Who the heck is Michael Tracey?

[Michael Griffith]

49 minutes ago, Joseph Backes said:

Michael,

You're in a cult.

Right-wingers always pull Dean Rusk out of their collective rear ends to buttress the lie that JFK was never going to withdraw from Vietnam.

Look at NSAM 263.  Look closely at it.  Look at the list of people its addressed to.

Who is the first person it's sent to? Ahead of the Sec of Defense and everybody else?

Why look, it's the little round headed kid, Dean Rusk.

And to his dying day Rusk always exclaimed, "No, JFK never told me nuthin about getting out of Vietnam."  

xxxx!  

No, you're the one who's in a cult. 

"Right-wingers"??? Even most liberal historians reject the myth that you and a few others here insist on peddling. Do you know who Ed Moise is? Do you know who Stanley Karnow was? You guys keep pretending that this is a conservative vs. liberal issue, when it is actually a broad consensus vs. fringe issue. Only a tiny fringe of authors still argue that JFK was going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. 

Like a dog with a favorite bone that has long since rotted, you guys just cannot let go of this long-debunked myth, no matter how much damage it continues to do to the case for conspiracy. Anti-conspiracy authors from all across the political spectrum pounced on this myth as a way to discredit Stone's movie JFK, and yet you guys still continue to hand them this ammo over and over and over again. 

Even with the release of Selverstone's magnificent book The Kennedy Withdrawal, which proves from the White House tapes that JFK was determined to win the war, you guys still won't face reality. Scholars from both sides of the spectrum have praised Selverstone's book, but a tiny handful of fringe authors refuse to face reality and continue to attack it. 

There comes a point when facts must overrule pet theories, no matter how many years you have spent peddling those theories, and no matter how emotionally attached you are to them. What Michael Tracey was able to do will be repeated ad nauseum until you folks finally gather up enough objectivity to acknowledge the facts on this issue and stop peddling the Stone-Newman-Prouty unconditional-withdrawal myth.

It would also help greatly if you and your friends would stop citing such a disreputable, irrational, anti-Semitic fraud as Fletcher Prouty.

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

The problem I have with Tracey is that, like so many people in the political arena, they think they can master this subject in a year or so of some casual reading.

You cannot even begin to do it like that.

It literally takes years, I would say maybe decades, to do such a thing.  For the simple reason that too many secondary sources are seeded with deliberate disinformation.

In the case of Vietnam, a lot of it was from Johnson himself.  Halberstam and Sheehan also.

For instance, Tracey is trying to say that all the info about JFK getting out, that this is from  apocryphal sources years later.  That is utterly false today.  And if I had been Aaron I would have pounded Tracey on that one.  I mean literally.

Due to the release of Newman's revised version of his JFK and Vietnam book, you can now piece together each step of the way in the withdrawal with either primary sources or third party witnesses who have no skin in the game.  And if I had been on, I would have done exactly that, beginning with the November 27th meeting that Kennedy called over his frustration with how hard he had to fight just to get NSAM 111 through. Ending with the publication of NSAM 263, forced by his enemies in Saigon.

But I would have gone further to show how, post 11/22,  LBJ deliberately broke with JFK, culminating with NSAM 288.

I would have taken less time than Tracey the blowhard, and my comments would have been much more scholarly in tone and intent.

Katie was about the worst host I have ever seen in a debate on this in letting someone as nonsensical as Tracey say what he did and consuming that much time in making statements that were utterly false.

Edited May 18, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Joseph Backes]

The documentary evidence is overwhelming now.  It's ridiculous to contest it.  

The Dean Rusk lie has been shown to be a lie once NSAM 263 was declassified.  That doesn't matter to people like Michael.  He'll stull use Dean Rusk.  

The true historical record has been kept from the world by the misuse of the classification system.  John M Newman has gotten more declassified on the Vietnam War than anyone, and I mean, anyone, including Daniel Elsberg.  The lie had decades to take root and grow.  It's not surprising that lazy, idiotic academicians ignorant of recent declassifications regurgitate the lie. The lie is not going to shrivel up and die instantly.  But it will die. 

This argument is over.  The deniers lost.  The JFK was never going to withdraw fools have lost. We have the documentation now.  It's over.  

The deliberate editing of the JFK interview, to use only a portion of it with Cronkite without taking into account how much was changing in South Vietnam especially after that interview aired is beyond stupid.  Diem was still alive when that interview took place.  JFK was consistent at the Top Secret level, he was withdrawing.  Those records exist and we can see them now.  The problem is yes, JFK said differently in public. Why? Because he wanted to do it after he got re-elected.  That's why he was killed before he could be.  

I don't care what Ed Moise has to say about anything.  

McNamara has admitted it.  Game over.  

[James DiEugenio]

Joe:

That is all true.

But let me accent two things that made it harder for the truth to emerge.

See, when they got the Pentagon Papers, the NY TImes put out a book based on those documents.  It sold well.

But there was a second version of the PP.  That was the Gravel edition.  This was based on a second set of documents that was a bit more expansive than the first one.  Nixon put on all kinds of pressure not to publish this one.  But finally a small house in, I think, Massachusetts called Beacon Press published it.  That version has the 40 page section entitled "Phased Withdrawal 1962-64".  I don't know if the original version of the documents had this in it or if the NY TImes just did not want to print it. But my point is a much smaller readership read the Gravel edition. 

Secondly, John Newman developed an acquaintanceship with McNamara which he told me about. After he told me about his meetings, I did some reading on the subject.  In Tom Wells' fine book, The War Within, he interviewed McNamara's secretary. After I read that I became convinced that McNamara had a nervous breakdown over LBJ's insistence on continuing Rolling Thunder even though McNamara deduced it was not working.  The signs of this began in 1966.  But for whatever reason, he did not resign.  And to the end of his days he could not figure out what led to his removal.

When John told me that McNamara gave him permission to hear his debriefs from the Pentagon I was really intrigued.  Because there could be no arguing that this was somehow anecdotal from years later. No, this was right there on the spot so to speak.  And that is one reason why I knew we had to have John in Oliver's film. In those debriefs McNamara said that he and Kennedy agreed that America could help with equipment and training, but that was the limit.  We could not fight the war for Saigon. When the training period was over, America was getting out.

I am pretty sure that Oliver's film is the only place where this information has been broadcast. So it finally reached a wide audience, something like 35 years after John heard the tapes. 

 That tells you how bad the MSM had been on the subject. What a disgrace.

Edited May 18, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I should add, the Gravel version, edited by Zinn and Chumsky, had the Peter Scott essay on Kennedy and Vietnam.

They did not want to publish the essay since, as Zinn said, it could make people think a president could make a difference.

That essay was published in about three other venues, including the interesting anthology Government by Gunplay.

Along with work by Prouty, the book Johnny We hardly Knew Ye, and a 26 page handwritten essay by a professor from Ohio U to Jim Garrison, that was about the state of the literature--along with the section in the Gravel Edition--about the subject.

John Newman then made the breakthrough with his 1992 book.  

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Joseph Backes said:

The documentary evidence is overwhelming now.  It's ridiculous to contest it.  

The Dean Rusk lie has been shown to be a lie once NSAM 263 was declassified.  That doesn't matter to people like Michael.  He'll stull use Dean Rusk.  

The true historical record has been kept from the world by the misuse of the classification system.  John M Newman has gotten more declassified on the Vietnam War than anyone, and I mean, anyone, including Daniel Elsberg.  The lie had decades to take root and grow.  It's not surprising that lazy, idiotic academicians ignorant of recent declassifications regurgitate the lie. The lie is not going to shrivel up and die instantly.  But it will die. 

This argument is over.  The deniers lost.  The JFK was never going to withdraw fools have lost. We have the documentation now.  It's over.  

The deliberate editing of the JFK interview, to use only a portion of it with Cronkite without taking into account how much was changing in South Vietnam especially after that interview aired is beyond stupid.  Diem was still alive when that interview took place.  JFK was consistent at the Top Secret level, he was withdrawing.  Those records exist and we can see them now.  The problem is yes, JFK said differently in public. Why? Because he wanted to do it after he got re-elected.  That's why he was killed before he could be.  

I don't care what Ed Moise has to say about anything.  

McNamara has admitted it.  Game over.  

This is delusional echo-chamber material. Yes, the documentary evidence is overwhelming, but that evidence decidedly refutes the Stone-Newman-Prouty unconditional-withdrawal myth. 

"McNamara admitted it"??? Really? You sure about that? Nowhere in his memoir did McNamara claim that JFK was determined to abandon South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences. No such statement appears therein. He stopped well short of making such a claim. 

If you're referring to McNamara's so-called "secret debrief," isn't it odd and revealing that he said nothing about it in his memoir? Not one word. Humm? And not one of his adoring aides appeared to know anything about it, not even John McNaughton (not even in his personal diary, which surfaced a few years ago--zippo, nada, nothing). 

Yes, certainly, JFK had a withdrawal plan, but you and a few others simply refuse to acknowledge the undeniable fact that the plan was conditional, that it depended on the situation on the ground. Furthermore, as even Galbraith has admitted, JFK's plan called for continuing aid to South Vietnam after the situation on the ground permitted the withdrawal of American forces. This is a far cry from the Stone-Newman-Prouty myth that JFK was unalterably going to abandon South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences. 

And let's just be clear about one key fact: The Stone-Newman-Prouty unconditional-withdrawal theory is a fringe view that is rejected by the vast majority of historians and Vietnam War scholars from all across the political spectrum. This is not conservative vs. liberal. This is broad consensus vs. fringe. This is overwhelming majority vs. microscopic minority.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

I now have Mike on Ignore.   

After his final babbles, he has joined a rather non illustrious club.

My only problem is now when someone quotes him, I have to read his nonsense.

Edited May 19, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Andrew Prutsok]

Tracey is the "reporter,"  a few years back who whined about getting assaulted by Maxine Waters -- assaulted by Maxine Watters?

He generally plays the part of an all around POS on Twitter,  a Substacker likely funded by Russian bot subscribers, pals with Greenwald, Aaron Mate, a grifter.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Andrew Prutsok

[Joe Bauer]

33 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Tracey is the "reporter,"  a few years back who whined about getting assaulted by Maxine Waters -- assaulted by Maxine Watters?

She blew a kiss at him?

You call that "assault?"

[Joseph Backes]

Michael Is the Ralph Cinque of this forum.  A totally ignorant child.

The whole basis of NSAM 263 was the McNamara-Taylor report. ( See - RIF #202-10002-10067)  JFK sent McNamara and Taylor to Vietnam in late Sept '63 as political cover for the decision he had already made before he sent them to withdraw.  Do you think McNamara was ignorant of what JFK's intention of sending him to Vietnam was? 

Mikey might want to read this article by James K Galbraith - https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/

McNamara admitting it.  The proof:

1.) McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library.  McNamara favored "withdrawal without victory." And that context is in 1963! So, there is no conditionality about it, no it depends nonsense.  JFK's secret order at the Top Secret level was clear. He was withdrawing. 

2.) McNamara at the LBJ Library May 1, 1995. On his book tour, McNama referenced the October 1963 meetings on withdrawal and that they existed on tape, though he did not know he was being secretly recorded at the time.  However, only McNamara and his co-author could listen to them in 1995. Audio of the Oct 2 and Oct 5th meeting were declassified in July 1997 by the ARRB.   See - 45:20 mark here - 

 

 

3.) The May 1962 conference, see - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v02/pg_379 ( this is a scan of the actual FRUS volume. Document 187 is on the bottom.)  In "JFK & Vietnam," p. 254 1992 edition, after the room was cleared of most people McNamara wanted MACV to train and turn over responsibility for fighting the war over to the South Vietnamese people and reduce the size of our military command to the astonishment of Gen. Harkins.  And McNamara wants to see that plan by the next conference. This is also in Allen, The Indocina war, p. 192.  And supported by Newman's interview with Allen.

4.) October 4th, 1963 Memorandum. - See 202-10002-10093.  

5.) McNamara's book, "In Retrospect," p. 76 - "After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting."  Michael denies the existence of this passage and what it clearly means. 

As stated in Galbraith's article - "A careful review of the October 2 meeting makes clear that McNamara’s account is essentially accurate and even to some degree understated. One can hear McNamara—the voice is unmistakable—arguing for a firm timetable to withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam, whether the war can be won in 1964, which he doubts, or not."  So, the idea of the withdrawal being conditional is a lie.  Even with South Vietnam losing the war JFK's order was clear, withdraw.  There were no ifs, ands, or buts about it. 

More info - http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/vietnam/KennedyOnlineMaterial(guide).doc

Again, Galbraith writes in The Nation. JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation.  

I am joining Jim in now ignoring this child. 

JFK WAS WITHDRAWING.  

Edited May 20, 2023 by Joseph Backes

[James DiEugenio]

Good choice Joe.

 

So Tracey was from the Young Turks?

I saw the interaction with Waters.  That was not a shove, it was like a wave.

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 5/19/2023 at 1:56 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I now have Mike on Ignore.   

After his final babbles, he has joined a rather non illustrious club.

My only problem is now when someone quotes him, I have to read his nonsense.

So you can't even admit that your version of the JFK withdrawal is rejected by the vast majority of historians and other Vietnam War scholars? This is why you were only able to cite one fringe amateurish author to support your rejection of Selverstone's new book on the withdrawal, whereas I was able to cite numerous recognized historians/scholars from all across the political spectrum who have praised the book. 

Are you denying that McNamara said nothing about his "secret debrief" in his memoir? If so, cite the page where he mentions it. It's not there. We both know it.

Are you denying that not one of McNamara's worshipful, adoring aides said anything about the secret debrief? Well, then, provide a reference to show that just one of them mentioned it. 

Your comments and conduct on JFK and Vietnam have seriously damaged your credibility. You have acted like a Flat Earther who is confronted with satellite photos of the round Earth for the first time, and who just can't bring himself to admit that a claim he has cherished and peddled for years is demonstrably false. 

 

[Matt Allison]

Michael- it seems you are assuming JFK and McNamara were on the same page with regard to their philosophy on Vietnam; what is your evidence of that? The two men had great respect for each other and were cordial, but I have never seen a scintilla of evidence that JFK would have put thousands of troops in there. JFK was the polar opposite of a warmonger so I don't understand your stance on this.

[James DiEugenio]

The evidence that McNamara was Kennedy's point man is pretty obvious.

1. In November of 1961 Kennedy called a meeting, with about 8 men and this included McNamara and Bundy and Taylor. He was upset about the debates over NSAM 111. He said strongly that once policy is decided, the men on the spot support it or get out. Once that sunk in, he asked, "Now who is going to implement my policy on Vietnam?" McNamara said he would.

2. When Galbraith came into town in April of 1962, he had already delivered three reports--which Kennedy advised him to do-- telling JFK that Vietnam was not worth going to war over and Diem was not the guy to back in a war. Kennedy sent him to see McNamara and instruct him about the future in Vietnam.  He did and reported back that McNamara got the message.

3. McNamara told his deputy, Roswell Gilpatric, that JFK was getting out of Vietnam and he had instructed him to start unwinding the Pentagon effort there.

4. The next month, in May of 1962, after Galbraith met with him, McNamara conducted the Sec Def meeting for the Vietnam higher ups.  He told the overall commander, Harkins, to stay after. When the door was closed and just Harkins and his staff was there, he told him that we were getting out of Vietnam and he wanted him to start making arrangements for the withdrawal and final training of the ARVN.  According to Harkins' staffer, the general's chin almost hit the table.

5. At the May 1963 Sec Def meeting, the schedules Harkins ordered were handed into McNamara at the Sec Def meeting in Hawaii.  McNamara looked at them and said they were too slow and should be speeded up.

6. That October, after Kennedy had supplied the people on the McNamara/Taylor report team with the report already written, Sullivan tried to take out the withdrawal part.  Kennedy called a small meeting in his office and had it placed back in.  At the meeting it was McNamara who led the charge for withdrawal to the point it took Bundy by surprise.  Years later he realized that JFK thought he was too hawkish to be trusted with the plan and he had gone around him through  McNamara.

7. At the end of the meeting, Kennedy sent McNamara out to talk to the press.  As the Secretary was walking out, Kennedy opened up a window and told him: "And tell them that means the helicopter pilots too."

8. After LBJ reversed the policy, McNamara began to suffer from depression, and manic moods.  This was as early as 1966.  His secretary said that, at times he would just stare off into space, or walk over to the window, wrap himself in the curtains and start weeping.  LBJ finally had him removed.  To the end, McNamara said he could never figure out if he was fired or he resigned.

9. At his Pentagon exit debriefs, which John Newman heard, McNamara stated that he and Kennedy had agreed that America could supply equipment and training and advisors. They could not fight the war for Saigon.  Therefore, when that training was over, we were leaving, and it did not matter if Saigon was winning or losing. America was getting out.

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Matt Allison]

 

This is all pretty amazing stuff, Jim, that I wasn't aware of. Thanks for posting.

 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

The evidence that McNamara was Kennedy's point man is pretty obvious.

1. In November of 1961 Kennedy called a meeting, with about 8 men and this included McNamara and Bundy and Taylor. He was upset about the debates over NSAM 111. He said strongly that once policy is decided, the men on the spot support it or get out. Once that sunk in, he asked, "Now who is going to implement my policy on Vietnam?" McNamara said he would.

2. When Galbraith came into town in April of 1962, he had already delivered three reports--which Kennedy advised him to do-- telling JFK that Vietnam was not worth going to war over and Diem was not the guy to back in a war. Kennedy sent him to see McNamara and instruct him about the future in Vietnam.  He did and reported back that McNamara got the message.

3. McNamara told his deputy, Roswell Gilpatric, that JFK was getting out of Vietnam and he had instructed him to start unwinding the Pentagon effort there.

4. The next month, in May of 1962, after Galbraith met with him, McNamara conducted the Sec Def meeting for the Vietnam higher ups.  He told the overall commander, Harkins, to stay after. When the door was closed and just Harkins and his staff was there, he told him that we were getting out of Vietnam and he wanted him to start making arrangements for the withdrawal and final training of the ARVN.  According to Harkins' staffer, the general's chin almost hit the table.

5. At the May 1963 Sec Def meeting, the schedules Harkins ordered were handed into McNamara at the Sec Def meeting in Hawaii.  McNamara looked at them and said they were too slow and should be speeded up.

6. That October, after Kennedy had supplied the people on the McNamara/Taylor report team with the report already written, Sullivan tried to take out the withdrawal part.  Kennedy called a small meeting in his office and had it placed back in.  At the meeting it was McNamara who led the charge for withdrawal to the point it took Bundy by surprise.  Years later he realized that JFK thought he was too hawkish to be trusted with the plan and he had gone around him through  McNamara.

7. At the end of the meeting, Kennedy sent McNamara out to talk to the press.  As the Secretary was walking out, Kennedy opened up a window and told him: "And tell them that means the helicopter pilots too."

8. After LBJ reversed the policy, McNamara began to suffer from depression, and manic moods.  This was as early as 1966.  His secretary said that, at times he would just stare off into space, or walk over to the window, wrap himself in the curtains and start weeping.  LBJ finally had him removed.  To the end, McNamara said he could never figure out if he was fired or he resigned.

9. At his Pentagon exit debriefs, which John Newman heard, McNamara stated that he and Kennedy had agreed that America could supply equipment and training and advisors. They could not fight the war for Saigon.  Therefore, when that training was over, we were leaving, and it did not matter if Saigon was winning or losing. America was getting out.