JFK Assassination and the Vietnam War

[Lynne Foster]

If David Ferrie worked for the Federal Reserve Chairman, I'll change my mind.

I think it's absolutely preposterous, silly was too mild a term -I was trying to be kind.

Hey, why didn't they just threaten the Federal Reserve Chairman or kidnap his family, or ...

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY --CASE CLOSED.

IF POSNER CAN SAY IT, SO CAN I.

I repeat myself. There would be no war without a Federal Reserve, with the ability to create money out of nothing, who would then loan the money to us to fund that war.

You do not have to change your mind. Your approach, maybe...

I do like the thread you started though.

Chuck Robbins

Sorry, I just don't understand the relevance here. I suppose we can also say there would be no democracy without a Federal Reserve.

I just think you are making a big deal about nothing. You know, money may appear to be the answer to everything but it is not. To understand the assassination of John F. Kennedy you have to understand the PASSION behind the obsession to murder him, and that spells V-I-E-T-N-A-M.

I have to repeat -CASE CLOSED -you may not like my approach and I apologize for that, but nobody has said anything to effectively challenge my point of view here --and consider the possibility that I may be right.

[Frank Agbat]

...and like Posner, merely saying it -- even 10,000 times -- does not make it so.

One thing we MUST remember when considering various events and motives: We are looking with the benefit of hindsight.

In 1962/63, Vietnam was *not* on the radar screen as it was later in the 1960's when it boiled into a full-fledged controversy (in every sense of the term). Kennedy, and equally for those who ended up making profit from the war, could not have *known* that it would turn out the way it did.

We know what happened because we have the ability to look back on it. They were living it, and did not have that luxury.

Sure, they probably had intelligence, predictions, models, etc., but they had no way to know that it would cycle up into what it became.

Now, that said, I agree that LBJ's marked reversal of policy is interesting. However, it could have been anything from LBJ simply having a different opinion on things (perfectly permissible) all the way up to what you claim, or anything in between. Without additional proof, what you have is a classic circumstantial case.

[Tim Carroll]

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY -- CASE CLOSED. IF POSNER CAN SAY IT, SO CAN I.

...and like Posner, merely saying it -- even 10,000 times -- does not make it so.... Now, that said, I agree that LBJ's marked reversal of policy is interesting.

There are many people who believe they know the precise number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.... How would one go about refuting such false certainty?

Tim

[Lynne Foster]

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY -- CASE CLOSED. IF POSNER CAN SAY IT, SO CAN I.

...and like Posner, merely saying it -- even 10,000 times -- does not make it so.... Now, that said, I agree that LBJ's marked reversal of policy is interesting.

There are many people who believe they know the precise number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.... How would one go about refuting such false certainty?

Tim

I would say that if it doesn't impact anybody in a negative manner, they are free to believe anything they like.

Now don't you find it interesting that an entire rebuttal thread is devoted to refuting the claim that Kennedy was murdered because he planned to withdraw from the Vietnam war. Every motive is equally valid? How absurd.

Whyis it so difficult to understand the fact that Kennedy was essentially the first "combat troop" victim of the Vietnam war?

Had he lived, his planned schedule of total withdrawal by 1965, would have saved about 35,000 combat troops.

I am not dancing on a pin here, I merely believe that John Kennedy meant what he said, while he was alive.

Lyndon Johnson on the other hand, promised "continuity" while reversing Kennedy's plans.

This isn't exactly rocket science -nor does it have anything to do with counting angels, unless you are talking about all the people who have been murdered to cover up the truth.

Promising continuity and doing the exact opposite is much, much more than a mere difference of opinion.

You have heard about the Gulf Tonkin crisis, have you not?

Edited November 1, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Tim Carroll]

Now don't you find it interesting that an entire rebuttal thread is devoted to refuting the claim that Kennedy was murdered because he planned to withdraw from the Vietnam war. Every motive is equally valid? How absurd.

Even if one believes it likely that the JFK assassination was essentially a military coup d'etat, the underlying motive would be multivariate. At the time, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was the big issue, especially for nuclearists like LeMay. Coming on the heels of the Secret Deal to remove our Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy to resolve the Missile Crisis, Kennedy had convinced the hawks that he was unfit for service by virtue of his fear and anxiety over the use of nuclear weapons.

Every motive doesn't have to be equally valid. Whether it was actually a grandiose governmental plot or a regional extremist outburst from a paramilitary group, the requisite factor is the capability. Having grown up facing the draft in the Vietnam era draft, and understanding why the supposed JFK withdrawal from Vietnam is so very important, as demonstrated by Oliver Stone's singular interpretation, it still must be allowed that even within a single bureaucracy like the Pentagon, there are various factions, special interests and motivations.

Tim

Edited November 1, 2005 by Tim Carroll

[Lynne Foster]

That may be true, the underlying motive may be multivariate, but that's like saying he murdered his wife because he hated her as well as because he wanted to collect the insurance money.

I don't think it really matters.

The reason that Vietnam stands out is the old saying, "it's not the crime, it's the cover up."

The only thing that matters is:

A/ He was murdered because they wanted to prosecute the Vietnam war.

B/ His murder had nothing to do with the Vietnam war.

Take your pick.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Tim Carroll]

The only thing that matters is:

A/ He was murdered because they wanted to prosecute the Vietnam war.

B/ His murder had nothing to do with the Vietnam war.

Take your pick.

Things aren't always so black and white. Here's another possibility:

C/ The Vietnam War was just one of many reasons.

A, B and C are all possible.

Tim

[Terry Mauro]

http://www.geocities.com/matwilson_2000/ch7.htm[/url]

The shutting down of the Federal Reserve is one of the best explanations for the assassination of JFK.

A non-governmental CORPORATION, in private hands, prints our money. For the mere price of materials needed to produce this "money" (actually promissory notes) the Fed "loans" us this "money", which cost only the price of materials to them, at face value plus interest, which we are then to re-pay to this corporation.

The corporation is ruining America. What else do you expect when one company can produce billions of dollars worth of wealth for a mere thousands of dollars?

We are a nation of fools for allowing this practice to have continued since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve Corporation was enabled, via act of Congress, in direct violation of our constitution, to manufacture and therefore control our nation's money supply.

Every time a "loan" is made for a mortgage, a car or what have you, our national debt is increased and the banker's reap the profits while we are left with less and less money in our system with which we can pay our bills.

The "money" for these "loans" is created by the promissory notes we sign. Contrary to what you may think, this is not a loan given by the bank.

The "loan" is funded by a deposit account created in your/my name by the depositing of the note you sign for the mortgage into that account. The account is used to obtain money from the Fed, the bank puts that money into it's asset account, not your deposit account.

The result? The bank gets paid twice for the note. You and the Fed pay the bank the principle named in the note to the bank's asset account. Then interest on the loan is a bonus, usually 3 times the loan value itself, which the bank is essentially stealing from you.

The catch which will nail the bankers is that they stamp the note for deposit to the account. This is altering YOUR NOTE, which is illegal for anyone but you to do, and is the only evidence available to prove the fraud.

This note is returned to you after the note is payed off by you.

Look on the back of any returned note, you will find, "for deposit without recourse to", this is the bank stamp which contains a wet ink signature of a bank official who deposited YOUR NOTE, after altering it, into an account made in YOUR NAME, to obtain funds for the notes value, from the Fed.

Please don't direct your objections to this post to me. Educate yourself first by reading or researching the subject yourself.

This is one of the primary reasons for our astronomical national debt. Money is created for the notes, but, money for the interest on the notes is not created, resulting in a money shortage which will never disappear.

Think about it, 180k interest on a 60k loan. The money is not allowed to be printed for the interest on the note. It is a lose-lose system for us and a win-win for the bankers.

It is time for change if we are to save our country from this privately run corporation.

JFK knew what was going on and he sought to put an end to the ruin he saw waiting for us further down the road. The wars do not get fought unless the bankers give the loans. This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? I know the banks fund wars.

Your argument of it being a silly idea that JFK was killed due to the federal reserve is silly in itself if you ask me.

Chuck Robbins

******************************************************************************

I greatly appreciate your clarification on this, Chuck.

In fact, I think I'l just copy and paste it into my files.

Thank you.

Ter

[Jim Root]

Tim

"At the time, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was the big issue, especially for nuclearists like LeMay."

I have been doing a great deal of research on this issue recently. The debate over the LTBT (Limited Test Ban Treaty) and the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) was huge.

My research suggests that my two favorites (Taylor and McCloy) were at odds with the President on this issue. It seems that McCloy was replaced by Harriman around June of 1963 and by August the US had folded its hand and had given into the British and Soviet position with the acceptance of the LTBT.

The LTBT of 1963 was similar to what had been attempted and what failed in 1960 when the Paris Summit was sabotaged by the shoot down of the U-2 (was Oswald involved?).

Was this the spark that ignited the conspirators? Interesting question as I look at the facts. If Taylor was involved and the wheels of assination were already in motion because of the Presidents June change in position on the Test Ban Treaty, then your choice "C" may have led Taylor to prepare and execute a coup in Vietnam in preperation for a new President that could be presuaded toward deeper involvement.

We have Jackie Kennedy's statements to the Soviet Ambassador about Nuclear Disarmament talks at the funeral of her husband and you have the Johnson "X" millions of deaths in a nuclear war arm twisting to motivate membership on the Warren Commission. Did Ms Kennedy and President Johnson's statements have more truth to them than we have given them credit for?

Key dates that I find coincidental:

Document 19: State Department memcon, "Meeting of the Secretary's Disarmament Advisers," 3 November 1959 Source: National Archives, RG 59, decimal files 1955-1959, 600.0012/11-359

"Sharp inter-agency disagreements over whether to publicly abandon the goal of a comprehensive test ban and resume nuclear testing persisted but the State Department's stance against any sudden policy changes prevailed. Instead, the Department supported proposals for technical discussions with the Soviets as a way to "sharpen the issue of underground control to the point where we could propose a limited agreement" that would include provisions for a research program on underground test verification...General Gruenther explained many believed that the U.S. was pushing the difficulty of underground test verification as a "device to get out of the negotiations." Killian explained the theoretical challenge posed by the "Latter Hole" although McCloy was doubtful because "the difficulties of constructing the big hole were almost insurmountable."

This meeting took place within days after Oswald had defected to the USSR.

Document 24: State Department memcon, "Nuclear Test Negotiations - Meeting of Principals," 10 May 1960

Source: National Archives, RG 59, decimal files 1960-63, 700.5611/5-1060

"By early May, the U-2 crisis was unfolding which doomed the Paris summit. Nevertheless, in the hope that something might turn up, the Principals met to discuss black boxes and seismic research, high altitude tests, and the U.S. position on inspection quotas."

Document 50: Commencement Address by President John F. Kennedy at American University in Washington, DC, 10 June 1963

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President. January 1 to November 22, 1963. (United States Government Printing Office: Washington, DC. 1964), pp. 459-464

"In this famous speech, Kennedy broke the ice with Khrushchev by making a public declaration in favor of peace and arms control. An important influence was the writer and editor Norman Cousins who had met secretly with Khrushchev several times since 1962 in an attempt to get the two powers beyond the dispute over the number of inspections. Even some of Cousin's own language, such as "making the world safe for diversity" found its way into the text. (Note 59) Toward the end of the speech, after Kennedy discussed the test ban negotiations and the problem of nuclear proliferation, he announced that the United States would not conduct any more atmospheric tests as long as other nations refrained from doing so. Drawing upon the understanding that he, Macmillan, and Khrushchev had already reached about high-level talks, Kennedy also declared that Washington, London, and Moscow would soon resume negotiations on a test ban treaty and that United Kingdom and the United States would send a senior delegation to Moscow for the discussions. While Kennedy did not name any names, he quickly settled on Ambassador-at-Large W. Averell Harriman, who had met with Khrushchev before and had the stature needed for a mission of this sort."

Document 51: CIA Information Report, "Soviet Reaction to June 10 Speech of President Kennedy," 11 June 1963, excised copy

Source: John F. Kennedy Library, box 100, Disarmament-Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations, 4/62-8/63

"That President Kennedy's speech had an immediately favorable impact on Soviet opinion is suggested by this CIA information report based on intelligence gleaned from a Soviet official working for the secretariat of an international organization, probably the United Nations."

June 12, 1963: McCloy writes letter to Edwin Walker.

Document 52: ACDA Memcon, "Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Meeting of Committee of Principals," 14 June 1963 Source: National Archives, RG 59, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, Records Relating to Disarmament and Arms Control, box 6, Def 18-8 Testing and Detection, 1963-1966 (Also published in FRUS 1961-1963, VII, pp. 719-726)

"The administration had tabled various CTBT drafts since 1961, but the Principals were now reluctant to publish the latest draft for fear that it invite controversy--a "head-on collision"--especially if the Joint Chiefs of Staff criticized the draft when testifying before Congress. That the Joint Chiefs, according to Chairman Maxwell Taylor, were possibly more amenable to an atmospheric test ban offered some hope, but only if the Soviets switched gears."

Document 56: Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Glenn Seaborg, Journal Entry for 9 July 1963

Source: Journals of Glenn T. Seaborg, Volume 6, July 1, 1963-November 22, 1963 (Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1989)

"Early in the evening of 9 July, Kennedy met with the NSC to discuss the Harriman mission. Still unsure whether a limited three environments test ban treaty was negotiable, the participants briefly discussed an agreement that permitted a quota of underground tests. Nevertheless, if an atmospheric test ban was feasible, Rusk wanted Harriman to be able to conclude an agreement "on the spot." Bundy wondered whether the French should be consulted, which raised the question of whether it would be possible to induce Paris to sign a limited test ban treaty. Maxwell Taylor's comments questioning the advantages of an atmospheric test ban raised the continuing problem with the Chiefs, but Kennedy declared that the issue was settled: "such a ban is to the advantage of the U.S." Nevertheless, Taylor vainly pushed away on the issue."

Document 64: Statement of the Position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Three-Environment Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 12 August 1963Source: FRUS 1961-1963 Supplement

"The negotiation of the LTBT proceeded relatively quickly and Dean Rusk was soon on his way to Moscow for the formal treaty signing on 5 August. A week later, the Joint Chiefs signed off on an analysis of the impact that the treaty would have on US national security. Looking at the pros and cons of the treaty, the Chiefs saw some military disadvantages, for example, they believed that Moscow was ahead of the United States in testing high-yield nuclear weapons. Like Adenauer, they saw political disadvantages: "euphoria in the world" could erode the "vigilance" needed to wage the Cold War."

Just thoughts, documents and a coincidence.

Jim Root

[Ron Ecker]

"The negotiation of the LTBT proceeded relatively quickly and Dean Rusk was soon on his way to Moscow for the formal treaty signing on 5 August. A week later, the Joint Chiefs signed off on an analysis of the impact that the treaty would have on US national security. Looking at the pros and cons of the treaty, the Chiefs saw some military disadvantages, for example, they believed that Moscow was ahead of the United States in testing high-yield nuclear weapons. Like Adenauer, they saw political disadvantages: "euphoria in the world" could erode the "vigilance" needed to wage the Cold War."

Jim,

What happened with this treaty after the assassination?

Ron

[Jim Root]

Ron

It was approved by Congress (August/September 1963).

After the assassination the Geneva talks resumed leading to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 (signed by 61 countries).

If you recall, McCloy became a central figure in these talks again. McCloy missed at least one meeting of the Warren Commissioners to attend these talks in Geneva. If I am correct it was at that same Geneva meeting that Yuri Nosenko "defected" to the US.

Coincidence?

Jim Root

Edited November 1, 2005 by Jim Root

[John Simkin]

I just think you are making a big deal about nothing. You know, money may appear to be the answer to everything but it is not. To understand the assassination of John F. Kennedy you have to understand the PASSION behind the obsession to murder him, and that spells V-I-E-T-N-A-M.

I have to repeat -CASE CLOSED -you may not like my approach and I apologize for that, but nobody has said anything to effectively challenge my point of view here --and consider the possibility that I may be right.

You have started two threads where you have made two assertions concerning the events surrounding the assassination of JFK. Other members have politely explained to you that:

(1) Jim Garrison was a man of integrity who genuinely attempted to solve the assassination (although all will admit he made certain mistakes).

(2) That the Vietnam War might have been a factor in the assassination but is highly unlikely to have been the only factor.

You have failed to make your case and have now resorted to unpleasant attacks on your opponents. Your comments about Owen Parsons were especially unpleasant. I found this ironic as Owen, despite his years, is clearly more intelligent than yourself.

Your behaviour is not acceptable and if you continue in this way, your membership will be revoked and all your posts will be deleted.

[Dawn Meredith]

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY --CASE CLOSED.

JFK was killed for a lot of reasons. Viet Nam is one such reason. I also agree with Terry and Chuck. JFK was pissing off the powers that be in all areas. Have you ever seen the film"Executive Action" Lynne? It gives a very good account of what JFK was up to, and could be instructive.

I hve no idea what you have read on this case. Your bio says zero about who you are in reference to this debate.

Instead of arguing over which action by JFk got him killed, we need to be focussed on ways to solve this case. Name calling and belitting the thoughts, posts and work of others' is a total waste of time.

Why don't you update your bio and tell us what you have actually DONE in connection with this case, if anything.

Dawn

ps I happen to strongly suspect Wellstone was murdered too. (But have not researched it a lot)

[Ron Ecker]

Have you ever seen the film"Executive Action" Lynne? It gives a very good account of what JFK was up to, and could be instructive.

I would like to see that movie again, because I was so disappointed the first time I saw it. It was naturally fascinating because of the subject, but I recall it being terribly written (one expository speech after another) and woodenly acted (particularly by Lancaster). Perhaps I was hypercritical (all that exposition wears thin when you're already familiar with the material) and would like a second viewing.

The big laugher I remember was when Lancaster had a big blowup of Dealey Plaza and was showing his cohorts where the shooters were going to be. "And there'll be one here," he said, "on the Grassy Knoll." I'm sure the unintentional humor there requires no explanation.

ps I happen to strongly suspect Wellstone was murdered too. (But have not researched it a lot)

To me it's virtually a matter of common sense to conclude that Wellstone (and everyone with him) was murdered, given the long, time-honored tradition of politicians (or people dangerous to politicians) dying in plane crashes at convenient times for other politicians and their agendas. Who needs hard evidence anymore in this kind of foul play? It's an American tradition, just more subtle (hard to prove) than, say, those gangster drive-by shootings using blazing submachine guns back in the '20s.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Carroll]

Have you ever seen the film "Executive Action" Lynne? It gives a very good account of what JFK was up to, and could be instructive.

I would like to see that movie again, because I was so disappointed the first time I saw it. It was naturally fascinating because of the subject, but I recall it being terribly written (one expository speech after another) and woodenly acted (particularly by Lancaster). Perhaps I was hypercritical (all that exposition wears thin when you're already familiar with the material) and would like a second viewing.

Ron's observation about the impression of expository speech to those familiar with the material is insightful. I had the same impression of the movie, JFK, as he did of Executive Action. However, though I really appreciate both movies, I found the screenplay for Executive Action to be superiorly written. Dalton Trumbo, the famously blacklisted screenwriter of Spartacus, wrote the dialogue.

With respect to this thread, Dawn's mention of Executive Action probably relates to the depiction of the Murchison-Richardson-Bass oil baron characters trying to convince the H. L. Hunt character to approve the assassination. There's a scene in which three predictions are made about Kennedy concerning civil rights upheaval, elimination of the oil depletion allowance and withdrawal from Vietnam. As the plot progresses, Hunt is shown watching the news as each prediction is fulfilled and grabbing the phone to express his authorization upon confirmation of strike three. The two movies reflect the distinction between the positions discussed on this thread. While JFK attributes the motive for assassination solely to withdrawal from Vietnam, Executive Action depicts a multivariate motive, with operational passion brought to the matter by Bay of Pigs veterans.

Tim