Is Alt. Assassination JFK biased?
Nobody
cdddraftsman
> I am afraid so. They are just like our media!
How biased is the major media . Hmmm ...?
The most insidious and popular JFK special of all times 'The Men Who
Killed Kennedy' by The History Channel is an affiliate of A&E Networks
which is owned by mass media giants NBC/ABC/CBS !
Pray tell us more .
tl
Thalia
> I am afraid so. They are just like our media!
The website run by .John McAdams is pro-Lone Nutter definitely. The
site is designed to convince those suspicious souls that it really was
only Oswald the Fruitcake and you can go back to sleep now. There is
nothing to see here (of course we know different!)
j leyden
> I am afraid so. They are just like our media!
I once had a friend from Boston and, when JFK was elected, he said,
"Thank God, we finally have a president who doesn't have an accent."
These things pretty much depend on one's point of view.
JGL
jas
> I am afraid so. They are just like our media!
Well, I wasn't going to waste my time answering this one, but here goes:
Your question, first of all, is not clear. What do you mean "JFK biased?"
1) Biased for the movie "JFK"?
2) Biased against the movie "JFK?"
3) Biased in favor of John Kennedy -- he as a person, and/or presidency
and political agenda?
4) Biased against John Kennedy -- he as a person, and/or presidency and
political agenda?
5) Biased for a conspiracy in the JFK assassination?
6) Biased against a conspiracy in the JFK assassination?
If you mean number 6, which I think you do because, if you've read through
John McAdam's well-done web site and can readily tell he is a supporter of
the "no-conspiracy" angle, and your question answered by yourself, coupled
with your remark referring to media bias, then the answer is no.
This forum deals with both sides of the assassination. and all points in
between, and all in all is a very fair forum.
If you're asking this because you've noticed that in this forum one cannot
post whatever they want, i.e., curse words, personal attacks, threats,
insults, name-calling, etc. etc.,, which is usually what happens on the
more unmoderated forums -- and can get completely out of control, thus
rendering the "discussion" virtually useless -- and this bothers you, then
you're in the wrong forum.
And, thankfully this forum *is* moderated, or it too would go down the
sewer like most the rest of the JFK assassination-related forums out
there.
If you don't mean what I have explained above, please disregard my post,
and accept my apologies.
claviger
The management of this website is definitely in favor of a Lone Assassin
theory, as even a first time visitor can tell by reading the basic
information provided. The perpetrator of the assassination may or may not
have been a nut case, but was experienced with rifles enough to hit a
target which is considered short range by weapons experts. Professor John
McAdams does not hide his opinions about this case but allows people like
you to post here, no matter how inane your comments may be. Same is true
of John Simkins on Spartacus who is biased in the opposite direction. So
bias by the management of these websites is irrelevant. The Mary Ferrell
Foundation website is also completely CT biased, so already the McAdams
website is outnumbered 2 to 1. So what? As long as members obey the ROC
guidelines their message will be posted. That means you can still post all
you want, as do a number of CTs who frequent this message board. What you
find frustrating is the number of LA posters who keep pointing out why CT
arguments are so lacking in tangible evidence.
Was Oswald a Lone Nut or Lone Communist or Lone Marxist? We don't know but
the evidence strongly supports the conclusion he was the Lone Assassin.
davidemerling
There are plenty of other JFK assassination related forums that are *not*
moderated.
From what I can tell, John McAdams only interjects himself on issues of
civility. Basically, he's just there to prevent the threads from
deteriorating into nothing more than name-calling.
Certainly, his website lays out a compelling argument against conspiracy -
mostly by presenting scholarly and accurate citations. Depending on your
predilections, one might consider that "biased."
As a lone nutter myself, John has blocked many of my posts - always for
the same reason - being too harsh to the person to whom I am responding.
The subject matter never seems to matter.
The message always seems to be the same: Say whatever you want - but say
it without being insulting on a personal level.
In other words, he only interjects himself on matters of unacceptable
style - never on matters of substance (or lack thereof).
I agree with his assessments, for the most part. I do, at times, cross the
line in my exuberance - I guess.
It seems to me those inclined to believe in a conspiracy have free reign
in alt.assassination.jfk.
Is it possible your perception of "bias" stems from the fact that those
who oppose the CT crowd tend to make far more compelling arguments? I
don't see how that involves the moderator unless there is evidence that he
is blocking the CT posts to a disproportionate degree.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Nobody
I am almost afraid to even try to post a response tom. But I'll try. Maybe
the commies won't attack . Uhoh can I say commies? I meant censors uhoh
can I say censors? Get my drift? Anyway if this does post at the time I
postedy post about jfk throat shot hadn't shown up yet and it being my
first post I was concerned that it had been censored and I couldn't see
why. But it did post so all was well and good UNTIL a post of mine ( that
through my own ignorance was sent to ACJ and AAJ also by mistake) was
returned to me. The post was in response to a post from sandy( who works
for the NATION which I knew) to Walt where Walt had said that all the
evidence was faked! Well sandy posted back with a post that bordered on
badgering(but it was ACJ where we all know ( especially you and I right
Tom) anything goes. Even if it was AAJ I myself could not see where Sandy
had crossed THE LINE. But the reason I was given for my post being
returned in which I think the offending statement was " what boggles the
mind Sandy is how anyone could work for a ___wipe rag like the NATION(
which I did say a_s still thinking I was posting only to ACJ)" was---- you
can't say that about the NATION because sandy works for the NATION---
which I agree is borderline the same as sandys attitude towards Walt but I
don't think it crossed THE LINE. I feel I was censored. So what do you
(tom and Thalia ) think? Was I censored for talking bad about the NATION
or just replying to sandy about his place of employment and stating my
opinion of that place. After all it is a newspaper! I didn't think I was
crossing any line even it being AAJ. So yes I think AAJ is biased and we
can only speculate as to why knowing my opinion is totally opposite of
johns( which john I apologize most sincerely for the ragging I gave you in
ACJ it was quite extreme) but in the same respect isn't John and sandy
kind of predisposed since they are professionals?
Nobody
whew a can of of worms have I opened but " maybe" ( I'm not sure I am
trying to give the benefit of a doubt) it needed to be opened. Please
refer to my post above where I tried to explain the best I could and I
think you will understand my point better. And then when that's settled
can I ask you fine people in this forum this simple question. If I showed
you all a photo taken at love field with a bullet exiting JFK neck and a
photo from the Zapruder showing a laws rocket in frame 133 would you say
shhh don't feed the trolls or would you say wow I didn't know that ? Cause
I have post here stating just that. John,Anthony, Thalia , mr emerling
your opinion would be greatly appreciated . Tom your opinion Well I guess
I know your answer but feel free to respond again stan moffett Aka nobody
Sandy McCroskey
> I am afraid so. They are just like our media!
There are *two* moderators on this group. One is a "Lone Nutter,"
comme on dit, and the other—Mr. Fokes—is of the persuasion that there
was a conspiracy.
/sandy
Thalia
I am fine with .John's website - it is set up to promote the Lone Nut
theory and it does it in an obvious manner. It does not pretend to be
impartial - if it did then I would have serious issues. What interests me
is the money that goes into the website, it would cost a lot of money to
set it up and maintain it, it does not contain advertising, so how is it
funded?
John McAdams
I probably should refuse to answer that, just on general principles,
since the question is usually asked by moonbats who see some nefarious
CIA money behind anybody who denies there was a conspiracy.
But I'm in a generous mood tonight, so here is the scoop.
The website costs nothing. It runs with an Apache server from my
desktop PC at Marquette.
I've sometimes spent a few bucks to buy the rights to some photos on
my site, and I used to buy clickthroughs from people who sell online
ads, but that was back when they cost 1 cent each. :-(
That's just money of mine spent on a hobby.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
To reject any post, both Peter and I have to agree to reject it.
We make moderation mistakes every so often, but it's (with virtually
zero exceptions) in letting something onto the group that shouldn't be
there.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 5, 3:01 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 12:47 pm, Nobody<stanmoff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am afraid so. They are just like our media!
>>
>> The website run by .John McAdams is pro-Lone Nutter definitely. The
>> site is designed to convince those suspicious souls that it really was
>> only Oswald the Fruitcake and you can go back to sleep now. There is
>> nothing to see here (of course we know different!)
>
> The management of this website is definitely in favor of a Lone Assassin
> theory, as even a first time visitor can tell by reading the basic
> information provided. The perpetrator of the assassination may or may not
> have been a nut case, but was experienced with rifles enough to hit a
> target which is considered short range by weapons experts. Professor John
Nice try at twisting the truth. You WC defenders keep saying that it
doesn't matter how bad a shot Oswald was or how cheap the rifle was
because the distances were so short.
> McAdams does not hide his opinions about this case but allows people like
> you to post here, no matter how inane your comments may be. Same is true
> of John Simkins on Spartacus who is biased in the opposite direction. So
> bias by the management of these websites is irrelevant. The Mary Ferrell
> Foundation website is also completely CT biased, so already the McAdams
Ever hear of Net Neutrality? Look it up.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 4, 8:47 pm, Nobody<stanmoff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I am afraid so. They are just like our media!
>
> Well, I wasn't going to waste my time answering this one, but here goes:
>
> Your question, first of all, is not clear. What do you mean "JFK biased?"
>
> 1) Biased for the movie "JFK"?
>
> 2) Biased against the movie "JFK?"
>
> 3) Biased in favor of John Kennedy -- he as a person, and/or presidency
> and political agenda?
>
> 4) Biased against John Kennedy -- he as a person, and/or presidency and
> political agenda?
>
> 5) Biased for a conspiracy in the JFK assassination?
>
> 6) Biased against a conspiracy in the JFK assassination?
>
I forget, what do you call that in classical rhetoric where you PRETEND
to be naive?
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thankyou .John. I believe being open and not secretive about such
things is an admirable quality.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 5, 3:01 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 12:47 pm, Nobody<stanmoff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am afraid so. They are just like our media!
>>
>> The website run by .John McAdams is pro-Lone Nutter definitely. The
>> site is designed to convince those suspicious souls that it really was
>> only Oswald the Fruitcake and you can go back to sleep now. There is
>> nothing to see here (of course we know different!)
>
> There are plenty of other JFK assassination related forums that are *not*
> moderated.
>
> From what I can tell, John McAdams only interjects himself on issues of
> civility. Basically, he's just there to prevent the threads from
> deteriorating into nothing more than name-calling.
>
No, he also tells us what topics we can or can not talk about. When Bush
was President he said that I am not allowed to criticize the President.
But WC defenders are encouraged to defame the memory of President Kennedy.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3de3fe1-3740-4705...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
claviger
> > The management of this website is definitely in favor of a Lone Assassin
> > theory, as even a first time visitor can tell by reading the basic
> > information provided. The perpetrator of the assassination may or may not
> > have been a nut case, but was experienced with rifles enough to hit a
> > target which is considered short range by weapons experts. Professor John
>
> Nice try at twisting the truth. You WC defenders keep saying that it
> doesn't matter how bad a shot Oswald was or how cheap the rifle was
> because the distances were so short.
Oswald was not a bad shot and the rifle was cheap only because it was
military surplus.
The target was close range which does not require a powerful rifle. At
close range a zip gun can be deadly.
> > McAdams does not hide his opinions about this case but allows people like
> > you to post here, no matter how inane your comments may be. Same is true
> > of John Simkins on Spartacus who is biased in the opposite direction. So
> > bias by the management of these websites is irrelevant. The Mary Ferrell
> > Foundation website is also completely CT biased, so already the McAdams
>
> Ever hear of Net Neutrality? Look it up.
Why don't you complain to John Simkins and the Mary Ferrell website as
well? If you have such a problem with this forum then leave and go join
the tea party at the other two websites, where you will be surrounded by
like minded playmates. However, your indignation is ridiculous because you
get plenty of attention here with your antics being the grumpy curmudgeon.
At the other two you would just blend into the crowd.
Why should any host be neutral? They have opinions too. As you like to
constantly remind us polls demonstrate that 75-80% of the American public
believes that LHO did not act alone. That means a cross section of the
public that might post here skews in the CT direction. The odds are in
your favor and you have us outnumbered, so quit being such a cry baby.
jas
Boy, no one's post gets past "Mr. Goalie" himself.
Thank you for your "rhetoric" compliment. I am happy that I can make a
compelling point about JFK internet forums -- call it whatever you will.
Might I remind you, my friend from the great state of Massachusetts, that
had it not been for the RHETORIC of one Patrick Henry, shouting after a
long and highly-charged speech rallying support for the American
revolution, "Give me liberty or give me death!," there might not have been
enough support to gather the troops against the British in time -- that
the Americans might have only continued idly grumbling away about the
British, and not taken any decisive action?
So, again, I thank you for calling my post "rhetoric."
And while we're at it: You're stating, quite seriously and with a straight
face, that you have never posted any conspiracy rhetoric in any form on
this forum, ever?
What's the old Bible saying? "He who is without sin cast _________."
(I'll let you fill in the rest)
cdddraftsman
>
>
> Is it possible your perception of "bias" stems from the fact that those
> who oppose the CT crowd tend to make far more compelling arguments? I
> don't see how that involves the moderator unless there is evidence that he
> is blocking the CT posts to a disproportionate degree.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
exuberance , predilections ..... slow down Dave , my $25 words
dictionary is in tatters :-)
tl
cdddraftsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well actually at one time , when I was a JFK Do-Gooder , I rekoned
that Nellie did in yer p r e s d e n t :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/060902_Connally_hmed_3p_h22.jpg
cdddraftsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
What ever you do don't get a definitive answer on dat one from John
Simkin .
tl
cdddraftsman
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thankyou .John. I believe being open and not secretive about such
> things is an admirable quality.
>
Are we seeing cracks appear in your facade of conspiracy ?
tl
cdddraftsman
>
>
> I forget, what do you call that in classical rhetoric where you PRETEND
> to be naive?
>
>
It's wedded to your name AM ....... coy .
tl
cdddraftsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Indeed John I must state that for a hobby whenever anyone Googles
JFK Assassination your site seems to come up first .
Haaaaaaa ! How about that !
Care to give out anymore trade secrets on how this is done ,
besides it's obvious popularity ?
tl
Henery Kissinger deep nasal : "It has the decided advantage in the
fact that it tells the truth"
In a area awash in a sea of disinformation , enough to capsize the
Titanic , http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm is a rock steady ,
realiable , much noted , irritating and annoying to conspiracists ,
ahhhh ........... iceberg .
So to speak .
Testing testing tolerance levels at aaj ! :
As I recall this was a no no last time , so I did a little editing (no
cia smart alec remarks)
:-) :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/McadamsSombreroList.jpg
Anthony Marsh
Need I remind you that someone had to publish his words. Thousands of
colonists were not there to hear it live. It is the propaganda which stirs
the people. Such as Paul Revere's propaganda drawing of the Boston
Massacre.
You seem to have this misguided notion that the Revolutionaries were
right-wing Republicans like you. Far from it. ANd for some strange reason
you seem to think that you can claim falsely that I would be opposed to
the goals of the American Revolution! ANyone who is would be a Royalist
and I don't call THAT a Liberal agenda.
> So, again, I thank you for calling my post "rhetoric."
>
Just calling it rhetoric does not make it evil or wrong. Everyone uses
some type of rhetoric when debating anything. I just couldn't remember
the name of that specific trick you were using.
> And while we're at it: You're stating, quite seriously and with a straight
> face, that you have never posted any conspiracy rhetoric in any form on
> this forum, ever?
>
AS I said before, I had 4 years of Latin and studied classical rhetoric
in Latin, so I use several types.
> What's the old Bible saying? "He who is without sin cast _________."
>
I never said it was a sin. I never called you evil.
Anthony Marsh
Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with moderated newsgroups. That's why I
suggested that you look it up. Also see the Democracy Now web site for
more information.
> constantly remind us polls demonstrate that 75-80% of the American public
> believes that LHO did not act alone. That means a cross section of the
That is not what the polls say. They saw conspiracy. They do not say
Oswald.
> public that might post here skews in the CT direction. The odds are in
> your favor and you have us outnumbered, so quit being such a cry baby.
>
Outnumbered? Me all alone versus 20 aliases?
claviger
> > From what I can tell, John McAdams only interjects himself on issues of
> > civility. Basically, he's just there to prevent the threads from
> > deteriorating into nothing more than name-calling.
>
> No, he also tells us what topics we can or can not talk about. When Bush
> was President he said that I am not allowed to criticize the President.
President Kennedy has something to do with this topic. President George W
Bush doesn't. Easy concept to grasp. You get mad because the moderators
don't allow your political rhetoric to clutter up the message board. One
of those moderators is a Liberal who respects the ground rules. You should
learn from his example.
> But WC defenders are encouraged to defame the memory of President Kennedy.
This comment insinuates the moderators are guilty of encouragement "to
defame the memory of President Kennedy." Where exactly do they do that?
You assume that anyone who doesn't believe in at least one of several
conspiracy theories pertaining to this case dislikes President Kennedy.
That is a false assumption. Norman Mailer was a big fan of JFK and over
time came to believe LHO did it all by himself. Liking someone has nothing
to do with the facts. This complaint is simply your own political bias
showing through.
davidemerling
> The only thing Missing from John's website is the debate I did with him.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
Stop flattering yourself into thinking there was anything earth-
shattering in that debate. You simply made the same old tired
conspiratorial arguments that have been circulating for decades - most of
which I didn't realize anybody with any knowledge of this case still
adopted.
You did not raise any original points that are not already addressed on
John's website.
C'mon - the Oswald in the doorway thing? Pfft! Are you kidding me?
The Mauser on the 6th floor thing? Asked and answered! Geez.
Putting that debate on the website would be nothing more than a novelty -
but it was hardly scholarly.
It's almost comical how you thought that was some major achievement for
you. Just in YOUR world, Tom. In OUR world (you know, the one where the
sky is blue and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west), that
debate only served to illustrate how dogmatic and wild your theories were.
It also illustrated a certain rigid, impractical, and irrational side of
you: i.e. "Why didn't they prosecute him/her for perjury?" Ridiculous!
I hate to pop your bubble, but that debate hardly represented a seminal
moment in the JFK assassination debate. I'm sure Professor McAdams would
agree with me on that.
But I'm sure you enjoyed playing the game.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Nov 6, 5:06=A0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> The only thing Missing from John's website is the debate I did with him.
>>
>> SEE>>> =A0http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
>
>Stop flattering yourself into thinking there was anything earth-
>shattering in that debate. You simply made the same old tired
>conspiratorial arguments that have been circulating for decades - most of
>which I didn't realize anybody with any knowledge of this case still
>adopted.
>
>You did not raise any original points that are not already addressed on
>John's website.
>
>C'mon - the Oswald in the doorway thing? Pfft! Are you kidding me?
>
>The Mauser on the 6th floor thing? Asked and answered! Geez.
>
>Putting that debate on the website would be nothing more than a novelty -
>but it was hardly scholarly.
>
>It's almost comical how you thought that was some major achievement for
>you. Just in YOUR world, Tom. In OUR world (you know, the one where the
>sky is blue and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west), that
>debate only served to illustrate how dogmatic and wild your theories were.
>It also illustrated a certain rigid, impractical, and irrational side of
>you: i.e. "Why didn't they prosecute him/her for perjury?" Ridiculous!
>
>I hate to pop your bubble, but that debate hardly represented a seminal
>moment in the JFK assassination debate. I'm sure Professor McAdams would
>agree with me on that.
>
>But I'm sure you enjoyed playing the game.
>
Rossley certainly did. He seems to think that I promised to post a
link to the debate on my website. But what I said was that I would
"post" it, and I meant I would post it here.
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4af4de02.2026375953@news.supernews.com...
Your meanings are no more Clear than your Citations.
jas
Man, you're so far off base in understanding what I meant in my post,
you're standing at the hot dog stand behind the bathrooms in the nosebleed
section of the stadium!
And your attempt to paint me as a rightist Republican when you don't even
know me, or my political views in the least bit, is absolutely hilarious.
At the same time it's very sad that you must many times lower yourself to
political attacks just to attempt to rebut my post -- to come back with
something, anything -- when in fact, you really don't have any other
ammunition up your sleeve but the same old politics.
Yawn.
You think I was really, I mean, come on -- really -- (it's very hard
holding back gales of laughter here), accusing you of being opposed to the
goals of the American Revolution, and therefore a -- what you call --
Royalist? Ok, now I have to laugh...
What is it that Harris says? ROTFLOL!!!!!
You really did miss the point of my using Patrick Henry and rhetoric,
didn't you?
Wow!
>
> > So, again, I thank you for calling my post "rhetoric."
>
> Just calling it rhetoric does not make it evil or wrong. Everyone uses
> some type of rhetoric when debating anything. I just couldn't remember
> the name of that specific trick you were using.
Oh, come on! Don't play innocent and try to downplay what you said and
meant. People here are way smarter than that.
Of course calling it "rhetoric" doesn't make it wrong. But when you use
it under the circumstances of the JFK assassination debate, and in the
context of you and I being on opposite sides, your tactic of calling my
post "rhetoric" is meant to dismiss my remarks as frivolous and useless.
You know it, and I know it. This entire forum knows it, so don't try to
cover it up.
>
> > And while we're at it: You're stating, quite seriously and with a straight
> > face, that you have never posted any conspiracy rhetoric in any form on
> > this forum, ever?
>
> AS I said before, I had 4 years of Latin and studied classical rhetoric
> in Latin, so I use several types.
>
> > What's the old Bible saying? "He who is without sin cast _________."
>
> I never said it was a sin. I never called you evil.
Ha! Again, your gross mis-interpretation of what I was meaning. It has
nothing to do with anything "evil."
And, you mean to tell me you've never used this Bible verse as a
metaphor? Well, here it is in its entirety:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Now, go figure out what that means for yourself.
cdddraftsman
>
>
> I never said it was a sin. I never called you evil.
>
>
I think what everyone here is looking for is why do you have such severe
'Enemy Recognition Problems' ?
Seems you try your damnedest to exonerate the guilty and incriminate the
innocent .
Right is left and the left is always right because the left is never wrong
. IOW's if the shoe doesn't fit , wear it anyway .
Oh .... classical rhetoric in Latin ?
Strike those first three criticisms , we've located the conspiracy .
tl
cdddraftsman
> On 6 Nov 2009 21:38:21 -0500, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have some compassion .John , if you link your #1 site to # 764,853
www.whokilledjfk.net , tomnln might get a few visiitors .
Knock some of those cobbwebs off his entry portal and think of all the
positive results that a person can achieve by studying there ?
A person who doesn't know any better might think that tomnln is a expert
on the assassination by studying his technique , AAMOF I've found that :
a) By telling only half the assassination story , it's more 'interesting'
that way .
b) Tomnln appears to be bang on here also ..... 'Gargling' from 'The
Fountain of Knowledge' is definately more fun . 'Drinking' ? Avoid it ,
you might hurt yourself .
c) Here's one that you pointed out was a JFK Do-Gooder dream come true :
tomnln has everyone blaming everyone else . He's got "(R) blaming (D) ,
he's got (D) blaming the right wing CIA and FBI . The North blaming the
South's Big Texas Oil Barons . If blaming a lone nut commy isn't
sufficiently satisfying everyone can blame the Mafia" . This is not on the
face of it necessarily important in understanding 'Who killed JFK' .
However it is of essential importance if you want to , by the process of
elimination , identify 'Who didn't kill JFK' :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/BigAnnouncement.jpg
This may hold , in the end , a better way of resolving LN v CT gaffes and
gapes , you never can tell where important idea's may come from .
d) A good example of idea's posted as important , clearing up any notion
that CTer's do not have a unified theory after 46 years , can be found at
his video prognosticators "price-less" pad and hangout You- Tube . Where
Gil Jesus has LBJ killing JFK in the 60's because of his un-popular
Vietnam War and right next to this GHWB is accused because of his sons
equally un-popular Iraq War . Confused ? This is suggestive , and I don't
want to make a hasty judgment call before all the facts are in but ,
tomnln supports any attempts to bridge 'The Generation Gap' that are
"priced-less" ie. inexpensive : I'm starting to avoid words that hurt like
'cheap shot video's' , remembering Hoffa's sage advice "that a perceived
slight" is much worse than a outright flame .
e) If you're anti-conspiracy tomnln doesn't hide the fact by disguise that
he's in disagreement , surprising yet refreshing candor from a beyond the
pale , dye in the wool CTer .... literally ! :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/HealyTheHi-Jackass.jpg
f) Regardless of your persuasion there's plenty to do-good , musings
endlessly to dead ends , and lots of evidence of non-conspiracy , his
website is full of it , again so to speak :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/rar.gif
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/tom_lo21.jpg
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/tom_lo7.jpg
Clear , concise , cogent and as clean as a whistle :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/JFKsLIMODEFINATELYNOTWASHEDOUT.jpg
end ....
tl ...
..
.
cdddraftsman
>
>
> Your meanings are no more Clear than your Citations.
>
>
>
Well we could also say with your propensity to tell half the story all
the time , your "citations" are "clearly" "meaningless" .
tl
cdddraftsman
Good post . I've pointed out to tomnln repeatedly that the 'Warren Report'
* is crammed stem to stern with invocations , incantations and
superflorous citations indicating conspiracy because of it's 'Report'
nature that includes innuendo , contradictions , mistakes , fabrications
and hearsay evidence and testimony retained as a contemporanous record of
those four days . Lost on him ? More like avoided at all costs . Did he
research my claims further ? He went on a seek and avoid mission .
The time to look for a cover-up is when evidence and testimony all jives
completely , AND NOT THE OPPOSITE ! Not surprising seeing he has no
investigative skills , no resources to verify his contrieved conspiracy
and he doesn't care to correct this 5000 Ib white elephant swaying back
and forth in his living room . All this he conveniently ignores as the
derilect vessel JFK Conspiracy has sprung a thousand leaks , is slowly
being abandoned by women and children first , and I suspect tomnln is the
captain that will leave last . A bitter end to a story that 'died of a
theory' **.
tl
Keynotes :
* WR denied as evidence of 'no conspiracy' by the defence in the Jim
Garrison persecution trial of Clay Shaw . Denied immediately as
"inadmissible" due to being ruled "hearsay" .
** The theory is simple in it's logical absurdity and breathtaking in it's
scope : In a nutshell : It took 46 years to reach a conclusion that JFK
was killed by many different people , for many different reasons and in
many different ways and this happened ALL AT THE SAME TIME ? In short
conspiracy literature constitutes the largest body of fraudulent work ever
created that has caused the largest mass failure in thinking ever recorded
by humans any one given subject . This part , I'm sure tomnln is an expert
in .
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 6, 6:34 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I never said it was a sin. I never called you evil.
>>
>>
>
> I think what everyone here is looking for is why do you have such severe
> 'Enemy Recognition Problems' ?
>
Jeez, it must be something in water up here. Why was our state the only
one to vote against Nixon? WE told you so.
http://conservapedia.com/Massachusetts_Liberal
> Seems you try your damnedest to exonerate the guilty and incriminate the
> innocent .
>
> Right is left and the left is always right because the left is never wrong
> . IOW's if the shoe doesn't fit , wear it anyway .
>
I never confuse RIGHT and LEFT, but I was not the person invented the terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>>> From what I can tell, John McAdams only interjects himself on issues of
>>> civility. Basically, he's just there to prevent the threads from
>>> deteriorating into nothing more than name-calling.
>>
>> No, he also tells us what topics we can or can not talk about. When Bush
>> was President he said that I am not allowed to criticize the President.
>
> President Kennedy has something to do with this topic. President George W
> Bush doesn't. Easy concept to grasp. You get mad because the moderators
So, why are the WC defenders allowed to post off-topic?
> don't allow your political rhetoric to clutter up the message board. One
> of those moderators is a Liberal who respects the ground rules. You should
> learn from his example.
>
>> But WC defenders are encouraged to defame the memory of President Kennedy.
>
> This comment insinuates the moderators are guilty of encouragement "to
> defame the memory of President Kennedy." Where exactly do they do that?
By allowing the Kennedy haters to spew their venom.
> You assume that anyone who doesn't believe in at least one of several
> conspiracy theories pertaining to this case dislikes President Kennedy.
No, the Kennedy haters are a SUBSET.
> That is a false assumption. Norman Mailer was a big fan of JFK and over
> time came to believe LHO did it all by himself. Liking someone has nothing
> to do with the facts. This complaint is simply your own political bias
> showing through.
>
Yes, that I am Kennedy lover. Did I ever try to hide that?
>
>
tomnln
looks like I Damaged McAdams enough during our 3 1/2 hour radio debate for
him to BREAK his own rules of "No personal attacks allowed on this
newsgroup".
ps;
Did Anton contact you about the upcoming part two of our radio debate
John?
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81eac4f3-a35a-4e0b...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
How about if I take BOTH of you on in debate at the same time?
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0b17636-fe97-4af1...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
cdddraftsman
> looks like I Damaged McAdams enough during our 3 1/2 hour radio debate for
> him to BREAK his own rules of "No personal attacks allowed on this
> newsgroup".
>
> ps;
>
> Did Anton contact you about the upcoming part two of our radio debate
> John?
>
>
> > Knock some of those cobbwebs off his entry portal and think of all the
> > positive results that a person can achieve by studying there ?
>
> > A person who doesn't know any better might think that tomnln is a expert
> > on the assassination by studying his technique , AAMOF I've found that :
>
> > a) By telling only half the assassination story , it's more 'interesting'
> > that way .
>
> > b) Tomnln appears to be bang on here also ..... 'Gargling' from 'The
> > Fountain of Knowledge' is definately more fun . 'Drinking' ? Avoid it ,
> > you might hurt yourself .
>
> > c) Here's one that you pointed out was a JFK Do-Gooder dream come true :
> > tomnln has everyone blaming everyone else . He's got "(R) blaming (D) ,
> > he's got (D) blaming the right wing CIA and FBI . The North blaming the
> > South's Big Texas Oil Barons . If blaming a lone nut commy isn't
> > sufficiently satisfying everyone can blame the Mafia" . This is not on the
> > face of it necessarily important in understanding 'Who killed JFK' .
> > However it is of essential importance if you want to , by the process of
> > elimination , identify 'Who didn't kill JFK' :
> > This may hold , in the end , a better way of resolving LN v CT gaffes and
> > gapes , you never can tell where important idea's may come from .
>
> > d) A good example of idea's posted as important , clearing up any notion
> > that CTer's do not have a unified theory after 46 years , can be found at
> > his video prognosticators "price-less" pad and hangout You- Tube . Where
> > Gil Jesus has LBJ killing JFK in the 60's because of his un-popular
> > Vietnam War and right next to this GHWB is accused because of his sons
> > equally un-popular Iraq War . Confused ? This is suggestive , and I don't
> > want to make a hasty judgment call before all the facts are in but ,
> > tomnln supports any attempts to bridge 'The Generation Gap' that are
> > "priced-less" ie. inexpensive : I'm starting to avoid words that hurt like
> > 'cheap shot video's' , remembering Hoffa's sage advice "that a perceived
> > slight" is much worse than a outright flame .
>
> > e) If you're anti-conspiracy tomnln doesn't hide the fact by disguise that
> > he's in disagreement , surprising yet refreshing candor from a beyond the
> > pale , dye in the wool CTer .... literally ! :
>
> > f) Regardless of your persuasion there's plenty to do-good , musings
> > endlessly to dead ends , and lots of evidence of non-conspiracy , his
> > website is full of it , again so to speak :
> >http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/rar.gif
> >http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/tom_lo21.jpg
> >http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/tom_lo7.jpg
> > Clear , concise , cogent and as clean as a whistle :
>
>
> > end ....
>
> > tl ...
>
> > ..
>
> > .
That anxious for another good whippen ?
tl
John Fiorentino
.John has applied appropriate criticism to some of my posts on several
occasions.
Now, being the confirmed "Warrenista" that I am, those are some very odd
actions coming from the "biased" alt.assassination.
If you believe trying to document the facts about the case is being
"biased" then by that definition the answer would be yes.
John F.
"Nobody" <stanm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6e9d5b97-2621-468e...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
claviger
> On 11/6/2009 9:35 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Anthony,
>
> >>> From what I can tell, John McAdams only interjects himself on issues of
> >>> civility. Basically, he's just there to prevent the threads from
> >>> deteriorating into nothing more than name-calling.
>
> >> No, he also tells us what topics we can or can not talk about. When Bush
> >> was President he said that I am not allowed to criticize the President.
>
> > President Kennedy has something to do with this topic. President George W
> > Bush doesn't. Easy concept to grasp. You get mad because the moderators
>
> So, why are the WC defenders allowed to post off-topic?
Maybe to respond to or balance off some of your off-topic comments.
> > don't allow your political rhetoric to clutter up the message board. One
> > of those moderators is a Liberal who respects the ground rules. You should
> > learn from his example.
>
> >> But WC defenders are encouraged to defame the memory of President Kennedy.
>
> > This comment insinuates the moderators are guilty of encouragement "to
> > defame the memory of President Kennedy." Where exactly do they do that?
>
> By allowing the Kennedy haters to spew their venom.
You spew quite of bit of venom yourself which somehow manages to get
past the moderators.
> > You assume that anyone who doesn't believe in at least one of several
> > conspiracy theories pertaining to this case dislikes President Kennedy.
>
> No, the Kennedy haters are a SUBSET.
So are "W" Bush haters. Why would Bush even be mentioned on this
forum? He was a senior in high school in 1963. Do you think he cut
class so he could be the Teenage Sniper on the Grassy Knoll?
> > That is a false assumption. Norman Mailer was a big fan of JFK and over
> > time came to believe LHO did it all by himself. Liking someone has nothing
> > to do with the facts. This complaint is simply your own political bias
> > showing through.
>
> Yes, that I am Kennedy lover. Did I ever try to hide that?
No problem with that. This discussion should be about facts, not political
innuendo which you do all the time. You insinuate that LNs are politically
motivated to believe that way. Did you know that Marry Ferrell did not
vote for JFK but believed in a conspiracy? The website named after her is
strongly tilted in that direction and is by no means a level playing
field. If you are concerned about bias complain to that website too.
Thalia
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Thankyou .John. I believe being open and not secretive about such
> > things is an admirable quality.
>
> Are we seeing cracks appear in your facade of conspiracy ?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
NO.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
I might add that I find it *intriguing* that .John's site is no 1 on
the list of JFK assassination sites, after wiki, and my sources tell
me that costs a LOT of money. I don't believe it could be based on
popularity alone.
John McAdams
>On Nov 6, 11:38=A0am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 7:54=A0am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am fine with .John's website - it is set up to promote the Lone Nut
>> theory and it does it in an obvious manner. It does not pretend to be
>> impartial - if it did then I would have serious issues. What interests me
>> is the money that goes into the website, it would cost a lot of money to
>> set it up and maintain it, it does not contain advertising, so how is it
>> funded?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>I might add that I find it *intriguing* that .John's site is no 1 on
>the list of JFK assassination sites, after wiki, and my sources tell
>me that costs a LOT of money. I don't believe it could be based on
>popularity alone.
>
I guess that's what I get for giving a conspiracy person a
straighforward answer about my site.
She doesn't like what I say, so she doesn't believe it.
Typical. And a waste of my time.
I'll not make that mistake again.
.John
Sandy McCroskey
No, but a more nuanced view of the man would be more realistic.
/sandy
tomnln
Field ! ! !
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:583b6973-54ea-4e56...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 7, 2:46 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/6/2009 9:35 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony,
>>
>>>>> From what I can tell, John McAdams only interjects himself on issues of
>>>>> civility. Basically, he's just there to prevent the threads from
>>>>> deteriorating into nothing more than name-calling.
>>
>>>> No, he also tells us what topics we can or can not talk about. When Bush
>>>> was President he said that I am not allowed to criticize the President.
>>
>>> President Kennedy has something to do with this topic. President George W
>>> Bush doesn't. Easy concept to grasp. You get mad because the moderators
>>
>> So, why are the WC defenders allowed to post off-topic?
>
> Maybe to respond to or balance off some of your off-topic comments.
>
Most of my comments are REPLIES.
>>> don't allow your political rhetoric to clutter up the message board. One
>>> of those moderators is a Liberal who respects the ground rules. You should
>>> learn from his example.
>>
>>>> But WC defenders are encouraged to defame the memory of President Kennedy.
>>
>>> This comment insinuates the moderators are guilty of encouragement "to
>>> defame the memory of President Kennedy." Where exactly do they do that?
>>
>> By allowing the Kennedy haters to spew their venom.
>
> You spew quite of bit of venom yourself which somehow manages to get
> past the moderators.
>
Somehow? Do you realize how much time I have to spend composing messages
with big words so that the moderators won't understand what I am REALLY
saying?
>>> You assume that anyone who doesn't believe in at least one of several
>>> conspiracy theories pertaining to this case dislikes President Kennedy.
>>
>> No, the Kennedy haters are a SUBSET.
>
> So are "W" Bush haters. Why would Bush even be mentioned on this
> forum? He was a senior in high school in 1963. Do you think he cut
> class so he could be the Teenage Sniper on the Grassy Knoll?
>
No, I already told you he was home drunk at the time. Bush is mentioned to
show the contrast between Liberal and neocon, between peace-lover and war
monger, between Liberal hero and neocon puppet, between Dove and Hawk,
between good and evil.
>>> That is a false assumption. Norman Mailer was a big fan of JFK and over
>>> time came to believe LHO did it all by himself. Liking someone has nothing
>>> to do with the facts. This complaint is simply your own political bias
>>> showing through.
>>
>> Yes, that I am Kennedy lover. Did I ever try to hide that?
>
> No problem with that. This discussion should be about facts, not political
> innuendo which you do all the time. You insinuate that LNs are politically
> motivated to believe that way. Did you know that Marry Ferrell did not
> vote for JFK but believed in a conspiracy? The website named after her is
Did you know that some right-wing nuts thought that JFK was assassinated
by a Communist conspiracy?
> strongly tilted in that direction and is by no means a level playing
The Web site is run by a friend of mine from this area who is extremely
Liberal.
> field. If you are concerned about bias complain to that website too.
>
>
Next time I have dinner with him I'll call him a name for you!
Anthony Marsh
Nuanced. Now, that's an interesting word to use.
I guess you didn't pay attention when I was one of the first people to
discuss here his extensive drug use, many affairs and bringing prostitutes
into the White House. Or that Kennedy fixed every election that he won,
even in college. Or his mutual acquaintances connected to the Mafia. I
guess that doesn't qualify as nuanced.
Anthony Marsh
Search order is not based on popularity.
Sandy McCroskey
I came to this newsgroup fairly recently, so I don't know whether you
were among the first to point out anything.
But these things are by now common knowledge so I could not really
have imagined you were ignorant of them when you characterized
yourself as a "Kennedy lover."
I do think you are unrealistic about JFK in your view that, as you put
it at www.far.com/tangledweb/puzzlepalace/marsh.html:
"I found that JFK had wanted to pull all the US troops out South
Vietnam, while just after his assassination, LBJ decided to escalate
our involvement in Vietnam."
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
Yeah, I don't pay much attention to what you write, Tony. Sorry 'bout
that, but I doubt if it will change.
Nice work on the Zapruder film, though.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Well, let's pretend just for fun that you are new to the Internet. Maybe
you didn't realize that you can search through the old messages here using
Google Groups. Just use the Advanced search and specify my name (which is
why I use my REAL name here) and then pick some key words of a phrase to
select a topic.
> But these things are by now common knowledge so I could not really
> have imagined you were ignorant of them when you characterized
> yourself as a "Kennedy lover."
By now? By when? Kennedy was well known as a womanizer even before he
became President. Some of the other things like the drug use only came out
a few years ago.
> I do think you are unrealistic about JFK in your view that, as you put
> it at www.far.com/tangledweb/puzzlepalace/marsh.html:
> "I found that JFK had wanted to pull all the US troops out South
> Vietnam, while just after his assassination, LBJ decided to escalate
> our involvement in Vietnam."
As I pointed out a while back here, EVERYTHING is archived somewhere.
That's what FAR does, specializing in archiving defunct web sites.
What I said then is accurate and still stands. JFK wanted to pull out all
the troops from Vietnam, but LBJ reversed that immediately and escalated
our involvement in Vietnam.
So, here's your homework assignment. Figure out when I wrote that and when
the Web site went defunct.
> /sandy
>
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> .John has applied appropriate criticism to some of my posts on several
> occasions.
>
> Now, being the confirmed "Warrenista" that I am, those are some very odd
> actions coming from the "biased" alt.assassination.
>
> If you believe trying to document the facts about the case is being
> "biased" then by that definition the answer would be yes.
>
> John F.
The bias may not lie with the LNT/CT orientation as much as it does
whether you are presenting anything that might lead to the truth and
therefore be controversial or not.
>
> "Nobody" <stanmoff...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
claviger
> >> By allowing the Kennedy haters to spew their venom.
>
> > You spew quite of bit of venom yourself which somehow manages to get
> > past the moderators.
>
> Somehow? Do you realize how much time I have to spend composing messages
> with big words so that the moderators won't understand what I am REALLY
> saying?
You're doing a good job. They let a lot of them go through. In fact, they
seem to grant you special allowance for such things. You might just be a
"teacher's pet"! Sure looks like it. However, I have a CT about you that
I've suspected for a long time. You are a paid provocateur on the payroll
of McAdams to keep things stirred up and generate lively discussion. And
it works!
John is a smart operator.
> > So are "W" Bush haters. Why would Bush even be mentioned on this
> > forum? He was a senior in high school in 1963. Do you think he cut
> > class so he could be the Teenage Sniper on the Grassy Knoll?
>
> No, I already told you he was home drunk at the time. Bush is mentioned to
> show the contrast between Liberal and neocon, between peace-lover and war
> monger, between Liberal hero and neocon puppet, between Dove and Hawk,
> between good and evil.
LOL!!!!!! You are a pip!
> >> Yes, that I am Kennedy lover. Did I ever try to hide that?
There was much to admire about JFK. He was the most likable of all the
Kennedy brothers, a handsome rascal, bon vivant, the Irish version of Tom
Jones. He also designed the blueprint that President Reagan followed and
was hugely successful. These two Presidents had a lot in common.
> Did you know that some right-wing nuts thought that JFK was assassinated
> by a Communist conspiracy?
I did indeed. That CT may not be so far-fetched. LBJ believed the
Cuban branch operation may have had something to do with it.
> The Web site is run by a friend of mine from this area who is extremely
> Liberal.
That is obvious to even a first time visitor.
> > field. If you are concerned about bias complain to that website too.
>
> Next time I have dinner with him I'll call him a name for you!
Thank you!
However, I don't mind the bias as much as you do. Notice how anemic their
discussion board is. Barely a pulse detectable. Their essay board is so
slanted its ridiculous. Only a few token LNs for window dressing. Tell
your friend his handiwork is so blatant nobody bothers to revisit. It
lacks excitement and vitality. The website is a fabulous depository of
documents, but moribund as a discussion destination. What he needs to do
is hire you to run his debate forum. That will pep it up for sure. You
could become the Bill O'Reilly of his website.
Sandy McCroskey
You (wrongly) assume that I have some great curiosity about your
opinions.
> > But these things are by now common knowledge so I could not really
> > have imagined you were ignorant of them when you characterized
> > yourself as a "Kennedy lover."
>
> By now? By when?
"Now" means "now." Various things have become known at different
times.
> Kennedy was well known as a womanizer even before he
> became President.
Not by the general public.
>Some of the other things like the drug use only came out
> a few years ago.
>
I know someone who told me in 1985 that he used to know JFK's pot
supplier. Supposedly this was Les Ledbetter, night editor at the NY Times
at the same time that he worked at Yipster Times (known as Overthrow when
I was there), who got fired from the Times when two joints were found in
his locker and he refused rehab.
> > I do think you are unrealistic about JFK in your view that, as you put
> > it atwww.far.com/tangledweb/puzzlepalace/marsh.html:
> > "I found that JFK had wanted to pull all the US troops out South
> > Vietnam, while just after his assassination, LBJ decided to escalate
> > our involvement in Vietnam."
>
> As I pointed out a while back here, EVERYTHING is archived somewhere.
> That's what FAR does, specializing in archiving defunct web sites.
>
> What I said then is accurate and still stands. JFK wanted to pull out all
> the troops from Vietnam, but LBJ reversed that immediately and escalated
> our involvement in Vietnam.
>
That's by no means so cut and dried, and I'm not the only person who
disagrees with you.
> So, here's your homework assignment. Figure out when I wrote that and when
> the Web site went defunct.
>
But I'm not the least curious about when you wrote that, and couldn't care
less about that site.
/sandy
jas
Your "sources?" Oh, please. What sources, your conspiracy buddies?
Or, could it be the CIA?
cdddraftsman
> Only claviger would believe that "official Records: are an UNLEVEL Playing
> Field ! ! !
>
Then why don't you stop running from the question about the CONTEXT that
those "official Records" are written in ?
With contradictions , innuendo and hearsay evidence contained in that
Report tomnln , you must of had a terribly hard time coming up with a
conspiracy conclusion when the Report was crammed with it and ALL OF IT
OPINION BASED GOSSIP !
Did you forget about your OWN CIA Memo tomnln ? : "they (YOU) also scoff
at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a
flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make- up of the
Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against
over-commitment to any one theory; or against the illicit transformation
of probabilities into certainties".
You certainly are an expert in transforming the guilty into the innocent
and the innocent (By the 100's) into the guilty !
Care to address these concerns that you don't seem to be concerned about
at all ?
tl
Gerry Simone
or challenging the LNT.
THWKK at least presented the CT pov. That's not being biased. That's not
insidious.
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7edb5e8a-9c29-45c5...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 7:47 pm, Nobody <stanmoff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am afraid so. They are just like our media!
How biased is the major media . Hmmm ...?
The most insidious and popular JFK special of all times 'The Men Who
Killed Kennedy' by The History Channel is an affiliate of A&E Networks
which is owned by mass media giants NBC/ABC/CBS !
Pray tell us more .
tl
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f188838a-6dd3-4a07...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>>>> By allowing the Kennedy haters to spew their venom.
>>
>>> You spew quite of bit of venom yourself which somehow manages to get
>>> past the moderators.
>>
>> Somehow? Do you realize how much time I have to spend composing messages
>> with big words so that the moderators won't understand what I am REALLY
>> saying?
>
> You're doing a good job. They let a lot of them go through. In fact, they
> seem to grant you special allowance for such things. You might just be a
> "teacher's pet"! Sure looks like it. However, I have a CT about you that
> I've suspected for a long time. You are a paid provocateur on the payroll
> of McAdams to keep things stirred up and generate lively discussion. And
> it works!
>
Nice try. I'm not sure who invented that trick. Maybe the Nazis. The
real agent provocateur accuses a loyal member of being the agent
provocateur in order to deflect suspicion from him. When I was in the
CCI the CIA plant used to accuse me of being a CIA plant.
> John is a smart operator.
>
>>> So are "W" Bush haters. Why would Bush even be mentioned on this
>>> forum? He was a senior in high school in 1963. Do you think he cut
>>> class so he could be the Teenage Sniper on the Grassy Knoll?
>>
>> No, I already told you he was home drunk at the time. Bush is mentioned to
>> show the contrast between Liberal and neocon, between peace-lover and war
>> monger, between Liberal hero and neocon puppet, between Dove and Hawk,
>> between good and evil.
>
> LOL!!!!!! You are a pip!
>
>>>> Yes, that I am Kennedy lover. Did I ever try to hide that?
>
> There was much to admire about JFK. He was the most likable of all the
> Kennedy brothers, a handsome rascal, bon vivant, the Irish version of Tom
> Jones. He also designed the blueprint that President Reagan followed and
> was hugely successful. These two Presidents had a lot in common.
>
>> Did you know that some right-wing nuts thought that JFK was assassinated
>> by a Communist conspiracy?
>
> I did indeed. That CT may not be so far-fetched. LBJ believed the
> Cuban branch operation may have had something to do with it.
>
Hoover showed him the evidence.
>> The Web site is run by a friend of mine from this area who is extremely
>> Liberal.
>
> That is obvious to even a first time visitor.
>
>>> field. If you are concerned about bias complain to that website too.
>>
>> Next time I have dinner with him I'll call him a name for you!
>
> Thank you!
>
> However, I don't mind the bias as much as you do. Notice how anemic their
> discussion board is. Barely a pulse detectable. Their essay board is so
> slanted its ridiculous. Only a few token LNs for window dressing. Tell
> your friend his handiwork is so blatant nobody bothers to revisit. It
You mean his web sites which even the WC defenders quote all the time?
> lacks excitement and vitality. The website is a fabulous depository of
> documents, but moribund as a discussion destination. What he needs to do
> is hire you to run his debate forum. That will pep it up for sure. You
> could become the Bill O'Reilly of his website.
>
Do you see my name in the debate forum?
Anthony Marsh
And that is the channel that withdrew the three final segments due to
complaints from LBJ sycophants.
Coondog
> our involvement inVietnam.
>
> So, here's your homework assignment. Figure out when I wrote that and when
> the Web site went defunct.
Here is your homework assignment, Marsh. Learn some history and
present it without your ingrained “I love Jack” bias. You need to
start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
Impossible I believe.
Your evidence that Kennedy was going to withdraw “all” troops from
Vietnam is skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
and Bobby’s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
available on the net to Jack’s previous actions in Vietnam and
elsewhere.
Your evidence that Johnson “immediately” reversed JFK’s policy is flat
out not true. That you continue to spread such propaganda is
troubling.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
> Impossible I believe.
>
> Vietnam is skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
from Vietnam or was going to withdraw all troops from Vietnam. I said
that he WANTED to withdraw all troops from Vietnam and implemented plans
to withdraw all troops from Vietnam.
> and Bobby�s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
> available on the net to Jack�s previous actions in Vietnam and
> elsewhere.
>
Nonsense.
> Your evidence that Johnson �immediately� reversed JFK�s policy is flat
> out not true. That you continue to spread such propaganda is
> troubling.
>
I am the one who pointed out the differences between Kenendy's draft of
NSAM 273 and Johnson's final version of NSAM 273 item by item. It is in
HTML so it will not reproduce here correctly.
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
> > start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
> > Impossible I believe.
>
> >Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>
> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
And you have evidence of this “implemented plans to withdraw “all”
troops from Vietnam”? No, you don’t. We’ve been over this many times
and your continuing attempts to slide this “all” the troops by us are
again troubling.
> > and Bobby’s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
> > available on the net to Jack’s previous actions inVietnamand
> > elsewhere.
>
> Nonsense.
I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
removing Diem as “nonsense”. I don’t think a sensible person would
consider Bobby’s oral interview and some of JFK’s words as nonsense.
So Marsh, it doesn’t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
with a simple “nonsense”.
> > Your evidence that Johnson “immediately” reversed JFK’s policy is flat
> > out not true. That you continue to spread such propaganda is
> > troubling.
>
> I am the one who pointed out the differences between Kenendy's draft of
> NSAM 273 and Johnson's final version of NSAM 273 item by item.
You found it and Peter Dale Scott gets all the credit. Bummer. That
must be rather disappointing to you but take heart. You don’t suffer
the jeers Scott gets for his crap on this subject.
> It is in HTML so it will not reproduce here correctly.
It will not reproduce correctly anywhere because it is incorrect. It
is rather laughable in fact if you know anything about the 34A ops.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>>> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
>>> Impossible I believe.
>>
>>> Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>>
>> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
>> fromVietnamor was going to withdraw all troops fromVietnam. I said
>> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
>> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
>
> troops from Vietnam�? No, you don�t. We�ve been over this many times
NSAM 263, q.v.
> and your continuing attempts to slide this �all� the troops by us are
> again troubling.
>
>>> and Bobby�s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
>>> available on the net to Jack�s previous actions inVietnamand
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
> Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
> removing Diem as �nonsense�. I don�t think a sensible person would
> consider Bobby�s oral interview and some of JFK�s words as nonsense.
> So Marsh, it doesn�t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
> with a simple �nonsense�.
>
I don't dismiss those things as nonsense. I dismiss your revisionist
propaganda as nonsense.
>>> Your evidence that Johnson �immediately� reversed JFK�s policy is flat
>>> out not true. That you continue to spread such propaganda is
>>> troubling.
>>
>> I am the one who pointed out the differences between Kenendy's draft of
>> NSAM 273 and Johnson's final version of NSAM 273 item by item.
>
> You found it and Peter Dale Scott gets all the credit. Bummer. That
> must be rather disappointing to you but take heart. You don�t suffer
> the jeers Scott gets for his crap on this subject.
>
> > It is in HTML so it will not reproduce here correctly.
>
> It will not reproduce correctly anywhere because it is incorrect. It
> is rather laughable in fact if you know anything about the 34A ops.
>
You haven't even seen it.
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
> >>> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
> >>> Impossible I believe.
>
> >>> Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>
> >> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
> >> fromVietnamor was going to withdraw all troops fromVietnam. I said
> >> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
> >> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
>
> > troops fromVietnam”? No, you don’t. We’ve been over this many times
>
> NSAM 263, q.v.
Then you will have to withdraw your use of “all” the troops and plug
in “the bulk” of troops. But of course you know this so why do you
insist on trying to slip “all” the troops by us? There is a big
difference you know.
> > and your continuing attempts to slide this “all” the troops by us are
> > again troubling.
>
> >>> and Bobby’s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
> >>> available on the net to Jack’s previous actions inVietnamand
> >>> elsewhere.
>
> >> Nonsense.
>
> > I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
> >Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
> > removing Diem as “nonsense”. I don’t think a sensible person would
> > consider Bobby’s oral interview and some of JFK’s words as nonsense.
> > So Marsh, it doesn’t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
> > with a simple “nonsense”.
>
> I don't dismiss those things as nonsense. I dismiss your revisionist
> propaganda as nonsense.
If you don’t dismiss the factors I’ve mentioned then where is the
revisionist? You got a mirror?
> >>> Your evidence that Johnson “immediately” reversed JFK’s policy is flat
> >>> out not true. That you continue to spread such propaganda is
> >>> troubling.
>
> >> I am the one who pointed out the differences between Kenendy's draft of
> >> NSAM 273 and Johnson's final version of NSAM 273 item by item.
>
> > You found it and Peter Dale Scott gets all the credit. Bummer. That
> > must be rather disappointing to you but take heart. You don’t suffer
> > the jeers Scott gets for his crap on this subject.
>
> > > It is in HTML so it will not reproduce here correctly.
>
> > It will not reproduce correctly anywhere because it is incorrect. It
> > is rather laughable in fact if you know anything about the 34A ops.
>
> You haven't even seen it.
Right. Because it hasn’t been reproduced correctly.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>>>>> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
>>>>> Impossible I believe.
>>
>>>>> Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>>
>>>> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
>>>> fromVietnamor was going to withdraw all troops fromVietnam. I said
>>>> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
>>>> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
>>
>>
>> NSAM 263, q.v.
>
> Then you will have to withdraw your use of �all� the troops and plug
> in �the bulk� of troops. But of course you know this so why do you
> insist on trying to slip �all� the troops by us? There is a big
> difference you know.
>
No, I don't.
There is a difference between what Kennedy wanted to do and what he
thought he could accomplish by 1964.
>>> and your continuing attempts to slide this �all� the troops by us are
>>> again troubling.
>>
>>>>> and Bobby�s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
>>>>> available on the net to Jack�s previous actions inVietnamand
>>>>> elsewhere.
>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>
>>> I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
>>> Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
>>> removing Diem as �nonsense�. I don�t think a sensible person would
>>> consider Bobby�s oral interview and some of JFK�s words as nonsense.
>>> So Marsh, it doesn�t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
>>> with a simple �nonsense�.
>>
>> I don't dismiss those things as nonsense. I dismiss your revisionist
>> propaganda as nonsense.
>
> If you don�t dismiss the factors I�ve mentioned then where is the
> revisionist? You got a mirror?
>
YOU are the revisionist. Calling Kennedy a hawk. Claiming that he would
not have gotten us out of Vietnam. Refusing to read the documents.
>>>>> Your evidence that Johnson �immediately� reversed JFK�s policy is flat
>>>>> out not true. That you continue to spread such propaganda is
>>>>> troubling.
>>
>>>> I am the one who pointed out the differences between Kenendy's draft of
>>>> NSAM 273 and Johnson's final version of NSAM 273 item by item.
>>
>>> You found it and Peter Dale Scott gets all the credit. Bummer. That
>>> must be rather disappointing to you but take heart. You don�t suffer
>>> the jeers Scott gets for his crap on this subject.
>>
>>> > It is in HTML so it will not reproduce here correctly.
>>
>>> It will not reproduce correctly anywhere because it is incorrect. It
>>> is rather laughable in fact if you know anything about the 34A ops.
>>
>> You haven't even seen it.
>
> Right. Because it hasn�t been reproduced correctly.
>
It has on a Web page.
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
> >>>>> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
> >>>>> Impossible I believe.
>
> >>>>> Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>
> >>>> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
> >>>> fromVietnamor was going to withdraw all troops fromVietnam. I said
> >>>> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
> >>>> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
>
>
> >> NSAM 263, q.v.
>
> > Then you will have to withdraw your use of “all” the troops and plug
> > in “the bulk” of troops. But of course you know this so why do you
> > insist on trying to slip “all” the troops by us? There is a big
> > difference you know.
>
> No, I don't.
Yes you do if you wish to maintain any semblance of credibility. NSAM
263 doesn’t use the word “all” and you know it. For you to claim it
does is ……………
> There is a difference between what Kennedy wanted to do and what he
> thought he could accomplish by 1964.
And this has squat to do with you incorrectly referencing NSAM 263.
> >>> and your continuing attempts to slide this “all” the troops by us are
> >>> again troubling.
>
> >>>>> and Bobby’s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
> >>>>> available on the net to Jack’s previous actions inVietnamand
> >>>>> elsewhere.
>
> >>>> Nonsense.
>
> >>> I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
> >>>Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
> >>> removing Diem as “nonsense”. I don’t think a sensible person would
> >>> consider Bobby’s oral interview and some of JFK’s words as nonsense.
> >>> So Marsh, it doesn’t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
> >>> with a simple “nonsense”.
>
> >> I don't dismiss those things as nonsense. I dismiss your revisionist
> >> propaganda as nonsense.
>
> > If you don’t dismiss the factors I’ve mentioned then where is the
> > revisionist? You got a mirror?
>
> YOU are the revisionist. Calling Kennedy a hawk. Claiming that he would
> not have gotten us out ofVietnam. Refusing to read the documents.
I am not the one misrepresenting what is said in NSAM 263. YOU are
which makes you the revisionist here Marsh. And “revisionist” is the
kindest word I can use here.
Most everyone not belonging to the Camelot Shiner Club considers JFK a
hawk so I’m in good company there. Unlike you I don’t consider hawk
to be a degrading word. I don’t know if JFK would have totally
withdrawn from Vietnam or not. Neither do you. And it seems I’ve
read enough to hand you your head every time you try to slip this
“all” the troops by us.
> >>>>> Your evidence that Johnson “immediately” reversed JFK’s policy is flat
> >>>>> out not true. That you continue to spread such propaganda is
> >>>>> troubling.
>
> >>>> I am the one who pointed out the differences between Kenendy's draft of
> >>>> NSAM 273 and Johnson's final version of NSAM 273 item by item.
>
> >>> You found it and Peter Dale Scott gets all the credit. Bummer. That
> >>> must be rather disappointing to you but take heart. You don’t suffer
> >>> the jeers Scott gets for his crap on this subject.
>
> >>> > It is in HTML so it will not reproduce here correctly.
>
> >>> It will not reproduce correctly anywhere because it is incorrect. It
> >>> is rather laughable in fact if you know anything about the 34A ops.
>
> >> You haven't even seen it.
>
> > Right. Because it hasn’t been reproduced correctly.
>
> It has on a Web page.
Please tell me where I can find this jewel of yours. It should
be…..interesting.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>>>>>>> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
>>>>>>> Impossible I believe.
>>
>>>>>>> Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>>
>>>>>> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
>>>>>> fromVietnamor was going to withdraw all troops fromVietnam. I said
>>>>>> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
>>>>>> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
>>
>>
>>>> NSAM 263, q.v.
>>
>>> Then you will have to withdraw your use of �all� the troops and plug
>>> in �the bulk� of troops. But of course you know this so why do you
>>> insist on trying to slip �all� the troops by us? There is a big
>>> difference you know.
>>
>> No, I don't.
>
> Yes you do if you wish to maintain any semblance of credibility. NSAM
> does is �����
>
I never said it used the word ALL.
I said that is what JFK wanted. NSAM is just one step towards that goal.
>> There is a difference between what Kennedy wanted to do and what he
>> thought he could accomplish by 1964.
>
> And this has squat to do with you incorrectly referencing NSAM 263.
>
>>>>> and your continuing attempts to slide this �all� the troops by us are
>>>>> again troubling.
>>
>>>>>>> and Bobby�s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
>>>>>>> available on the net to Jack�s previous actions inVietnamand
>>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>
>>>>> I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
>>>>> Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
>>>>> removing Diem as �nonsense�. I don�t think a sensible person would
>>>>> consider Bobby�s oral interview and some of JFK�s words as nonsense.
>>>>> So Marsh, it doesn�t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
>>>>> with a simple �nonsense�.
>>
>>>> I don't dismiss those things as nonsense. I dismiss your revisionist
>>>> propaganda as nonsense.
>>
>>> If you don�t dismiss the factors I�ve mentioned then where is the
>>> revisionist? You got a mirror?
>>
>> YOU are the revisionist. Calling Kennedy a hawk. Claiming that he would
>> not have gotten us out ofVietnam. Refusing to read the documents.
>
> I am not the one misrepresenting what is said in NSAM 263. YOU are
> which makes you the revisionist here Marsh. And �revisionist� is the
> kindest word I can use here.
>
> Most everyone not belonging to the Camelot Shiner Club considers JFK a
> hawk so I�m in good company there. Unlike you I don�t consider hawk
No sane person has ever claimed that JFK was a hawk.
> to be a degrading word. I don�t know if JFK would have totally
Yes, you do because YOU are a hawk and so you seek to call JFK the worst
thing you can think of which is that which you yourself are.
> withdrawn from Vietnam or not. Neither do you. And it seems I�ve
You don't even know what JFK was planning to do. I do.
> read enough to hand you your head every time you try to slip this
> �all� the troops by us.
>
>
>>>>>>> Your evidence that Johnson �immediately� reversed JFK�s policy is flat
>>>>>>> out not true. That you continue to spread such propaganda is
>>>>>>> troubling.
>>
>>>>>> I am the one who pointed out the differences between Kenendy's draft of
>>>>>> NSAM 273 and Johnson's final version of NSAM 273 item by item.
>>
>>>>> You found it and Peter Dale Scott gets all the credit. Bummer. That
>>>>> must be rather disappointing to you but take heart. You don�t suffer
>>>>> the jeers Scott gets for his crap on this subject.
>>
>>>>> > It is in HTML so it will not reproduce here correctly.
>>
>>>>> It will not reproduce correctly anywhere because it is incorrect. It
>>>>> is rather laughable in fact if you know anything about the 34A ops.
>>
>>>> You haven't even seen it.
>>
>>> Right. Because it hasn�t been reproduced correctly.
>>
>> It has on a Web page.
>
> Please tell me where I can find this jewel of yours. It should
> be�..interesting.
>
Yet again you prove that you haven't read the documents.
> Bill Clarke
>
claviger
> Yes, you do because YOU are a hawk and so you seek to call JFK the worst
> thing you can think of which is that which you yourself are.
JFK was the last Conservative Democrat to be elected President. If there
was a conspiracy and 'cui bono' is the answer then Liberals bumped off
President Kennedy.
Coondog
> >>>>>>> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
> >>>>>>> Impossible I believe.
>
> >>>>>>> Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>
> >>>>>> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
> >>>>>> fromVietnamor was going to withdraw all troops fromVietnam. I said
> >>>>>> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
> >>>>>> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
>
>
> >>>> NSAM 263, q.v.
>
> >>> Then you will have to withdraw your use of “all” the troops and plug
> >>> in “the bulk” of troops. But of course you know this so why do you
> >>> insist on trying to slip “all” the troops by us? There is a big
> >>> difference you know.
>
> >> No, I don't.
>
> > Yes you do if you wish to maintain any semblance of credibility. NSAM
> > does is ……………
>
> I never said it used the word ALL.
> I said that is what JFK wanted. NSAM is just one step towards that goal.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> There is a difference between what Kennedy wanted to do and what he
> >> thought he could accomplish by 1964.
>
> > And this has squat to do with you incorrectly referencing NSAM 263.
>
> >>>>> again troubling.
>
> >>>>>>> and Bobby’s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
> >>>>>>> available on the net to Jack’s previous actions inVietnamand
> >>>>>>> elsewhere.
>
> >>>>>> Nonsense.
>
> >>>>> I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
> >>>>>Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
> >>>>> consider Bobby’s oral interview and some of JFK’s words as nonsense.
> >>>>> So Marsh, it doesn’t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
> >>>>> with a simple “nonsense”.
>
> >>>> I don't dismiss those things as nonsense. I dismiss your revisionist
> >>>> propaganda as nonsense.
>
> >>> revisionist? You got a mirror?
>
> >> YOU are the revisionist. Calling Kennedy a hawk. Claiming that he would
> >> not have gotten us out ofVietnam. Refusing to read the documents.
>
> > I am not the one misrepresenting what is said in NSAM 263. YOU are
> > kindest word I can use here.
>
> > Most everyone not belonging to the Camelot Shiner Club considers JFK a
>
> No sane person has ever claimed that JFK was a hawk.
>
>
> Yes, you do because YOU are a hawk and so you seek to call JFK the worst
> thing you can think of which is that which you yourself are.
>
>
> You don't even know what JFK was planning to do. I do.
You state JFK was going to withdraw “all” our troops from Vietnam.
I ask for a reference and you give me NSAM 263.
I point out that NSAM 263 doesn’t use the word “all” and you do your
side-step shuffle that I so much enjoy.
So much for your reference!
And if you can predict what Kennedy was going to do in Vietnam how
about giving me the Lotto numbers for tomorrow night?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>>>>>>>>> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
>>>>>>>>> Impossible I believe.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>>
>>>>>>>> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
>>>>>>>> fromVietnamor was going to withdraw all troops fromVietnam. I said
>>>>>>>> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
>>>>>>>> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
>>
>>
>>>>>> NSAM 263, q.v.
>>
>>>>> Then you will have to withdraw your use of �all� the troops and plug
>>>>> in �the bulk� of troops. But of course you know this so why do you
>>>>> insist on trying to slip �all� the troops by us? There is a big
>>>>> difference you know.
>>
>>>> No, I don't.
>>
>>> Yes you do if you wish to maintain any semblance of credibility. NSAM
>>> does is �����
>>
>> I said that is what JFK wanted. NSAM is just one step towards that goal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> There is a difference between what Kennedy wanted to do and what he
>>>> thought he could accomplish by 1964.
>>
>>> And this has squat to do with you incorrectly referencing NSAM 263.
>>
>>>>>>> again troubling.
>>
>>>>>>>>> and Bobby�s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
>>>>>>>>> available on the net to Jack�s previous actions inVietnamand
>>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>
>>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>
>>>>>>> I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
>>>>>>> Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
>>>>>>> consider Bobby�s oral interview and some of JFK�s words as nonsense.
>>>>>>> So Marsh, it doesn�t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
>>>>>>> with a simple �nonsense�.
>>
>>>>>> I don't dismiss those things as nonsense. I dismiss your revisionist
>>>>>> propaganda as nonsense.
>>
>>>>> revisionist? You got a mirror?
>>
>>>> YOU are the revisionist. Calling Kennedy a hawk. Claiming that he would
>>>> not have gotten us out ofVietnam. Refusing to read the documents.
>>
>>> I am not the one misrepresenting what is said in NSAM 263. YOU are
>>> kindest word I can use here.
>>
>>> Most everyone not belonging to the Camelot Shiner Club considers JFK a
>>
>> No sane person has ever claimed that JFK was a hawk.
>>
>>
>> Yes, you do because YOU are a hawk and so you seek to call JFK the worst
>> thing you can think of which is that which you yourself are.
>>
>>
>> You don't even know what JFK was planning to do. I do.
>
>
No, I didn't. You have an agenda here to always misrepresent what I
said. I said that JFK WANTED to withdraw all our troops and he had a
plan to start putting that into effect.
> I ask for a reference and you give me NSAM 263.
>
That was the plan to begin withdrawing the troops.
> I point out that NSAM 263 doesn�t use the word �all� and you do your
> side-step shuffle that I so much enjoy.
>
I didn't say "all" is in NSAM 263.
Coondog
> >>>>>>>>> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
> >>>>>>>>> Impossible I believe.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>
> >>>>>>>> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
> >>>>>>>> fromVietnamor was going to withdraw all troops fromVietnam. I said
> >>>>>>>> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
> >>>>>>>> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
>
>
> >>>>>> NSAM 263, q.v.
>
> >>>>> Then you will have to withdraw your use of “all” the troops and plug
> >>>>> in “the bulk” of troops. But of course you know this so why do you
> >>>>> insist on trying to slip “all” the troops by us? There is a big
> >>>>> difference you know.
>
> >>>> No, I don't.
>
> >>> Yes you do if you wish to maintain any semblance of credibility. NSAM
> >>> does is ……………
>
> >> I never said it used the word ALL.
> >> I said that is what JFK wanted. NSAM is just one step towards that goal.
>
> >>>> There is a difference between what Kennedy wanted to do and what he
> >>>> thought he could accomplish by 1964.
>
> >>> And this has squat to do with you incorrectly referencing NSAM 263.
>
> >>>>>>> again troubling.
>
> >>>>>>>>> and Bobby’s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
> >>>>>>>>> available on the net to Jack’s previous actions inVietnamand
> >>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
>
> >>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>
> >>>>>>> I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
> >>>>>>>Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
> >>>>>>> consider Bobby’s oral interview and some of JFK’s words as nonsense.
> >>>>>>> So Marsh, it doesn’t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
> >>>>>>> with a simple “nonsense”.
>
> >>>>>> I don't dismiss those things as nonsense. I dismiss your revisionist
> >>>>>> propaganda as nonsense.
>
> >>>>> revisionist? You got a mirror?
>
> >>>> YOU are the revisionist. Calling Kennedy a hawk. Claiming that he would
> >>>> not have gotten us out ofVietnam. Refusing to read the documents.
>
> >>> I am not the one misrepresenting what is said in NSAM 263. YOU are
> >>> kindest word I can use here.
>
> >>> Most everyone not belonging to the Camelot Shiner Club considers JFK a
>
> >> No sane person has ever claimed that JFK was a hawk.
>
>
> >> Yes, you do because YOU are a hawk and so you seek to call JFK the worst
> >> thing you can think of which is that which you yourself are.
>
>
> >> You don't even know what JFK was planning to do. I do.
>
>
> No, I didn't. You have an agenda here to always misrepresent what I
> said. I said that JFK WANTED to withdraw all our troops and he had a
> plan to start putting that into effect.
>
> > I ask for a reference and you give me NSAM 263.
>
> That was the plan to begin withdrawing the troops.
>
NSAM 263 was a plan to withdraw “the bulk” of our troops. That is not
the same as withdrawing “all” the troops. So where is your evidence
of plans to withdraw “all” the troops and its implementation?
Keep on dancing Marsh, I love it.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>>>>>>>>>>> start now since this will be a very difficult assignment for you.
>>>>>>>>>>> Impossible I believe.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vietnamis skimpy at best. It is countered by much evidence from Jack
>>
>>>>>>>>>> First learn English. I did not say that Kennedy did withdraw all troops
>>>>>>>>>> fromVietnamor was going to withdraw all troops fromVietnam. I said
>>>>>>>>>> that he WANTED to withdraw all troops fromVietnamand implemented plans
>>>>>>>>>> to withdraw all troops fromVietnam.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> NSAM 263, q.v.
>>
>>>>>>> Then you will have to withdraw your use of �all� the troops and plug
>>>>>>> in �the bulk� of troops. But of course you know this so why do you
>>>>>>> insist on trying to slip �all� the troops by us? There is a big
>>>>>>> difference you know.
>>
>>>>>> No, I don't.
>>
>>>>> Yes you do if you wish to maintain any semblance of credibility. NSAM
>>>>> does is �����
>>
>>>> I said that is what JFK wanted. NSAM is just one step towards that goal.
>>
>>>>>> There is a difference between what Kennedy wanted to do and what he
>>>>>> thought he could accomplish by 1964.
>>
>>>>> And this has squat to do with you incorrectly referencing NSAM 263.
>>
>>>>>>>>> again troubling.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and Bobby�s own words to the written NSAM 263 and other documents
>>>>>>>>>>> available on the net to Jack�s previous actions inVietnamand
>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I doubt anyone capable of logic would consider adding 16,000 men to
>>>>>>>>> Vietnam, fighter and bomber planes bombing SVN villages, M113s, and
>>>>>>>>> consider Bobby�s oral interview and some of JFK�s words as nonsense.
>>>>>>>>> So Marsh, it doesn�t count for much when you attempt to dismiss them
>>>>>>>>> with a simple �nonsense�.
>>
>>>>>>>> I don't dismiss those things as nonsense. I dismiss your revisionist
>>>>>>>> propaganda as nonsense.
>>
>>>>>>> revisionist? You got a mirror?
>>
>>>>>> YOU are the revisionist. Calling Kennedy a hawk. Claiming that he would
>>>>>> not have gotten us out ofVietnam. Refusing to read the documents.
>>
>>>>> I am not the one misrepresenting what is said in NSAM 263. YOU are
>>>>> kindest word I can use here.
>>
>>>>> Most everyone not belonging to the Camelot Shiner Club considers JFK a
>>
>>>> No sane person has ever claimed that JFK was a hawk.
>>
>>
>>>> Yes, you do because YOU are a hawk and so you seek to call JFK the worst
>>>> thing you can think of which is that which you yourself are.
>>
>>
>>>> You don't even know what JFK was planning to do. I do.
>>
>>
>> No, I didn't. You have an agenda here to always misrepresent what I
>> said. I said that JFK WANTED to withdraw all our troops and he had a
>> plan to start putting that into effect.
>>
>>> I ask for a reference and you give me NSAM 263.
>>
>> That was the plan to begin withdrawing the troops.
>>
>
My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
> the same as withdrawing �all� the troops. So where is your evidence
You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
> of plans to withdraw �all� the troops and its implementation?
> Keep on dancing Marsh, I love it.
> Bill Clarke
>
Keep up your misrepresentations and bullying. Your drinking buddies down
at the bar are very impressed.
OCTOBER 11,1963
NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263
TO:
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
SUBJECT: South Vietnam
At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the
recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and
General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section
I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be
made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military
personnel by the end of 1963.
After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the
President approved the instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set
forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.
McGeorge Bundy
Copy furnished:
Director of Central Intelligence
Administrator, Agency for International Development
Coondog
> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>
>
> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>
Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
Now if NSAM 263 isn’t the plan to withdraw “all” our troops I need to
see the implemented plan that does say “all”. You don’t have it so
you make it up again.
Bill Clarke
Section I B (1-3) from NSAM 263 proper which was approved by JFK.
B. Recommendations.
We recommend that:
1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes
necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and
Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the
Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the
need for such changes as:
a. A further shift of military emphasis and strength to the
Delta (IV Corps).
b. An increase in the military tempo in all corps areas, so
that all combat troops are in the field an average of 20 days out of
30 and static missions are ended.
c. Emphasis on "clear and hold operations" instead of terrain
sweeps which have little permanent value.
d. The expansion of personnel in combat units to full
authorized strength.
e. The training and arming of hamlet militia to an accelerated
rate, especially in the Delta.
f. A consolidation of the strategic hamlet program, especially
in the Delta, and action to insure that future strategic hamlets are
not built until they can be protected, and until civic action programs
can be introduced.
2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that
essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be
carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
[withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time”. Emphasis mine so
Marsh can find this]
3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
impairment of the war effort.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>>
>>
>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>>
>
> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>
More false charges. That's the only way you can argue.
> Now if NSAM 263 isn�t the plan to withdraw �all� our troops I need to
> see the implemented plan that does say �all�. You don�t have it so
> you make it up again.
>
I did not say the "all" was in writing. I specifically said it was in
what JFK said and thought.
And again I challenged you and proved you wrong. You said "bulk" is the
word used in NSAM 263. I just quoted it and the word "bulk" does not
appear. So I'll give you another chance. Find ANY official document
where the word "bulk" appears. You lose again and again and again.
> [withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time�. Emphasis mine so
Coondog
> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
> >>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
> >> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
> >> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>
>
> >> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
> >> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>
> > Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
> > The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>
> More false charges. That's the only way you can argue.
>
> > see the implemented plan that does say “all”. You don’t have it so
> > Marsh can find this]
> > 3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
> > Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
> > should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
> > withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
> > should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
> > program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can you not read? I just posted the part of NSAM 263 that used the word,
“bulk of troops” but you pretend not to see it. No wonder you think I
lost the debate, you simply ignore the evidence that proves you wrong.
Very weak.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 20, 2:11 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
>>>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>>
>>
>>>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
>>>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>>
>>> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
>>> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>>
>> More false charges. That's the only way you can argue.
>>
>>> Marsh can find this]
>>> 3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
>>> Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
>>> should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
>>> withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
>>> should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
>>> program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
>>> impairment of the war effort.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Can you not read? I just posted the part of NSAM 263 that used the word,
> lost the debate, you simply ignore the evidence that proves you wrong.
>
> Very weak.
>
You misrepresent. What you quoted was NOT in NSAM 263. Here is NSAM 263:
OCTOBER 11,1963
NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263
TO:
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
SUBJECT: South Vietnam
At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the
recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and
General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section
I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be
made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military
personnel by the end of 1963.
After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the
President approved the instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set
forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.
McGeorge Bundy
Copy furnished:
Director of Central Intelligence
Administrator, Agency for International Development
Again, show me where you find the word "bulk" in THIS text.
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
> On 11/21/2009 12:07 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 2:11 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
> >>>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
> >>>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>
>
> >>>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
> >>>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>
> >>> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
> >>> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>
> >> More false charges. That's the only way you can argue.
>
> >>> see the implemented plan that does say “all”. You don’t have it so
> >>> Marsh can find this]
> >>> 3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
> >>> Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
> >>> should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
> >>> withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
> >>> should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
> >>> program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
> >>> impairment of the war effort.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Can you not read? I just posted the part of NSAM 263 that used the word,
Another nice try Marsh, this one even a bit sillier than some of your
others.
“The President approved the military recommendations contained in
Section
I B (1-3) of the report”. You know that when JFK approved this it
became part of this executive order.
If you can do no better than that you might consider retiring.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 21, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2009 12:07 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 20, 2:11 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
>>>>>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>>
>>
>>>>>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
>>>>>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>>
>>>>> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
>>>>> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>>
>>>> More false charges. That's the only way you can argue.
>>
>>>>> Marsh can find this]
>>>>> 3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
>>>>> Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
>>>>> should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
>>>>> withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
>>>>> should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
>>>>> program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
>>>>> impairment of the war effort.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Can you not read? I just posted the part of NSAM 263 that used the word,
You started this by falsely saying that I claimed he specified "all" in
NSAM 263. So, I asked you to prove the word "bulk" is in NSAM 263. It is
not. You flunked.
> �The President approved the military recommendations contained in
> Section
> I B (1-3) of the report�. You know that when JFK approved this it
Sandy McCroskey
> On 11/22/2009 9:25 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2009 12:07 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 20, 2:11 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
> >>>>>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>
>
> >>>>>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
> >>>>>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>
> >>>>> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
> >>>>> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>
> >>>> More false charges. That's the only way you can argue.
>
> >>>>> see the implemented plan that does say “all”. You don’t have it so
> >>>>> Marsh can find this]
> >>>>> 3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
> >>>>> Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
> >>>>> should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
> >>>>> withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
> >>>>> should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
> >>>>> program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
> >>>>> impairment of the war effort.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Can you not read? I just posted the part of NSAM 263 that used the word,
> > Section
> > I B (1-3) of the report”. You know that when JFK approved this it
> > became part of this executive order.
>
> > If you can do no better than that you might consider retiring.
>
> > Bill Clarke
Actually, you said:
« You said "bulk" is the word used in NSAM 263. I just quoted it and
the word "bulk" does not
appear. So I'll give you another chance. Find ANY official document
where the word "bulk" appears.»
Clarke did even better than that.
/sandy
Coondog
> On 11/22/2009 9:25 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2009 12:07 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 20, 2:11 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
> >>>>>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>
>
> >>>>>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
> >>>>>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>
> >>>>> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
> >>>>> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>
> >>>> More false charges. That's the only way you can argue.
>
> >>>>> see the implemented plan that does say “all”. You don’t have it so
> >>>>> Marsh can find this]
> >>>>> 3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
> >>>>> Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
> >>>>> should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
> >>>>> withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
> >>>>> should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
> >>>>> program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
> >>>>> impairment of the war effort.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Can you not read? I just posted the part of NSAM 263 that used the word,
No, I asked to see this order implementing the withdrawal of all U.S.
troops from Vietnam. You cited NSAM 263 because you don’t have
anything else. I pointed out that NSAM 263 didn’t say all but instead
used the words, “bulk of troops”.
So now you claim that Section I B (1-3) of the report didn’t become
part of NSAM 263 when the president approved it in this NSAM.
You’re the flunk out here.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 22, 6:55 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/22/2009 9:25 AM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2009 12:07 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 20, 2:11 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
>>>>>>>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
>>>>>>>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>>
>>>>>>> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
>>>>>>> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>>
>>>>>> More false charges. That's the only way you can argue.
>>
>>>>>>> see the implemented plan that does say ?all?. You don?t have it so
>>>>>>> Marsh can find this]
>>>>>>> 3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
>>>>>>> Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
>>>>>>> should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
>>>>>>> withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
>>>>>>> should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
>>>>>>> program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
>>>>>>> impairment of the war effort.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> Can you not read? I just posted the part of NSAM 263 that used the word,
No. I don't care what you asked to see. I am not obligated to prove
something that I did not claim. I never said the word ALL was in the
documents available.
> anything else. I pointed out that NSAM 263 didn?t say all but instead
> used the words, ?bulk of troops?.
>
And you were wrong. NSAM 263 does not use the word "bulk." Another
document does.
> So now you claim that Section I B (1-3) of the report didn?t become
> part of NSAM 263 when the president approved it in this NSAM.
>
No, I did not. But if you are free to bring other sources into this,
then I am also.
> You?re the flunk out here.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
>
> No. I don't care what you asked to see. I am not obligated to prove
> something that I did not claim. I never said the word ALL was in the
> documents available.
>
> > anything else. I pointed out that NSAM 263 didn?t say all but instead
> > used the words, ?bulk of troops?.
>
> And you were wrong. NSAM 263 does not use the word "bulk." Another
> document does.
>
> > So now you claim that Section I B (1-3) of the report didn?t become
> > part of NSAM 263 when the president approved it in this NSAM.
>
> No, I did not. But if you are free to bring other sources into this,
> then I am also.
>
>
To quote bigdog; “I suppose you could have made a more absurd
statement but it is hard to
imagine how”.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>>
>>
>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>>
>
> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>
> you make it up again.
>
Here is a Christmas present for you.
You said you wanted to see the memo which uses the word "all" since you
were not able to find it. It is quoted in the article "Exit Strategy" by
James K. Galbraith:
The May conference thus fills in the primary record: plans were under
development for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. On
October 2, 1963, as we have previously seen, President Kennedy made
clear his determination to implement those plans�to withdraw 1,000
troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end
of 1965. There followed, on October 4, a memorandum titled �South
Vietnam Actions� from General Maxwell Taylor to his fellow Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:
b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces
will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all
essential functions visualized to be required for the projected
operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military
units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the
end of calendar year 1965. All planning will be directed towards
preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance
units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. (Emphasis added.)
Now chew on that!
> [withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time�. Emphasis mine so
Coondog
> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
> >>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
> >> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
> >> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>
>
> >> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
> >> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>
> > Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
> > The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>
> > see the implemented plan that does say “all”. You don’t have it so
> > you make it up again.
>
> Here is a Christmas present for you.
> You said you wanted to see the memo which uses the word "all" since you
> were not able to find it. It is quoted in the article "Exit Strategy" by
> James K. Galbraith:
>
> The May conference thus fills in the primary record: plans were under
> October 2, 1963, as we have previously seen, President Kennedy made
> troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end
> of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:
>
> b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces
> will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all
> essential functions visualized to be required for the projected
> operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military
> units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the
> end of calendar year 1965. All planning will be directed towards
> preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance
> units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. (Emphasis added.)
>
> Now chew on that!
Chew on this, Marsh. I believe the discussion was about what JFK had
ordered, not Taylor. Merry Christmas. Or merry holiday as you
probably prefer.
Bill Clarke
. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
Taylor: I will just say this, that we talked to 174 officers,
Vietnamese and U.S., and in the case of the U.S. (officers) I always
asked the question, “When can you finish this job in the sense that
you will reduce this insurgency to little more than sporadic
incidents.” Inevitably, except for the Delta, they would say
“64 would be ample time.” I realize that’s not necessarily…..I assume
there’s no major new factors entering [unclear], I realize that----
JFK: Well, let’s say it anyway. Then ’65 if it doesn’t work out
{unclear] we’ll get a new date.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 5, 7:54 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
>>>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>>
>>
>>>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
>>>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>>
>>> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
>>> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>>
>>> you make it up again.
>>
>> Here is a Christmas present for you.
>> You said you wanted to see the memo which uses the word "all" since you
>> were not able to find it. It is quoted in the article "Exit Strategy" by
>> James K. Galbraith:
>>
>> The May conference thus fills in the primary record: plans were under
>> development for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces fromVietnam. On
>> October 2, 1963, as we have previously seen, President Kennedy made
>> troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end
>> of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:
>>
>> b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces
>> will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all
>> essential functions visualized to be required for the projected
>> operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military
>> units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the
>> end of calendar year 1965. All planning will be directed towards
>> preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance
>> units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. (Emphasis added.)
>>
>> Now chew on that!
>
> Chew on this, Marsh. I believe the discussion was about what JFK had
> ordered, not Taylor. Merry Christmas. Or merry holiday as you
> probably prefer.
> Bill Clarke
>
I believe you asked to see the memo where the word "all" is used.
You claimed I never did that even though I had cited Galbraith's article
before. So, I provided that memo. Then you deny it.
I said nothing about JFK writing a memo using the word "all."
I said that he used the word "all" in his private conversations. Maybe
some day those tapes will be released.
Happy Kwanzaa.
> . http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
>
> Taylor: I will just say this, that we talked to 174 officers,
> Vietnamese and U.S., and in the case of the U.S. (officers) I always
> asked the question, �When can you finish this job in the sense that
> you will reduce this insurgency to little more than sporadic
> incidents.� Inevitably, except for the Delta, they would say
> �64 would be ample time.� I realize that�s not necessarily�..I assume
> there�s no major new factors entering [unclear], I realize that----
>
> JFK: Well, let�s say it anyway. Then �65 if it doesn�t work out
> {unclear] we�ll get a new date.
>
Coondog
> On 12/6/2009 10:30 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 7:54 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
> >>>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
> >>>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>
>
> >>>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
> >>>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>
> >>> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
> >>> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>
> >>> see the implemented plan that does say “all”. You don’t have it so
> >>> you make it up again.
>
> >> Here is a Christmas present for you.
> >> You said you wanted to see the memo which uses the word "all" since you
> >> were not able to find it. It is quoted in the article "Exit Strategy" by
> >> James K. Galbraith:
>
> >> The May conference thus fills in the primary record: plans were under
> >> development for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces fromVietnam. On
> >> October 2, 1963, as we have previously seen, President Kennedy made
> >> troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end
> >> of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:
>
> >> b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces
> >> will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all
> >> essential functions visualized to be required for the projected
> >> operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military
> >> units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the
> >> end of calendar year 1965. All planning will be directed towards
> >> preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance
> >> units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. (Emphasis added.)
>
> >> Now chew on that!
>
> > Chew on this, Marsh. I believe the discussion was about what JFK had
> > ordered, not Taylor. Merry Christmas. Or merry holiday as you
> > probably prefer.
> > Bill Clarke
>
> I believe you asked to see the memo where the word "all" is used.
> You claimed I never did that even though I had cited Galbraith's article
> before. So, I provided that memo. Then you deny it.
Your claim is that JFK was going to withdraw “all” American troops
from Vietnam. I asked for hard evidence but you have provided nothing
that JFK signed indicating he had decided on this course of action.
And then we have Bobby’s oral history that claims this decision hadn’t
been reached. I’ll take Bobby’s word over yours.
Well Marsh, I have a hard time buying this Camelot crap from the
Camelot shiners, Galbraith being the castle historian for Kennedy.
And I believe this is the first time you have posted this hum dinger
by Galbraith.
> I said nothing about JFK writing a memo using the word "all."
> I said that he used the word "all" in his private conversations. Maybe
> some day those tapes will be released.
> Happy Kwanzaa.
Let us all hold our breath waiting for these alleged “tapes” to be
released.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 6, 8:58 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/6/2009 10:30 AM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 5, 7:54 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2009 10:46 AM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/19/2009 8:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2009 9:44 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> My turn to turn your trick back on you. Show me in NSAM 263 where the
>>>>>> word "bulk" was used. You are making up crap again, Mr. Denier.
>>
>>
>>>>>> You keep repeating the false charge in hopes that it will stick.
>>>>>> I never said NSAM 263 said "all."
>>
>>>>> Looks like you miss your turn. I bet that happens a lot. Check #2.
>>>>> The only one making up stuff about this subject is you.
>>
>>>>> see the implemented plan that does say ?all?. You don?t have it so
>>>>> you make it up again.
>>
>>>> Here is a Christmas present for you.
>>>> You said you wanted to see the memo which uses the word "all" since you
>>>> were not able to find it. It is quoted in the article "Exit Strategy" by
>>>> James K. Galbraith:
>>
>>>> The May conference thus fills in the primary record: plans were under
>>>> development for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces fromVietnam. On
>>>> October 2, 1963, as we have previously seen, President Kennedy made
>>>> troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end
>>>> of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:
>>
>>>> b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces
>>>> will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all
>>>> essential functions visualized to be required for the projected
>>>> operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military
>>>> units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the
>>>> end of calendar year 1965. All planning will be directed towards
>>>> preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance
>>>> units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. (Emphasis added.)
>>
>>>> Now chew on that!
>>
>>> Chew on this, Marsh. I believe the discussion was about what JFK had
>>> ordered, not Taylor. Merry Christmas. Or merry holiday as you
>>> probably prefer.
>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> I believe you asked to see the memo where the word "all" is used.
>> You claimed I never did that even though I had cited Galbraith's article
>> before. So, I provided that memo. Then you deny it.
>
No, that is not my claim. My claim is that JFK wanted to withdraw all US
troops from Vietnam. And he laid out the plans for how to do that.
> from Vietnam. I asked for hard evidence but you have provided nothing
> that JFK signed indicating he had decided on this course of action.
No. You asked me to provide the memo which uses the word "all." I did.
So, you deny that I did and change the claim because I already met your
challenge.
> And then we have Bobby?s oral history that claims this decision hadn?t
> been reached. I?ll take Bobby?s word over yours.
>
You can't read the document or you can't understand it?
> Well Marsh, I have a hard time buying this Camelot crap from the
> Camelot shiners, Galbraith being the castle historian for Kennedy.
> And I believe this is the first time you have posted this hum dinger
> by Galbraith.
>
Of course you'll say crap like this. The document did not come from
Galbraith. It came from Maxwell Taylor. Yes, you can call him a Camelot
shiner if you wish. But you asked to see the memo and I provided it. So
now you squeal like a stuck pig.
>
>> I said nothing about JFK writing a memo using the word "all."
>> I said that he used the word "all" in his private conversations. Maybe
>> some day those tapes will be released.
>> Happy Kwanzaa.
>
> Let us all hold our breath waiting for these alleged ?tapes? to be
> released.
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
No doubt JFK would have liked to not be bothered with Vietnam. The
same can be said for LBJ.
> And he laid out the plans for how to do that.
He laid out plans on how to withdraw the bulk of the troops. You have
no plans of JFK to withdraw all the troops.
> > fromVietnam. I asked for hard evidence but you have provided nothing
> > that JFK signed indicating he had decided on this course of action.
>
> No. You asked me to provide the memo which uses the word "all." I did.
> So, you deny that I did and change the claim because I already met your
> challenge.
I asked for JFK’s memo or order or whatever. You still don’t have
one.
> > And then we have Bobby?s oral history that claims this decision hadn?t
> > been reached. I?ll take Bobby?s word over yours.
>
> You can't read the document or you can't understand it?
I understand it fine. I suppose you think you are the only one
capable of understanding a clear statement. Typical far left wing
hypocrisy.
> > Well Marsh, I have a hard time buying this Camelot crap from the
> > Camelot shiners, Galbraith being the castle historian for Kennedy.
> > And I believe this is the first time you have posted this hum dinger
> > by Galbraith.
>
> Of course you'll say crap like this. The document did not come from
> Galbraith. It came from Maxwell Taylor. Yes, you can call him a Camelot
> shiner if you wish. But you asked to see the memo and I provided it. So
> now you squeal like a stuck pig.
You can’t even differentiate between the squeal of a pig and the
hearty laughter of me loving your “I didn’t say that….I said” crap as
you do your side step shuffle. I love it.
Keep on hunting, Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> one.
>
No, you didn't. JFK did not have to write memos. He approved plans.
You lost so you try to change the claim.
>>> And then we have Bobby?s oral history that claims this decision hadn?t
>>> been reached. I?ll take Bobby?s word over yours.
>>
>> You can't read the document or you can't understand it?
>
> I understand it fine. I suppose you think you are the only one
> capable of understanding a clear statement. Typical far left wing
> hypocrisy.
>
Well it may be typical far left wing rhetoric, but it's true.
>>> Well Marsh, I have a hard time buying this Camelot crap from the
>>> Camelot shiners, Galbraith being the castle historian for Kennedy.
>>> And I believe this is the first time you have posted this hum dinger
>>> by Galbraith.
>>
>> Of course you'll say crap like this. The document did not come from
>> Galbraith. It came from Maxwell Taylor. Yes, you can call him a Camelot
>> shiner if you wish. But you asked to see the memo and I provided it. So
>> now you squeal like a stuck pig.
>
> You can�t even differentiate between the squeal of a pig and the
> hearty laughter of me loving your �I didn�t say that�.I said� crap as
Coondog
> > same can be said for LBJ.
>
> >> And he laid out the plans for how to do that.
>
> > He laid out plans on how to withdraw the bulk of the troops. You have
> > no plans of JFK to withdraw all the troops.
>
> >>> fromVietnam. I asked for hard evidence but you have provided nothing
> >>> that JFK signed indicating he had decided on this course of action.
>
> >> No. You asked me to provide the memo which uses the word "all." I did.
> >> So, you deny that I did and change the claim because I already met your
> >> challenge.
>
> > one.
>
> No, you didn't. JFK did not have to write memos. He approved plans.
> You lost so you try to change the claim.
The subject has always been what JFK planned. Never before have we
discussed what Taylor ordered or what Galbraith claimed. Those two would
be a different discussion. Your chant has always been about what JFK
planned, not Taylor or Galbraith. If you wish to change the subject then
say so.
> >>> And then we have Bobby?s oral history that claims this decision hadn?t
> >>> been reached. I?ll take Bobby?s word over yours.
>
> >> You can't read the document or you can't understand it?
>
> > I understand it fine. I suppose you think you are the only one
> > capable of understanding a clear statement. Typical far left wing
> > hypocrisy.
>
> Well it may be typical far left wing rhetoric, but it's true.
You think it true that you are the only one capable of understanding
Bobby’s written word? Typical far left self-righteousness!
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>>> one.
>>
>> No, you didn't. JFK did not have to write memos. He approved plans.
>> You lost so you try to change the claim.
>
> The subject has always been what JFK planned. Never before have we
Nice try. JFK approved what his aides planned. He sent Maxwell Taylor to
Vietnam to assess the situation and present recommendations on what to do.
Taylor reported back and JFK approved his recommendations. As far as I
know JFK never went to Vietnam himself to gather intelligence. I think all
his intelligence work was inside the US.
> discussed what Taylor ordered or what Galbraith claimed. Those two would
> be a different discussion. Your chant has always been about what JFK
> planned, not Taylor or Galbraith. If you wish to change the subject then
> say so.
>
>>>>> And then we have Bobby?s oral history that claims this decision hadn?t
>>>>> been reached. I?ll take Bobby?s word over yours.
>>
>>>> You can't read the document or you can't understand it?
>>
>>> I understand it fine. I suppose you think you are the only one
>>> capable of understanding a clear statement. Typical far left wing
>>> hypocrisy.
>>
>> Well it may be typical far left wing rhetoric, but it's true.
>
> You think it true that you are the only one capable of understanding
> Bobby?s written word? Typical far left self-righteousness!
>
Maybe because I have read the actual documents and many more at the
Kennedy Library. I seriously doubt that you have ever been to the Kennedy
Library. It is sometimes fun to see the original drafts of these documents
to see how they changed the wording for the final version.
> Bill Clarke
>