Prouty on Vietnam: NSAM 263 and 273 60 years on

[Jeff Carter]

Regarding what Robert Kennedy may have said in a 1964 interview, it worthwhile to recall he was still, at that point, Attorney General and member of LBJ’s cabinet, thus subject to direction as set out in paragraph 4 of NSAM 273:

4. The President expects that all senior officers of the Government will move energetically to insure the full unity of support for established U.S. policy in Vietnam. Both in Washington and in the field, it is essential the Government be unified.

 

More detail on the development of NSAM 263, including more information on McNamara’s input both at the time and his recollections afterwards, can be found in James Galbraith’s Boston Review article "Exit Strategy" from 2003:

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/

Noam Chomsky published a reply shortly after, many of which talking points have been repeated by the dissenting voice on this thread. Galbraith in turn replies to Chomsky:

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/chomsky-galbraith-letters-vietnam-jfk-kennedy/

[James DiEugenio]

In an interview wit Aaron Good, Peter Scott exposed the whole Zinn/Chomsky charade as being politically motivated. Which is not the way to write history.

This dated back to Scott's very first essay on the subject included in the Beacon Press Gravel version of the Pentagon Papers.

[W. Niederhut]

On 2/23/2024 at 6:16 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Why didn't Bobby Kennedy ever claim that JFK had said anything like this to him? Huh? When Bobby was asked specifically about this issue in his April 1964 oral interview, he flatly rejected the idea that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam or settle for anything other than victory.

Michael,

     RFK's public pronouncements relating to JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam need to be interpreted in light of Cold War paranoia and concerns that JFK would be perceived as "soft" on communism.

     As a guy who worked for Joe McCarthy's HUAC committee, Bobby Kennedy understood that political dynamic better than anyone.

     Meanwhile, Michael, would you mind checking the boxes (below) that contain buses-- to verify that you aren't a U.S. government disinformation bot?  🤥

     Thanks.

[James DiEugenio]

He did say what Mike says he never did.

Its in the Matthews book if you can comprehend that.

There the author quotes Bob as saying  that JFK would have never committed combat troops because if Saigon could not win the war on their own it should not become an American war. He then said on TV that LBJ had deviated from his brother's policy there and the war was now immoral. (pp. 304-05)

BTW, Matthews actually writes that in November of 1963, Bobby said "that we're just going down the road to disaster". (p. 249)

Edited February 25 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

He did say what Mike says he never did.

Its in the Matthews book if you can comprehend that.

There the author quotes bob as saying   that JFK would have never committed combat troops because if Saigon could not win the war on their own it should not become an American war. He then said on TV that LBJ had deviated from  his brother's policy there and the war was now immoral. (pp. 304-05)

BTW, Matthews actually writes that in November of 1963, Bobby said "that we're just going down the road to disaster". (p. 249)

Jim,

     What was the year in which RFK made that public statement?

     I'm curious about the subject, in relation to the tide of U.S. public opinion about the Vietnam War.

     As we all know, dissenting voices are usually ridiculed and shouted down when the war drums start beating in U.S. history.  Think of March 2003 and Rumsfeld's Shock & Awe bombing campaign in Iraq!   Bill O'Reilly ridiculed Gary Hart on Fox News in March of 2003, (during Shock & Awe) after Hart argued that deposing Saddam Hussein could de-stabilize the balance of power between Sunni Baathists and Iranian-aligned Shiites in the Persian Gulf.  (How prophetic was that?)

     Ulysses Grant made an insightful comment about the blindness of war hysteria and American jingoism in his famous memoir.

     LBJ was re-elected in a landslide after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and it took a while for public opinion about Vietnam to shift, after 1964.  The same thing eventually happened in the case of Bush & Cheney's Iraq War disaster.

Edited February 25 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

The first quotes were in 1967.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Good question W. !!! Keep it up, the date is paramount. That's the kind of relevant questioning I'd ask Di Eugenio but he has half the world on ignore. I think how many other 'keeping them honest" questions that could have been asked.

Actually there was quite a vigilant liberal movement of people who were wondering where Vietnam was going by 1965. Some of them were my junior high teachers. You can see traces of that in,  was it August 1963 with the Huntley Brinkley interview with JFK where they're  really trying to pin JFK down.

As far as Jim's answer. That's what I remember. Many people were against the war by 1967. I gave and give Bobby a C minus.

In  actuality. This question of JFK's intentions and eventual follow through about Vietnam is not as clear cut as people here say. It may just be the Kennedy penchant for secrecy but it also wasn't clear from any public statements from JFK's advisors either.

By 1967, it was becoming very clear that the war was an albatross over any Democrat politicians head. If they were on the right side of history, what did they have to lose?

 

[James DiEugenio]

But William, more to the point, see back in 1961 when the first debates began on whether there should be direct intervention, RFK served as an appendage to JFK and secretly Galbraith.

Galbraith vigorously objected to direct American intervention in November of 1961 and he told JFK about this.

So at the showdown meeting on November 15th I think, whenever anyone would say something about inserting American combat troops, Bobby would step forward and say, "There will be no combat troops in Vietnam."  Clearly this had been worked out with JFK beforehand. And this is in David Kaiser's book.

But then I found a newspaper story where, after the JFK assassination, while Bobby was still in office, he made a speech at some college in Virginia in 1964 and he admitted the war was not going well, but he still said, there should be no American direct intervention especially with combat troops.

 

So you have 1961, 1963, 1964, and 1967.

Edited February 25 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

Why the second response, Jim? Do you think maybe, despite Jim's claims, he is listening to me?

Jim, Your first response was hazy. Was Bobby's direct response Feb. 1967 or December 1967?

You have the dates. it makes a difference.

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But William, more to the point, see back in 1961 when the first debates began on whether there should be direct intervention RFK served as an appendage to JFK and secretly Galbraith.

"Secretly Galbraith". RFk served as "an appendage". What kind of writing is that? What is this,"Inside edition". This is proof?

20 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Galbraith vigorously objected to direct American intervention in November of 1961 and he told JFK about this.

Oh, Galbraith now coming out of the closet? Yes he was the liberal scholar of his day, and definitely an upstanding member of  JFK's cabinet, but his background was in economics. We know many members of JFK's cabinet told him many different things.  So what proof is that of anything?

 

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

So at the showdown meeting on November 15th I think, whenever anyone would say something about inserting American troops, Bobby would step forward and say, "There will be no combat troops in Vietnam."  Clearly this had been worked out with JFK. And this is in Kaiser's book.

Ok, so we're supposed to embrace Kaiser, because he reinforces your theories Jim?

How many times here have you any of you read supposedly esteemed sources that end up being incorrect?

Do we have any other author's take on the the Nov 15th or thereabouts meeting? Or is it just the one we like?

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But then I found a newspaper story where after the JFK assassination, while Bobby was still in office, he made a speech at some college in VIrginia in 1964 and he admitted the war was not going well, but he still said, there should be no American direct intervention especially with combat troops.

Then please post it, Jim. That was of course, what a politician would say in 1964. Nobody wanted to go to war. But why the 3 year lag from 1964 to, what was the month in 1967?

 

38 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

So you have 1961, 1963, 1964, and 1967.

? My bar of truth says one public statement in 1967, and none between 1964 and 1967, which is a long drought! and I'm looking for your Bobby quotes in 1964 please.  Though that was easy to say in 1964.

Is there legitimate room for discourse here about what JFK's follow through in Vietnam might have been? Because it's been one of the most hotly debated subjects in history. 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Oh and there is also 1968 with Ellsberg.

There, Bobby said that he and his brother were not going in because they had been there in 1951 and saw what happened to the French when they made it their war.  If I recall, that is in Ellsberg's book.

Ellsberg said that when he got the news of Bobby's death, he broke down and cried for a half hour. 

[W. Niederhut]

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh and there is also 1968 with Ellsberg.

There, Bobby said that he and his brother were not going in because they had been there in 1951 and saw what happened to the French when they made it their war.  If I recall, that is in Ellsberg's book.

Ellsberg said that when he got the news of Bobby's death, he broke down and cried for a half hour. 

delete

Edited February 26 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

On 2/24/2024 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Carter said:

 

Regarding what Robert Kennedy may have said in a 1964 interview,

There's no "may" about it. The interview was recorded. 

it worthwhile to recall he was still, at that point, Attorney General and member of LBJ’s cabinet, thus subject to direction as set out in paragraph 4 of NSAM 273:

4. The President expects that all senior officers of the Government will move energetically to insure the full unity of support for established U.S. policy in Vietnam. Both in Washington and in the field, it is essential the Government be unified.

Oh, please. This is a truly lame argument. That paragraph would not have prevented RFK from truthfully discussing his brother's intentions regarding the war. 

Furthermore, even after RFK left the Johnson Administration, he never, ever, ever claimed that JFK planned on withdrawing from Vietnam without victory. But just never mind that inconvenient fact, right?

Indeed, as late as March 1968, just three months before his death, Bobby opposed a unilateral withdrawal and called the idea "unacceptable":

          I do not want, and I do believe that most Americans do not want, to sell out America's interest to simply withdraw -- to raise the white flag of surrender in Vietnam -- that would be unacceptable to us as a people, and unacceptable to us as a country. (“Remarks at the University of Kansas, March 18, 1968,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum website, https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/robert-f-kennedy/robert-f-kennedy-speeches/remarks-at-the-university-of-kansas-march-18-1968)   

There is a huge difference between saying that JFK did not want to send in U.S. "combat troops" and saying that he intended to withdraw without victory. You guys also keep ignoring the fact that Bobby said that JFK would have provided air attacks to defend South Vietnam if necessary, and that JFK felt we "had" to win the war.

More detail on the development of NSAM 263, including more information on McNamara’s input both at the time and his recollections afterwards, can be found in James Galbraith’s Boston Review article "Exit Strategy" from 2003:

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/

Yeah, I've cited that article and given that link several times. 

Noam Chomsky published a reply shortly after, many of which talking points have been repeated by the dissenting voice on this thread. Galbraith in turn replies to Chomsky:

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/chomsky-galbraith-letters-vietnam-jfk-kennedy/

Yes, and anyone see that Galbraith ducked most the evidence that Chomsky presented and resorted to more special pleading and cherry-picking. 

The "dissenting voice on this thread" represents the position of 99% of scholars who have written on the subject. The majority voice in this thread represents a fringe viewpoint that was conceived by the anti-Semitic crackpot and fraud Fletcher Prouty and that is rejected even by the vast majority of liberal scholars. 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Regarding what Robert Kennedy may have said in a 1964 interview,

There's no "may" about it. The interview was recorded. 

it worthwhile to recall he was still, at that point, Attorney General and member of LBJ’s cabinet, thus subject to direction as set out in paragraph 4 of NSAM 273:

4. The President expects that all senior officers of the Government will move energetically to insure the full unity of support for established U.S. policy in Vietnam. Both in Washington and in the field, it is essential the Government be unified.

Oh, please. This is a truly lame argument. That paragraph would not have prevented RFK from truthfully discussing his brother's intentions regarding the war. 

Furthermore, even after RFK left the Johnson Administration, he never, ever, ever claimed that JFK planned on withdrawing from Vietnam without victory. But just never mind that inconvenient fact, right?

Indeed, as late as March 1968, just three months before his death, Bobby opposed a unilateral withdrawal and called the idea "unacceptable":

          I do not want, and I do believe that most Americans do not want, to sell out America's interest to simply withdraw -- to raise the white flag of surrender in Vietnam -- that would be unacceptable to us as a people, and unacceptable to us as a country. (“Remarks at the University of Kansas, March 18, 1968,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum website, https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/robert-f-kennedy/robert-f-kennedy-speeches/remarks-at-the-university-of-kansas-march-18-1968)   

There is a huge difference between saying that JFK did not want to send in U.S. "combat troops" and saying that he intended to withdraw without victory. You guys also keep ignoring the fact that Bobby said that JFK would have provided air attacks to defend South Vietnam if necessary, and that JFK felt we "had" to win the war.

More detail on the development of NSAM 263, including more information on McNamara’s input both at the time and his recollections afterwards, can be found in James Galbraith’s Boston Review article "Exit Strategy" from 2003:

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/

Yeah, I've cited that article and given that link several times. 

Noam Chomsky published a reply shortly after, many of which talking points have been repeated by the dissenting voice on this thread. Galbraith in turn replies to Chomsky:

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/chomsky-galbraith-letters-vietnam-jfk-kennedy/

Yes, and anyone see that Galbraith ducked most the evidence that Chomsky presented and resorted to more special pleading and cherry-picking. 

The "dissenting voice on this thread" represents the position of 99% of scholars who have written on the subject. The majority voice in this thread represents a fringe viewpoint that was conceived by the anti-Semitic crackpot and fraud Fletcher Prouty and that is rejected even by the vast majority of liberal scholars. 

Michael,

     I see that you're back at work in your government office this morning.  Welcome back to the forum on your usual Monday to Friday, 9-5 basis.   (Most of us don't post here for a living.)

    But why is it that you never seem to read or grasp the facts posted on the forum that debunk your bogus government narratives?  It's uncanny.  You have repeatedly done the same thing in your Prouty defamation posts here.

    Several people have presented facts and discussions (above) about the details and the historical context of RFK's remarks describing JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam.  That decision entailed political risks.

     JFK and RFK were, understandably, concerned about being accused by Cold War propagandists of going soft on communism.

     And your 1964 RFK quote was correctly interpreted in the context of LBJ's military industrial jingoism following JFK's murder and reversal of NSAM 263.  Not rocket science.  Conversely, by 1967, RFK was willing to speak more openly about JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam.

     All of our discussion, apparently, sailed right over your head.

     As for Noam Chomsky, curiously, he was always dead wrong about the facts concerning NSAM 263 and JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam.

[James DiEugenio]

👋

 

Talk about cherry picking.

[Robert Morrow]

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Michael,

     I see that you're back at work in your government office this morning.  Welcome back to the forum on your usual Monday to Friday, 9-5 basis.   (Most of us don't post here for a living.)

    But why is it that you never seem to read or grasp the facts posted on the forum that debunk your bogus government narratives?  It's uncanny.  You have repeatedly done the same thing in your Prouty defamation posts here.

    Several people have presented facts and discussions (above) about the details and the historical context of RFK's remarks describing JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam.  That decision entailed political risks.

     JFK and RFK were, understandably, concerned about being accused by Cold War propagandists of going soft on communism.

     And your 1964 RFK quote was correctly interpreted in the context of LBJ's military industrial jingoism following JFK's murder and reversal of NSAM 263.  Not rocket science.  Conversely, by 1967, RFK was willing to speak more openly about JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam.

     All of our discussion, apparently, sailed right over your head.

     As for Noam Chomsky, curiously, he was always dead wrong about the facts concerning NSAM 263 and JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam.

Shouldn't you quit insulting Michael Griffith? Are you capable of having a debate without personal insults and insinuations? I can't tell you how many times some idiot JFK researcher has called me "CIA."

Why don't you just stick to intellectual arguments?