any in the Kennedy family to sainthood actually serves to undermine their amazing sacrifices and contributions to our nation because it sets up a "whataboutism" dynamic that inevitably skews facts and the historical record.  If Kennedy signed off on over 14,000 US military personnel — regardless of the umbrella designation of "advisors" — the facts should be addressed head on.  It doesn't change his commitment as proscribed in 263 by any means; it does keep the record straight and "honest," and if anything, underscores just how deceived he had been the first two years of his presidency. Similarly, that he had a fling with Ella Rometsch should not be buried; the scandal is significant to understanding that crucial aspect of the plot  — designed specifically to enrage those on the fence sufficiently enough for Angleton to advise Lafitte of the "high level gathering in D.C." and for Otto Skorzeny to say "Lancelot Go".

[Leslie Sharp]

18 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Moyar cites a boatload of primary sources in his endnotes. However, we need to understand that the President's signature will rarely be on a deployment order, if ever. The order will be discussed by the President and his NSC, etc., then he will give his approval, and then actual orders will be signed by someone else. Who signs the order will depend on the size of the deployment. In many cases, a deputy undersecretary or even his designee, such as a senior military officer, will sign the orders. 

The President will sign things like major policy statements, such as NSAMs, but he will rarely sign deployment orders. 

 

So it's possible he was advised verbally — in likely a persuasive fashion that unless the advisors were increased incrementally VN would fall — and the paperwork followed, which you're saying he never actually saw or signed? Did the 14,000 reflect rotations or were that many US military in VN at any given time?

 

[Leslie Sharp]

With that, I'll withdraw from this thread out of deference to @W. Niederhutwith genuine apologies.

[Michael Griffith]

10 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Re. Kennedy and Vietnam.  Not unlike his predilection for extramarital dalliances, we/Hank and I agreed early on that elevating John Kennedy or any in the Kennedy family to sainthood actually serves to undermine their amazing sacrifices and contributions to our nation because it sets up a "whataboutism" dynamic that inevitably skews facts and the historical record.  If Kennedy signed off on over 14,000 US military personnel — regardless of the umbrella designation of "advisors" — the facts should be addressed head on.  It doesn't change his commitment as proscribed in 263 by any means; it does keep the record straight and "honest," and if anything, underscores just how deceived he had been the first two years of his presidency. Similarly, that he had a fling with Ella Rometsch should not be buried; the scandal is significant to understanding that crucial aspect of the plot  — designed specifically to enrage those on the fence sufficiently enough for Angleton to advise Lafitte of the "high level gathering in D.C." and for Otto Skorzeny to say "Lancelot Go".

I recommend that you read Dr. Marc Selverstone's historic new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. Using Kennedy White House tapes and numerous internal documents and other sources, Selverstone makes a strong case that JFK had no intention of withdrawing from South Vietnam until the Saigon government was stable and strong enough to resist Communist aggression on its own, and that even after withdrawal, military aid was going to continue. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Leslie Sharp]

2 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I recommend that you read Dr. Marc Selverstone's historic new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. Using Kennedy White House tapes and numerous internal documents and other sources, Selverstone makes a strong case that JFK had no intention of withdrawing from South Vietnam until the Saigon government was stable and strong enough to resist Communist aggression on its own, and that even after withdrawal, military aid was going to continue. 

Thanks Michael.

[Jeff Carter]

It’s important to understand that the buildup of American “advisors” in Vietnam in the first years of the Kennedy administration was under the operational control of the CIA. The steady rise in the numbers of these personnel was related to an influx of materials. As Prouty described in an interview:

“C123 aircraft were flown to Vietnam. The B26’s (used in Bay of Pigs) were flown to Vietnam and became the first heavy combat over there. The helicopters which were used in different operations in Laos were moved to Vietnam, they became the air patrol capability. The P51 fighters that we had fixed up for Indonesia,  they went into Vietnam… In those days, for every hour that a military helicopter flew, it had to receive 24 hours of maintenance. Which meant that we had to cover Vietnam with helicopter maintenance people. And anytime you get a helicopter squadron together, you have to get a helicopter supply unit. So what was 400 men becomes 1200 men. You get 1200 men together then you got to have a PX, you have to have a hospital. We were creating a structure in Vietnam. The next thing you know we had 3000 men, then we had 6000, and by the end of ’63 there were somewhere between 13,000 and 16,000 so-called military in Vietnam… (at that time) no American military people were operating in Vietnam under American military commanders. They were all assigned to a structure that was under CIA military control.“

Prouty maintained that a major purpose of the planned personnel withdrawals envisioned by NSAM 263 was as part of a program to remove the CIA from covert and overt military operations, a policy which took shape in the wake of the Bay of Pigs.

[Ron Bulman]

I think I've read somewhere, (maybe one of the K & K articles on Vietnam ?) that JFK agreed to sending more "advisers" in attempts to temporarily placate the JCS who were breathing down his neck to send in 50K, 100,000 or more combat troops.

[Michael Griffith]

Just imagine what your average educated guests will think when they come here and see some people excusing and/or whitewashing Prouty's close and prolonged ugly extremist associations. How do you think they will view this forum when they see such things?

It's bad enough that moderators allow defenses of 9/11 Truther nuttiness in this forum. It's equally unfortunate that we have a thread dedicated to defending Prouty, whose vile associations should have long since caused all JFKA researchers to repudiate him, and whose wild theories have done great damage to the case for conspiracy in JFK's death.

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

It's bad enough that moderators allow defenses of 9/11 Truther nuttiness in this forum.

It would be censorship otherwise, Michael. Is that what you desire for America or the world? Dissent stifled, opposition silenced, etc etc You know where that leads. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Just imagine what your average educated guests will think when they come here and see some people excusing and/or whitewashing Prouty's close and prolonged ugly extremist associations. How do you think they will view this forum when they see such things?

It's bad enough that moderators allow defenses of 9/11 Truther nuttiness in this forum. It's equally unfortunate that we have a thread dedicated to defending Prouty, whose vile associations should have long since caused all JFKA researchers to repudiate him, and whose wild theories have done great damage to the case for conspiracy in JFK's death.

 

All right, administrators, let's have a ruling on this repetitious Michael Griffith slander.

This is now the fourth post during the past week in which Michael Griffith has falsely referred to the professors, engineers, and scientists who have debunked the Bush/Cheney/Zelikow 9/11 narrative with terms like, "nutjob," "nutcase," "deranged," and "nutty."

In response, I have asked Michael Griffith to kindly specify which academicians, scientists, and engineers involved in the 9/11 Truth research community he is referring to as "nutjobs."

Griffith has failed to respond to my request, while repeating his false, defamatory claims.

Is Griffith referring to the excellent, cogent analyses of the 9/11 data by Professor David Ray Griffin?

Is he referring to the scientific analyses of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

This kind of non-specific defamation of the 9/11 research community is identical to the CIA propaganda ops that were used against Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Fletcher Prouty, and other JFKA witnesses and researchers who debunked the Warren Commission Report.

Are Griffith's non-specific, false, defamatory slurs really acceptable on the Education Forum?

Edited April 21, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

The last thing that Selverstone's book is is historic.

And there is very little if anything that is new in it.

Here you go: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-kennedy-withdrawal-by-marc-selverstone

What there is a lot of in that book is spin and cherry picking.  And on the other end cutting out or smearing sources he does not like.

The very idea that Selverstone said that you could not figure out what JFK was going to do in 1964-65 goes against what he did say he was going to do once the election was over.  And in his haste to smear a witness, he concludes with a schoolboy howler at the end.

And BTW, Prouty was on to this through Krulak, his boss.

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by James DiEugenio