Prouty on Vietnam: NSAM 263 and 273 60 years on

[Robert Morrow]

Regarding Gen. Edward Lansdale, Max Boot gives a talk about him in 2018: 

 

 

One thing that comes out is how INVESTED INTO NGO DINH DIEM that Gen. Edward Lansdale was from the mid 1950s to 1963. And by 11/01/1963 the Kennedy Administration was throwing all of that into the trash can.

One key to understanding the JFK assassination is to figure out 1) Who was for the Coup of Diem 2) Who in the American government was violently opposed to the coup and murder of Diem.

JFK supported the coup of Diem, although he was chagrined at the death of Diem. Henry Cabot Lodge and the U.S. State Dept. supported the coup. The CIA was split right down the middle over whether the Diem coup was.

LBJ was totally opposed to the Diem coup. Lansdale was ENRAGED about the Diem coup. The military was against the Diem Coup. The people who were VIOLENTLY OPPOSED TO THE DIEM COUP were the ones involved in the JFK assassination.

 

 

 

Edited February 27 by Robert Morrow

[W. Niederhut]

10 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

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?

Robert,

     I have little tolerance for blatant, repetitious dishonesty.

    What you are referring to here as an "insult" and a non- "intellectual" argument is, in fact, intellectual honesty.

    Since joining the forum, Michael Griffith has a history of simply repeating falsehoods that forum members have taken the time to debunk, in detail.

     If you study our discussion about NSAM 263 and RFK, (above) and our previous threads about Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, you will discern that pattern.

     As for my hunch that Michael Griffith works for the U.S. military-industrial-media complex, I think it's reality-based.

Edited February 27 by W. Niederhut

[Cliff Varnell]

11 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Regarding Gen. Edward Lansdale, Max Boot gives a talk about him in 2018: 

 

 

One thing that comes out is how INVESTED INTO NGO DINH DIEM that Gen. Edward Lansdale was from the mid 1950s to 1963. And by 11/01/1963 the Kennedy Administration was throwing all of that into the trash can.

Which directly led to the Vietnam War.

11 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

One key to understanding the JFK assassination is to figure out 1) Who was for the Coup of Diem 2) Who in the American government was violently opposed to the coup and murder of Diem.

1) Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pgs 334-5

<quote on, emphasis added>

Who changed the coup [overthrow of Ngo Brothers in South Vietnam 11/01/63] into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest accompanying them? To this day, nothing has been found in government archives tying the killings to either John or Robert Kennedy. So how did the tools and talents developed by Bill Harvey for ZR/RIFLE and Operation MONGOOSE get exported to Vietnam? Kennedy immediately ordered (William R.) Corson to find out what had happened and who was responsible. The answer he came up with: “On instructions from Averell Harriman…. The orders that ended in the deaths of Diem and his brother originated with Harriman and were carried out by Henry Cabot Lodge’s own military assistant.”

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

At the heart of the murders was the sudden and strange recall of Sagon Station Chief Jocko Richardson and his replacement by a no-name team barely known to history. The key member was a Special Operations Army officer, John Michael Dunn, who took his orders, not from the normal CIA hierarchy but from Harriman and Forrestal.

According to Corson, “John Michael Dunn was known to be in touch with the coup plotters,” although Dunn’s role has never been made public. Corson believes that Richardson was removed so that Dunn, assigned to Ambassador Lodge for “special operations,” could act without hindrance.

<quote off>

Who was the driving force behind the overthrow of Diem?  Averell Harriman and the CIA mission in Vietnam, which ginned up the Catholic-Buddhist unrest used as the pretext to overthrow Diem.

2). There was no VIOLENT opposition to the overthrow of Diem.

11 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

JFK supported the coup of Diem, although he was chagrined at the death of Diem. Henry Cabot Lodge and the U.S. State Dept. supported the coup. The CIA was split right down the middle over whether the Diem coup was.

See above.

11 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

LBJ was totally opposed to the Diem coup. Lansdale was ENRAGED about the Diem coup. The military was against the Diem Coup. The people who were VIOLENTLY OPPOSED TO THE DIEM COUP were the ones involved in the JFK assassination.

There was no violent opposition to the overthrow of Diem.

The Skull & Bones boys behind the murder of Diem were also behind the murder of JFK — or so I’m happy to argue.

 

Edited February 27 by Cliff Varnell

[Kirk Gallaway]

W. I've talked with you before about this same matter concerning Griffith. Griffith talks his same barrage of talking points. over and over again. As far as your charge of "repeating falsehoods."  You can specifically   look them up and dispute them, but you choose not to. So like your response here, you contribute no real counter points and resort to insulting him. It doesn't take much courage to insult  and try to turn forum sentiment against someone whose views are generally greatly at odds with the general forum. It really is just bullying. Your retorts are much  more repetitive than even  his talking points.If you're not going to challenge him directly. You look better just leaving it as it is.

IMO, Di Eugenio set a standard with this on the forum with  his sort of "circling the wagons bullying" but they were generally against LNers so no one ever called him on it. Sill there used to be good arguments say, between Jim and DVP.  I generally  but not always agreed with Jim because I'm not an LNer, but there were also disputes that were inconclusive. But unfortunately after while Jim contributed less points, but just dog whistled  and  let his followers do the arguing and bullying for him and it got ridiculous! 

Robert, I once had Brancato call me a "CIA rooter" and "a fan of the Joint Chiefs!" This was for merely pointing out contradictions  between Di Eugenio and another forum Superstar author concerning a witness, (while I wasn't even taking a side. It was merely for pointing out that both couldn't be right! ). Some people just have too much of their identity involved in this.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27 by Kirk Gallaway

[W. Niederhut]

8 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

W. I've talked with you before about this same matter concerning Griffith. Griffith talks his same barrage of talking points. over and over again. As far as your charge of "repeating falsehoods."  You can specifically   look them up and dispute them, but you choose not to.

 

Kirk,

    This is simply false, as I have pointed out to you more than once now.  You either haven't read, or haven't understood, the detailed rebuttals I have posted in response to Griffith's falsehoods.

    I have taken the time on numerous occasions (and more than one thread) during the past two years to refute Michael Griffith's redundant bogus talking points about Prouty, along with Griffith's blatantly inaccurate, ignorant comments about the scientific research of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  All to no avail.

     Griffith simply ignores the definitive refutations and re-posts the same false talking points-- as he did yesterday on this thread.  It's a propaganda technique of repeating the lie.

    As for NSAM 263, James DiEugenio has patiently debunked Griffith's redundant falsehoods about NSAM 263 and JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam, on multiple occasions.

[James DiEugenio]

Griffith has repeatedly disputed Kennedy's intent of getting out of Vietnam, and he has backed that really bad book by Selverstone over the works of Kaiser, Newman, Blight and Goldstein.

I reviewed Selverstone and showed just how much he leaves out and how much he distorts, like leaving out the fact that Kennedy was reviewing the whole situation at the time of his death. Selverstone tries to say its not true, but its double, independently sourced.

Per RFK, William and I have shown how he cherry picks one quote and ignores others made before and after it.

[Robert Morrow]

Here is some more evidence of JFK NOT WANTING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD. At this time in the 1960's there was a saying by dumb right wingers "I'd rather be dead than red." I don't know who said that originally but it got to be a saying.

JFK most definitely did not want to have nuclear war with Russia over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I think he would have be EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to put a million U.S. soldiers in Vietnam like that completely inadequate Lyndon Johnson. I do think that in the fall of 1963 JFK was planning to pull out of Vietnam, but if he had been alive in 1964 as the situation got worse, he may have tried to find a middle ground between pulling out of Vietnam and sending massive amounts of U.S. combat troops over there. Ultimately, I do not think JFK was going to prosecute the Vietnam War.

Lyndon Johnson, by contrast, was on the verge of using nuclear weapons in Vietnam in the immediate aftermath of the Tet Offensive  as he approved (2/9/1968) then 2 days later canceled (2/11/1968) "Operation Fracture Jaw."

John Kennedy (at the White House) to his college coed mistress MiMi Beardsley (then age 19) on Saturday night, October 27, 1962 at the peak of the Cuban Missile Crisis: “I’d rather my children be red than dead.”

Mimi Alford (known then in 1962 as a college coed as Mimi Beardsley):

QUOTE

           When I pulled up to the South Portico at the White House, I went directly upstairs as usual. There Dave and I played the Waiting Game in the residence living room, the one next to the President’s bedroom, while the President remained downstairs with a group of close advisors known as EX COMM, the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. They had convened at the White House to deal specifically with the Cuban crisis. The President joined us after a while, but his mind was clearly elsewhere. His expression was grave. Normally, he would have put his presidential duties behind him, had a drink, and done his best to light up the room and put everyone at ease. But not on this night. Even his quips had a halfhearted, funereal tone. At one point, after leaving the room to take another urgent phone call, he came back shaking his head and said to me, “I’d rather my children be red than dead.” It wasn’t a political statemen or an attempt at levity. These were the words of a father who adored his children and couldn’t bear them being hurt.

 UNQUOTE

 [MiMi Alford, Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John Kennedy and It’s Aftermath, pp. 93-94]

 Marion Fay “Mimi” Alford (nee Beardsley) was born on May, 7, 1943. MiMi Beardsley was a student at Wheaton College at the time of her affair with JFK.

 Mimi Alford Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimi_Alford

 

 

 

 

Edited March 1 by Robert Morrow

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Robert Morrow said:

Here is some more evidence of JFK NOT WANTING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD. At this time in the 1960's there was a saying by dumb right wingers "I'd rather be dead than red." I don't know who said that originally but it got to be a saying.

https://archive.org/details/sim_nation_1930-07-09_131_3392/page/32/mode/1up

It is high time in any case that the workers learned to live by faith, not work. As for those weaklings who may fall by the wayside and starve to death, let the country bury them under the epitaph: Better Dead than Red.

[James DiEugenio]

Mimi Is full of it.

As Randy T showed, Jackie never left the White House. And its ridiculous to say he said such a thing. 

Jeff Carter's essay is the number one rated article at Kennedys and King.

[Robert Morrow]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mimi Is full of it.

As Randy T showed, Jackie never left the White House. And its ridiculous to say he said such a thing. 

Jeff Carter's essay is the number one rated article at Kennedys and King.

Let's get this straight. You are saying that Mimi Beardsley (now Mimi Alford) never heard JFK say "I'd rather my children be red than dead?"

And that Jackie Kennedy was at the White House the night of October 27th, 1963?

And more one thing, you probably don't think JFK ever had sex with college coed Mimi Beardsley (now known as MiMi Alford)?

Who is Randy T? Randy Taraborrelli?

Edited March 2 by Robert Morrow

[Robert Morrow]

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

https://archive.org/details/sim_nation_1930-07-09_131_3392/page/32/mode/1up

It is high time in any case that the workers learned to live by faith, not work. As for those weaklings who may fall by the wayside and starve to death, let the country bury them under the epitaph: Better Dead than Red.

Is this where that quote originated?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Robert Morrow said:

Is this where that quote originated?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_dead_than_red

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Robert Morrow said:

Let's get this straight. You are saying that Mimi Beardsley (now Mimi Alford) never heard JFK say "I'd rather my children be red than dead?"

And that Jackie Kennedy was at the White House the night of October 27th, 1963?

And more one thing, you probably don't think JFK ever had sex with Mimi Beardsley?

Who is Randy T? Randy Taraborrelli?

Robert, about a year ago Jim and I went around and around on Marilyn. We agree on much but not on her or on JFK’s affairs.   You should read our back and forth to get the full picture.   

[Robert Morrow]

3 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Robert, about a year ago Jim and I went around and around on Marilyn. We agree on much but not on her or on JFK’s affairs.   You should read our back and forth to get the full picture.   

Cory, please post that thread. Thanks!

[Cory Santos]

4 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

Cory, please post that thread. Thanks!

Lol I have tried to forget it.  I’ll see if Cliff can find it for me.  I just got back from a game and am exhausted.