"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- Text Excerpts From The 1986 Television Docu-Trial
David Von Pein
On November 21st and 22nd, 1986, the cable television network
"Showtime" aired a two-part, five-and-a-half-hour special program --
"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- which represented a first-of-its-kind
JFK assassination "mock" courtroom trial, with the accused assassin of
President John F. Kennedy as the defendant. (There was no actor used
to play the now-deceased Oswald, however; the defendant's chair was
left empty during the trial.)
A real sworn-in jury of twelve Dallas citizens was flown to London,
England, to sit in judgment of the man whom the Warren Commission (22
years earlier) had deemed guilty of killing President Kennedy and
Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.
An actual judge was also used in the 1986 "Docu-Trial", and two of the
finest lawyers in America were employed to serve as the attorneys in
this important landmark case. Highly-successful defense lawyer Gerry
Spence of Wyoming acted in defense of his "client" (Oswald); and
Spence had not lost a case in front of a jury in the last 17 years
leading up to the LHO mock trial.
Former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi served as
the lawyer for the prosecution (representing the "U.S. Government").
Bugliosi had a nearly-perfect 105-1 record in felony jury trials while
employed with the L.A. DA's office.
Many of the actual witnesses surrounding the assassination of JFK were
called to the witness stand during the trial, as well as police
officers, photo and medical experts, and members of the HSCA panel who
investigated the case in the late 1970s.
The 21-hour Docu-Trial (which was edited down to 5.5 hours for the
original "Showtime" TV broadcast in November) took place in London
during three days in July 1986 (July 23-24-25). The following day (on
July 26, 1986), the 12-member jury, after deliberating for six hours,
returned to the courtroom with a verdict of "Guilty" against Lee
Harvey Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy.
The '86 mock trial prompted Bugliosi to spend the next 20 years of his
life writing an all-encompassing book on the JFK assassination, titled
"Reclaiming History" (published in May 2007). Lots of information
relating to Vincent's huge book can be found at the links below:
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d0e813277d5baa0
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7f8im4pic0&v=1
Below, I've typed out some verbatim excerpts from the fascinating
court proceeding known as "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD". These
excerpts provide a pretty good example of the massive amount of
evidence that Mr. Bugliosi had to work with as he successfully
attempted, albeit in mock-trial form only, to convict Lee Oswald for
the two murders Oswald so obviously committed on 11/22/63 in Dallas,
Texas......
==============================================
VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S OPENING STATEMENT TO THE JURY:
"Mr. Spence, Judge Bunton, ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- I don't
have to tell you that you have been called upon to sit on the jury of
perhaps the most important murder case ever tried in this country.
In any political assassination, ladies and gentlemen, almost as
inevitably as death and taxes, there is always a chorus of critics
screaming the word 'conspiracy' before the fatal bullet has even come
to rest.
The evidence that will be presented at this trial will show that there
is no substance to the persistent charge by these critics that Lee
Harvey Oswald was just a patsy, set up to take the fall by some
elaborate conspiracy.
We expect the evidence -- ALL of the evidence -- to show that Lee
Harvey Oswald, acting alone, was responsible for the assassination of
John F. Kennedy.
We expect the defense -- in an anemic effort to deflect suspicion away
from Mr. Oswald -- to offer theory, speculation, conjecture, but not
one speck of credible evidence that any other person or group murdered
President Kennedy and framed Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder that
they committed. As this trial unfolds, you will see how utterly
preposterous the allegation of a frame-up is.
The evidence at this trial will produce a vivid, and a rather stark,
psychological portrait of Oswald as a deeply-disturbed and maladjusted
man. It will show him to be a fanatical Marxist, who restlessly
searched for a country to embody the Marxist dream.
The evidence will show that on the morning of the assassination --
November the 22nd, 1963 -- Oswald carried his weapon, a 6.5-millimeter
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, into his place of employment at the Texas
School Book Depository Building. The Presidential motorcade was
scheduled to pass right in front of that building that very noon.
At 12:30 PM, as the President's limousine drove slowly by, three shots
rang out from the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of that
building....one of which penetrated President Kennedy's upper-right
back, exited the front of his throat....another entering the right-
rear of his head, and exiting and shattering the right-frontal area of
his head.
As the Presidential limousine screeched away to Parkland Memorial
Hospital, where he was pronounced dead -- the President, his life
blood gushing from his body, lay mortally wounded in his wife
Jacqueline's lap.
Within minutes of the assassination, Oswald's rifle was found on the
same sixth floor -- the floor from which Oswald had brutally cut down,
at the age of only forty-six, the thirty-fifth President of these
United States.
The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy.
The evidence will further show that just forty-five minutes after the
assassination, Oswald, in frantic flight from what he had just done,
shot and killed Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit....running from the
scene of the murder to a theater, where he was arrested and subdued
after drawing his revolver on one of the arresting officers.
Much more evidence, ladies and gentlemen, much more, will be produced
at this trial irresistibly connecting Oswald and no other person or
group to the assassination.
I have every confidence that after you folks fairly and objectively
evaluate all of the evidence in this case you will find that Lee
Harvey Oswald, and Lee Harvey Oswald alone, was responsible for the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen."
==============================================
SELECTED WITNESS TESTIMONY:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was
carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER (Oswald's co-worker; he drove LHO to work on
11/22/63 and watched Lee carry a paper package into the Book
Depository that morning) -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to
his body."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
body....on the right side?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
think you've said that in the past."
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb8cfb984a9b889c
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So you heard a total of three shots?"
HAROLD NORMAN (assassination witness who watched the motorcade from
the 5th Floor of the Depository; Norman was located directly below the
Sniper's-Nest window during the shooting) -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired
directly above you?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound
of the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming
from directly above you?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I
call them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the
rifle being pushed back and forward."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Cartridges."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Three."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of
the cartridge casings, and their falling to the floor something that
you're going to remember for the rest of your life?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "One more question....at any time on the morning of
the assassination did you see any stranger or strangers in the Book
Depository Building?"
MR. NORMAN -- "No sir."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa26e26f62263eeb
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Boone, did the FBI ever show you a rifle which
they said was the rifle found on the sixth floor?"
EUGENE BOONE (Dallas County Deputy Sheriff who discovered a rifle in
the TSBD on 11/22/63) -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what did you say when you looked at that rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appears to be the rifle that I saw on the sixth floor
of the School Book Depository."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Well, didn't you just tell Mr. Spence that you could
not identify it?"
MR. BOONE -- "I could not identify it positively because I did not
have an identifying mark on the weapon."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. But it appeared to be the same rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appeared to be the same weapon."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it appear from the timing of the shots that you
heard that you, yourself, could have operated, aimed, and fired a bolt-
action rifle as quickly as those shots came?"
CHARLES BREHM (who witnessed the assassination from the south side of
Elm Street) -- "Very easily."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So you definitely believe that the three shots you
heard that day could easily have been fired by one person?"
MR. BREHM -- "Absolutely."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "From your experience with rifles and the report of
rifle shots, did you hear any difference at all in the report of the
three shots that indicated more than one rifle or firing location was
involved?"
MR. BREHM -- "No. All three shots were from the same origin {i.e.,
coming from the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, per Brehm}."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Have you personally had occasion to fire a bolt-
action rifle and fire shots in rapid succession?"
MARRION L. BAKER (Dallas Police Dept. motorcycle officer who was
riding in the Presidential motorcade; Baker encountered Lee Harvey
Oswald on the 2nd Floor of the Book Depository within 2 minutes of the
shooting) -- "Yes, sir. I have."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it appear from the timing of the shots you heard
that you could have operated, aimed, and fired a bolt-action rifle as
quickly as those shots came?"
MR. BAKER -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So you believe the three shots you heard that day
could have been fired by one person?"
MR. BAKER -- "Yes."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "What was the conclusion your panel came to as to how
many bullets struck the President, their point of entry, and the path
they took through the President's body?"
DR. CHARLES PETTY (one of 9 forensic pathologists who served on the
autopsy panel {aka the "FPP"} for the HSCA) -- "My conclusion, and the
conclusion of the panel, was that the President was struck by two
bullets -- one entering the right-upper back and exiting in the front
of the neck; the other entering the right back of the head, and
exiting what we call the right-frontal area, that is the front and
side of the head."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is there any doubt in your mind, Doctor, whatsoever
that both bullets that struck the President came from the rear and no
bullets struck him from the front?"
DR. PETTY -- "None whatsoever."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Let me ask you this, Dr. Petty .... assuming the
President HAD been struck by a bullet from the front -- make that
assumption -- could the transference of momentum from that bullet have
thrown the President backward as is shown in frames 315 to 320 of the
Zapruder Film?"
DR. PETTY -- "No sir, not in my opinion."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And why is that?"
DR. PETTY -- "Because the head is too heavy. There's too much muscular
resistance to movement."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the killings that people see on television and in
the movies, which is the only type of killings most people ever see,
where the person struck by the bullet very frequently, visibly, and
dramatically is propelled backward by the force of the bullet --
that's not what actually happens in life when a bullet hits a human
being?"
DR. PETTY -- "No, of course not."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "What you're saying is that from your Neutron
Activation Analysis, there may have been fifty people firing at
President Kennedy that day....but if there were, they all
missed....ONLY bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the
President. Is that correct?"
DR. VINCENT P. GUINN (NAA Expert) -- "That's a correct statement;
yes."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1f839000eb145ad
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Delgado, I believe you testified before the
Warren Commission, that on the rifle range Oswald was kind of a joke,
a pretty big joke."
NELSON DELGADO (served with Oswald in Marine Corps) -- "Yes, he was."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're aware that at the time Oswald was doing poorly
on the range, he was about to be released from the Marines, is that
correct?"
MR. DELGADO -- "Yes, he was."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Are you aware that in 1956, when Oswald first joined
the Marines, and was going through Basic Training, he fired a 212 on
the rifle range with an M-1 rifle, which made him a 'sharpshooter' at
that time -- are you aware of that?"
MR. DELGADO -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Given the fact that Oswald was about to get out of
the Marines when he was in your unit, and the fact that he showed no
interest in firing on the range -- you don't attribute his poor
showing on the range to his being a poor shot?"
MR. DELGADO -- "No."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "He could have done better, you felt, if he tried?"
MR. DELGADO -- "Certainly."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "While he {Lee Oswald} was at your home did he ask you
for any curtain rods?"
RUTH PAINE (acquaintance of Lee and Marina Oswald) -- "No, he didn't."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did he ever, at ANY time, ask you for curtain rods?"
MRS. PAINE -- "No."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any discussion between you and him, or you
and Marina, about curtain rods?"
MRS. PAINE -- "No."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in the
garage, is that correct?"
MRS. PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."
~~~~~~~
MRS. PAINE -- "I do think for the historical record it's important
that people understand that Lee was a very ordinary person -- that
people can kill a President without that being something that shows on
them in advance."
GERRY SPENCE -- "Is it really your purpose here to try to defame this
man in some way?"
MRS. PAINE -- "I'd like a FULL picture -- I think it's really
important for history that a FULL picture of the man be seen."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f7fb7fe29bedd69d
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Mr. O'Connor, if the President's brain being
missing from his head is one of the most shocking things that you've
ever seen in your entire life, a matter that you think should have
been investigated, certainly....and if they {the HSCA investigators}
spoke to you for one-and-a-half hours about your observations that
night, why wasn't it important enough for you to tell these people
about it?"
PAUL O'CONNOR (technician who assisted at JFK's autopsy at Bethesda
Naval Medical Center) -- "I was under orders not to talk until that
time."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "What?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "I was under orders not to talk to anybody..."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "By whom?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "By....the United States military brought in orders a
couple days after the autopsy, and we were to remain silent."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "But you talked to them for an hour-and-a-half. You
told them all types of things in that document."
MR. O'CONNOR -- "I received permission from the Select Committee on
Assassinations to talk to the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of
Defense."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Paul, when I first asked you this question over the
phone, did you tell me -- 'the reason I never told them is....they
never asked me'?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "Well, they didn't ask me."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So, in other words, Mr. O'Connor, even though this is
one of the most shocking things that you've ever seen, and you're
going to remember it till the day you die....and you feel this matter
should have been investigated....if those investigators for the House
Select Committee didn't ask you the magic question -- by golly you're
not about to tell 'em!! Is that correct?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "No sir. I only answered what I was asked....and that
was it."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "I see. Thank you. No further questions."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/86b2ebd3b85cf221
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Doctor, if the bullet was coming on a downward
path as it entered the Presidential limousine, as you say it was, is
that correct?"
DR. CYRIL H. WECHT (forensic pathologist who served on the HSCA's
Forensic Pathology Panel; has always believed a conspiracy existed
with respect to JFK's murder) -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Alright....and it MISSED Governor Connally....is that
correct?"
DR. WECHT -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Why didn't it hit the driver of the car or do any
damage to the car, Doctor?"
DR. WECHT -- "A couple of things. The straight line in that open
limousine could have taken it over the left side of the car; and as
the line shows*, it would have and could have indeed missed the
driver."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Wait a minute! It's coming on a DOWNWARD path, Cyril!
It's coming on a downward path into the Presidential limousine, goes
through the President's body, misses Governor Connally, and magically
also misses the driver and doesn't do any damage to the Presidential
limousine!?"
DR. WECHT -- "Wait, just a moment! I did not say that THAT bullet
missed all of these people completely or that it missed the car! You
KNOW that there were fragments found in the car, Mr. Bugliosi!"
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You said the bullet passed on a straight line through
the President's body..."
DR. WECHT -- "Absolutely."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "...Passed through soft tissue. So that bullet came
out pristine!"
DR. WECHT -- "That's right."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "The bullet fragments found in the front seat of this
car, Doctor, were bullet fragments--very, very damaged--very, very
small. What happened to that pristine bullet when it came through
President Kennedy's body?!! Who did it hit?!!"
DR. WECHT -- "What happened to the third bullet under the Warren
Commission theory, Mr. Bugliosi?!! Where is it?! You're asking ME to
be responsible for the bullets?!"
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "I want to know what happened to YOUR bullet, Doctor."
DR. WECHT -- "I can't tell you where all the bullets are. I didn't
conduct the investigation."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "...Now you've got YOUR 'magic bullet'--a bullet that
is coming on a downward path into the Presidential limousine, two
thousand feet a second, passes through President Kennedy's body,...and
it misses the driver and it misses the car. It must have zigzagged to
the left?"
DR. WECHT -- "No, it need not have zigzagged to the left."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it broadjump over the car?"
DR. WECHT -- "No...it need not have performed any remarkable feats."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "But you don't know what happened to it?"
DR. WECHT -- "No, I do not."
[Later....]
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Well, Doctor, by definition, it seems to me that you
are saying, that if the other eight pathologists disagreed with you--
and they did--is that correct?"
DR. WECHT -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. Seems to me, Doctor, that by necessary
implication they are either hopelessly and utterly incompetent, or
they deliberately suppressed the truth from the American public. Is
that correct?"
DR. WECHT -- "There is a third alternative, which would be a hybrid to
some extent of the deliberate suppression, sir..."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So, of the nine pathologists, Doctor Wecht, you're
the only one that had the honor and the integrity and the professional
responsibility to tell the truth to the American people! Is that
correct, Doctor!?"
DR. WECHT -- "I'll prefer to put it this way....I'm the only one who
had the courage to say that the King was nude, and had no clothes
on....yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "No further questions."
~~~~~~~
* = NOTE RE. CYRIL WECHT'S TESTIMONY -- The diagram that was used by
Dr. Wecht at the mock trial (purporting what Wecht thinks was the
trajectory of the bullet path from the TSBD to the limousine) was
laughably askew and inaccurate as far as the "right-to-left"
trajectory line that was drawn on that schematic was concerned. The
angle from the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD to the car (at approx. the
SBT bullet strike at Zapruder Frame #224) was not nearly as sharp an
angle as purported in Wecht's chart/diagram. The diagram also does not
account for Governor Connally's being turned to his right in his jump
seat when struck with the SBT bullet.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/73a6e31b8502a703
==============================================
CLOSING ARGUMENTS / FINAL SUMMATION......
VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S INITIAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in the brief time I have to address
you in this historic trial, I want to point out what must already be
obvious to you....that Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald alone
is responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, our
young and vigorous leader whose Presidency stirred the hopes of
millions of Americans for a better world, and whose shocking death
grieved and anguished an entire nation.
But before I summarize that evidence for you....against Mr.
Oswald....evidence that conclusively proves his guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt....I want to discuss several issues with you which
the defense has raised during this trial.
Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck by
the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally.
With respect to whether or not any shots were fired from the Grassy
Knoll, I want to make the following observations -- firstly, it is
perfectly understandable that the witnesses were confused as to the
origin of fire. Not only does Dealey Plaza resound with echoes, but
here you have a situation of completely-unexpected shots over just a
matter of a few moments.
When you compound all of that with the fact that the witnesses were
focusing their attention on the President of the United States driving
by, a mesmerizing event for many of them....and the chaos, the
hysteria, the bedlam that engulfed the assassination scene....it's
remarkable that there was any coherence at all to what they thought
they saw and heard.
Human observation, notoriously unreliable under even the most optimum
situation, HAS to give way to hard, scientific evidence. And we do
have indisputable, scientific evidence in this case that the bullets
which struck President Kennedy came from his rear, not his front.
The surgeons who conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy's
body....plus ALL NINE --- even Wecht, even Wecht --- all nine forensic
pathologists who reviewed the photographic evidence and the X-rays of
the President's wounds for the House Select Committee on
Assassinations agreed that the two bullets that struck President
Kennedy were fired from behind....the upper-back wound and the wound
to the rear of the President's head being ENTRANCE wounds.
If EITHER of the two bullets that struck President Kennedy came from
the front, why weren't there any entrance wounds to the front of the
President's body, nor any exit wounds to the rear of his body?
Furthermore, if there WAS a gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll, how
come only bullets from Oswald's rifle struck President Kennedy and
Governor Connally? In fact, how come NOT ONE of this other gunman's
bullets even hit the Presidential limousine?
Does the defense want you folks to believe that this other
gunman....hired by a sophisticated group of conspirators
apparently....a well-financed group....I can assume he {Mr. Spence} is
going to tell you that....was so bad a shot, that not only couldn't he
hit Kennedy and Connally, he could not even hit the Presidential
limousine, a large car?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it couldn't be more obvious that
there was no gunman at the Grassy Knoll. No one SAW anybody with a
rifle in that area. No weapon nor expended cartridges from a weapon
were found there. It didn't happen.
With respect to Ruby killing Oswald, the evidence is overwhelming that
he was a very emotional man. When we couple the fact that Ruby cared
deeply for Kennedy with the fact that he probably thought that he
would be viewed as a hero, Ruby's killing of Oswald has all of the
earmarks of a very personal killing, completely devoid of any outside
influence.
In the short time I have left, I want to summarize the evidence of
guilt against Mr. Oswald....
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, within minutes of the assassination,
a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle -- serial number C dash 2766
-- was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Oswald ordered the rifle under the name 'A. Hidell' -- we KNOW that.
We know from the testimony of Monty Lutz, the firearms expert, that
the two large bullet fragments found inside the Presidential limousine
were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of
all other weapons.
We also know from the firearms people that the three expended
cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor
window -- undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. Norman heard fall from
above -- were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons.
So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON....that caused that
terrible, terrible spray of brain matter to the front! The worst sight
that I have ever seen in my entire life!
And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far
as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald
was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do
you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove
Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more.
Let's look at Oswald's conduct .... November the 22nd, 1963, the day
of the assassination, was a Friday. Whenever Oswald would go to visit
his wife in Irving, he'd go on a Friday evening....come back on a
Monday morning.
On the week of the assassination, however, for the very first time, he
goes there on a THURSDAY evening....obviously to get his rifle for the
following day.
After the assassination, all the other employees of the Book
Depository Building return to work. There's a roll call. They're
accounted for. Not Oswald. He takes off. The ONLY employee who leaves
the building.
Just forty-five minutes after the assassination....out of the five
hundred thousand or so people in Dallas....Lee Harvey Oswald is the
one out of those five hundred thousand people who just happens to
murder Officer J.D. Tippit.
Oswald's responsibility for President Kennedy's assassination
explains....EXPLAINS....why he was driven to murder Officer Tippit.
The murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some
awful deed. What other reason under the moon would he have had to kill
Officer Tippit?
Continuing on, when he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he
TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same
as if he had said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How
did he tell us? Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an
UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt.
If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to
do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this
otherwise independent and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked
taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and
cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence
of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone
around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just
Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!!"
Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent,
would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the
Spanish language!
Normally, ladies and gentlemen, in a murder case, a verdict of guilty
brings about a certain measure of justice....obviously a limited
amount of justice....but a certain measure of justice for the victim
and his or her surviving loved ones. But here, the effect of this
assassination went far beyond President Kennedy and his family. This
was an enormous offense against the American people. And no justice
could ever be achieved.
I respectfully ask you to return a swift verdict of guilty against Lee
Harvey Oswald....simply because it is the only verdict that is
consistent with the evidence -- evidence which conclusively proves
Oswald's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen."
==============================================
MR. BUGLIOSI'S FINAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO THE JURY (WHICH FOLLOWED MR.
SPENCE'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE):
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING that Mr. Spence can do about it.
I have yet to see the man who can convince twelve reasonable men and
women as you folks are....that black is white....and white is black.
Mr. Spence, in his argument to you, no more desired to look at the
evidence in this case than one would have a desire to look directly
into the noonday sun. And I can't really blame him, because if I were
he, I wouldn't want to either.
Because there's not one tiny grain of evidence....not one microscopic
speck of evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey Oswald -- was
responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Mr. Spence did say this....it was kind of a subtle, very clever
argument....it took me a while to grasp exactly what he was doing....I
THINK he said this, and if I misrepresent you, sir, I'm sorry, but I
think he said that Lee Harvey Oswald was the exact type of person to
set up as a patsy. Or words to that effect. I'm just paraphrasing. A
Marxist, a defector to Soviet Russia.
Actually, he was the exact type of person to murder the President. And
my colleague very cleverly turned it around and said he's the exact
type of person to make as a patsy.
Let's take a look at Oswald .... Can anyone fail to see how utterly
and completely crazy this man here was? Utterly and completely nuts.
Bonkers. And you have to be bonkers to commit a Presidential murder;
you gotta be crazy; nuts.
One example, among many -- How many Americans....how many people
anywhere in the WORLD....defect to the Soviet Union? You'll find more
mango trees at the North Pole....more one-hundred-dollar bills in the
Florida poorhouse....than you'll find people defecting to Russia, or
to anywhere behind the Iron Curtain. That alone shows how completely
and utterly mentally unhinged this man was. Again, that's the exact
type of person to kill the President.
In his own writing, after ridiculing both the Soviet and American
systems of government, he {Lee Harvey Oswald} wrote: 'To a person
knowing both systems, he must be opposed to their basic foundations
and representatives'.
Elsewhere, after vehemently condemning both systems, he wrote: 'I
despise the representatives of both systems'. There's that word
'representative' again.
Though he may or may not have had any personal dislike for Kennedy, we
don't know that. For all we know maybe he didn't think Kennedy was
that bad a person....everything is relative in life. However, I think
one thing is pretty obvious, Kennedy almost undoubtedly would have
represented to Oswald the ultimate, quintessential representative --
that's the key word, 'representative' -- of a society for which he had
a grinding contempt.
On the issue of conspiracy, Mr. Spence {VB chuckles} -- I'm
paraphrasing him -- he certainly didn't say who specifically murdered
the President....but he certainly implied to you that it was...some
powerful group -- he never put the hat on anyone, he kept the hat on
his table here; I thought he was going to put it on someone's head,
but he didn't.
Some mysterious group....powerful group....murdered the President and
framed Lee Harvey Oswald. But he didn't say who these people were. He
did say the CIA covered-up here; he said the FBI covered-up there.
In which case, if the FBI and CIA were covering-up -- they'd be the
ones who murdered the President, right? Why doesn't Mr. Spence come
right out and say it? Why doesn't he accuse the CIA and the FBI of
murdering the President? One thing you can say about Mr. Spence, he's
not a shy man. He knows how to exercise his First-Amendment freedom of
speech....but he doesn't SAY it. Because he's very intelligent; very
wise.
I'll tell you why he doesn't say it -- because he KNOWS that if he
said that the FBI murdered the President, or the CIA murdered the
President....it would sound downright SILLY! You'd LAUGH at him!
But even though neither the CIA nor organized crime would have any
productive motive whatsoever to kill the President, let's make the
unwarranted assumption that they did....that they had such a motive,
and let's go on and discuss Mr. Spence's next point about Ruby killing
Oswald.
Mafia contract killers are always selected with utmost care. I mean
the one chosen to kill Oswald would be everything that Jack Ruby was
not. He'd be someone who had a long track record of effectively
carrying out murder contracts before for them. It would be a precise,
unemotional, business-like, and above all, tight-lipped, killer for
hire.
Another point HAS to be mentioned -- It is a well-known fact that
throughout the years organized crime has consistently and religiously
avoided killing public officials....if for no other reason, that they
have enough heat on them already, without significantly INCREASING
that heat by going after a public figure. They don't do it.
Going after the President of the United States -- of all people --
would be a suicidal act on their part....an act guaranteed to bring a
heat upon them not too much less than the surface of the sun. When the
Mob came to this country, they didn't leave their brains behind in
Palermo.
The whole notion of sophisticated groups -- like organized crime, U.S.
Intelligence -- getting Jack Ruby, of all people, to accomplish a job
which, if he talked, would prove fatal to their existence is just
downright laughable.
Organized crime and U.S. Intelligence, if they were the ones behind
this, could just as well have gone down to Disneyland and gotten
Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck to do their bidding for them. Not only is
the whole idea absurd, ladies and gentlemen, but there's just no
evidence to support it.
When Mr. Spence argued that Oswald was just a patsy and was framed, he
conveniently neglected to be specific. HOW was Lee Harvey Oswald
framed? When we look at the mechanics of such a possible conspiracy in
this case -- how COULD he have been framed?
Let's get into the mechanics .... Who was this other gunman who, on
the day of the assassination, made his way into the Book Depository
Building, carrying a rifle....went up to the sixth floor....shot and
killed the President....made his way back down to the first
floor....and escaped without leaving a trace?
How, in fact, if Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within
forty-five minutes of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or
was he framed for that murder too?!
Mr. Spence can't have it both ways. If the people who set Oswald up
were so sophisticated to come up with this incredible, elaborate
conspiracy -- I mean to the point they had people, according to Mr.
Spence, who can superimpose this man's head on someone else's body,
and imposters down in Mexico City -- if they were THAT bright, why
weren't they intelligent enough to know the most obvious thing of
all....
That you don't attempt to frame a man of questionable marksmanship
ability who possesses a nineteen-dollar mail-order rifle!
As surely as I am standing here, as surely as night follows day, Lee
Harvey Oswald -- acting alone -- was responsible for the murder of
President John F. Kennedy.
You are twelve reasonable men and women, and that is why I have every
confidence that you will confirm this fact for the pages of history by
your verdict of guilty.
Thank you so very much, ladies and gentlemen."
-------------------------------
[END TRIAL EXCERPTS.]
-------------------------------
POST-TRIAL COMMENTS BY VINCENT BUGLIOSI (INCLUDING SOME REMARKS MADE
IN 1988, DURING A REPEAT TELEVISION BROADCAST OF THE DOCU-TRIAL):
"The majority of the American people now believe, polls have shown,
that there was a conspiracy in this case....and the reason for that is
that the side of the Government has never been presented. It's been
presented, it's in the Warren Report; but that's 27 volumes. Who's
gone out and purchased 27 volumes? They haven't done that.
The only books that have come out on this case are by conspiracy
buffs; and these are the people that have gone on talk shows
throughout the country, and they finally convinced the American
people.
So the importance of this case is that we finally now gave the
American people, and the people around the world, the prosecution's
viewpoint." -- VB; November 1986
~~~~~~~
"It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're
not exposed to any contrary view. And I think that's precisely what
has happened here. For 25 years, the American people have been
inundated with an unremitting torrent of books, and radio and TV talk
shows, all alleging conspiracy.
And what's happened is that the shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs
finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and
convinced the majority of Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even
though the reality is that no one in 25 years has come up with one
scrap of credible, substantive evidence pointing in the direction of a
conspiracy.
In any event, throughout these same 25 years, apart from the early
media in 1963 and 1964, the United States Government's position hasn't
been told. True, it's been available. But how many Americans have gone
out and purchased the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission? They
haven't done that. And this is why the vote coming in will be very,
very heavy in favor of a conspiracy.
I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour
{televised Docu-} trial, 85 percent of the American people believed in
a conspiracy. And being exposed to only five hours, it dropped
dramatically to 71. If they had seen the eighteen hours of testimony
and evidence, it would drop even further. And if they knew all the
truth about the case, very few people would conclude that there was a
conspiracy." -- VB; 1988
==============================================
RELATED LINKS:
www.fora.tv/myfora/David_Von_Pein/thinktank/49/JFK
www.amazon.com/review/R1L4HTCKF0BNIU
www.amazon.com/review/R2DX6HNK918K1E
www.skepticfiles.org/weird/eoc8-4.htm
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962995,00.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE1238F933A15752C1A960948260
==============================================
David Von Pein
ADDENDUM / FOOTNOTE:
The above thread-starting post is a revised and updated version of
this one from 2007.....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
.....With this 2008 revised version containing several additional "ON
TRIAL" excerpts, including some witness quotes which were culled
directly from Vince Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History".
And some of the witness passages that I plucked from VB's book are
portions of the trial that did not air on television at all during
Showtime's original telecast of the mock trial in November 1986.
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7f8im4pic0&v=1
robcap...@netscape.com
Why did they hold the trial in London?
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's all part of the big conspiracy, Rob. Von Pein, myself and the
other LN's that post here...we're all part of it.
I just got back from flying my black helicopter on a 'night mission'.
After I cash my McAdams check today, I think I'll head over to the
local Bush Lied So Kids Died protest to throw eggs at all the little
Cindy Sheehans in training, and then it's over to the UFO symposium at
the local alternative bookstore to interrupt an important speech by
Howard Platzman on how Kennedy was killed to keep him from spilling
the beans about Roswell and the Greys from Zeta Reticuli being stored
by the military at Area 51.
It's a great job. I get to help undermine the country and keep little
college kids like you from getting the 'truth' out there.
You see, Rob...it goes like this:
Only 15/20 'families' or 'groups', if you will, control the entire
country. I've been hired by these cabals to help spread disinformation
and discredit truth-telling beacons of justice like yourself.
You've got it all figured out, Rob. 11/22/63 was in the 'fix' right
from the get-go. Powerful CIA rogue agents, working seamlessly with
elements of the FBI, including Hoover, along with the Mob, Castro,
KGB, KKK racist groups and so on, carefully coordinated a
triangulation of fire in Dealey Plaza that afternoon to benefit the
monied Texas oil interests and prop up Lyndon Johnson as our next
President.
Johnson heard those shots in Dealey Plaza, Rob, and he also benefited
from JFK's head splattering all over Elm St. He created the WC to
whitewash the whole mess. The public would never know. A fantastic
network was created in the wake of the WC whitewash to promote this
hunk of fiction for eternity. Z film alterationists carefully crafted
and changed images. A separate team handled the Nix film (revealed for
the first time today...the name of this group was called Team Nix).
Other teams set about altering witness statements, bribing mainstream
media outlets, threatening authors and even murdering those brave
enough to speak out against the WCR lies.
In the years since 11/22/63, a darkness has settled over this land.
America has become AmeriKKKa. Vietnam, which JFK would have resolved
peacefully and without bloodshed, tore this country apart. Even now,
we see the results of the gunfire that echoed through Dealey Plaza
reverberate today, with Global Warming, the open borders
Mexicamericanada plot, voter suppression in the 2000/2004 elections,
the mortgage meltdown, chemtrails, cooperation with space aliens, etc.
That's it in a nutshell, young Rob.
I gotta say that you're a plucky llittle guy, and I really admire your
courage in speaking out against the wrongs perpetrated on 11/22/63.
You're a brave little fellow, and you've got 'it' figured out.
Well, gotta go...the Black Helicopter is revving up on the lawn, and
it's time to go harass some peaceful protest somewhere.
billc...@live.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why don’t you take robcap and Gil up in the black chopper? Kick out
the one that doesn’t know anything. Ha!
Don’t forget your necklace of severed ears before you mount up.
And thanks for keeping America safe.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 5, 8:11 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 6:11 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > ADDENDUM / FOOTNOTE:
>
> > > The above thread-starting post is a revised and updated version of
> > > this one from 2007.....
>
> > >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
>
> > > .....With this 2008 revised version containing several additional "ON
> > > TRIAL" excerpts, including some witness quotes which were culled
> > > directly from Vince Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History".
>
> > > And some of the witness passages that I plucked from VB's book are
> > > portions of the trial that did not air on television at all during
> > > Showtime's original telecast of the mock trial in November 1986.
>
> > >www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7f8im4pic0&v=1
>
> > >www.box.net/shared/gg4krg2884
>
> > Why did they hold the trial in London?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
"It's all part of the big conspiracy, Rob. Von Pein, myself and the
other LN's that post here...we're all part of it."
No it isn't, only a delusional person would give ANY credence to the
"docu-drama" verdict in the first place. Why not just use "Law &
Order" for the trial? Some of you are very low-level "Liars for
Hires", but most of you are just here to play games. I bet you have
more CT books than I do.
"I just got back from flying my black helicopter on a 'night
mission'."
I guess the housing market is slow since they have made it harder to
rip people off.
"After I cash my McAdams check today, I think I'll head over to the
local Bush Lied So Kids Died protest to throw eggs at all the little
Cindy Sheehans in training, and then it's over to the UFO symposium at
the local alternative bookstore to interrupt an important speech by
Howard Platzman on how Kennedy was killed to keep him from spilling
the beans about Roswell and the Greys from Zeta Reticuli being stored
by the military at Area 51."
When did you serve again? You are the kind of American we all love,
the kind that has NO compassion for anyone but himself. I guess when
you rip people off to put food on the table daily, what is the big
deal about lying about the JFK assassination, right? What did JFK do
that our current president, one of the worst in this country's long
history, has not done? Why would a lone nut want him dead but not the
man who is making putting gas in your car nearly impossible for the
average Joe? Oh well, we are bringing shopping to the Iraqis as I
heard there is a new 6 billion dollar plan to rebuild the Green Zone
in Baghdad that will include a lot of shopping malls. Good ole
American knowhow at work. I guess this is what Bush meant by giving
Iraqis their freedom, the freedom to buy at American stores.
"It's a great job. I get to help undermine the country and keep little
college kids like you from getting the 'truth' out there."
I'm hardly a college kid, and I have served my country. I have had
friends and family die in various conflicts so I find no humor in it
like a slimy, commission only mortgage rep does.
"You see, Rob...it goes like this:
Only 15/20 'families' or 'groups', if you will, control the entire
country. I've been hired by these cabals to help spread disinformation
and discredit truth-telling beacons of justice like yourself."
Hardly, I don't doubt a small number of international families run the
world per se, but you hired by them? Now you have gone to far. You
are like Angel on the "Rockford Files", a lowly streetpunk. Someone
WAY DOWN the food chain hired you, and I'm guessing McAdams.
"You've got it all figured out, Rob. 11/22/63 was in the 'fix' right
from the get-go. Powerful CIA rogue agents, working seamlessly with
elements of the FBI, including Hoover, along with the Mob, Castro,
KGB, KKK racist groups and so on, carefully coordinated a
triangulation of fire in Dealey Plaza that afternoon to benefit the
monied Texas oil interests and prop up Lyndon Johnson as our next
President."
I'm not the only one who has it figured out as it is as plain as the
long, Pinocchio nose on your face. I like how all this is in response
to why the docu-trial was held in London.
"Johnson heard those shots in Dealey Plaza, Rob, and he also benefited
from JFK's head splattering all over Elm St."
You bring up a good point (not your intention I know), why was LBJ on
this trip in the first place? It was not standard practice to have the
President and the V.P. on the same trip in case something like this
was to happen.
"He created the WC to whitewash the whole mess. The public would never
know."
Actually the WCR did more than any other document to show there WAS a
conspriacy!
"A fantastic network was created in the wake of the WC whitewash to
promote this hunk of fiction for eternity. Z film alterationists
carefully crafted and changed images. A separate team handled the Nix
film (revealed for the first time today...the name of this group was
called Team Nix). Other teams set about altering witness statements,
bribing mainstream media outlets, threatening authors and even
murdering those brave enough to speak out against the WCR lies."
None of this sounds more insane than the official theory, how come?
"In the years since 11/22/63, a darkness has settled over this land.
America has become AmeriKKKa. Vietnam, which JFK would have resolved
peacefully and without bloodshed, tore this country apart. Even now,
we see the results of the gunfire that echoed through Dealey Plaza
reverberate today, with Global Warming, the open borders
Mexicamericanada plot, voter suppression in the 2000/2004 elections,
the mortgage meltdown, chemtrails, cooperation with space aliens,
etc."
The extreme right took over that day and have continued to liquidated
the liberal elements in our society. I am a Libertarian so don't get
your knickers in a bunch. I think a fine balance between the two is
vital for our success, and the fact most right-wing oriented people
believe in a conspiracy shows that the extreme factions in our country
(left and right) are NOT acting in our best interests.
"That's it in a nutshell, young Rob."
Thanks for thinking I'm so young. I guess you are in your 70s or
something.
"I gotta say that you're a plucky llittle guy, and I really admire
your courage in speaking out against the wrongs perpetrated on
11/22/63. You're a brave little fellow, and you've got 'it' figured
out."
Thanks! I can't take the credit though as many hard working
researchers and "buffs" have uncovered most of the lies of the WCR and
the 26 volumes of paper weights. It is sad you have to brave to speak
the truth in your world. But no one said Nazi Germany was a fun place
to live (or a KKK camp either).
"Well, gotta go...the Black Helicopter is revving up on the lawn, and
it's time to go harass some peaceful protest somewhere."
How does a Black Helicopter fit into ripping people off?
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't worry Bill, I have a nice reply for you. It seems McAdams was
blocking my posting ability all weekend. I wouldn't gloat if I was
you, nor would I accuse others of knowing nothing with the comments
you have made. March from Vietnam to take Paris!!!!!! LOL!!!!! What
a hoot.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 5, 9:55 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> "In the years since 11/22/63, a darkness has settled over this land.
> America has become AmeriKKKa. Vietnam, which JFK would have resolved
> peacefully and without bloodshed, tore this country apart.
Well it was too late to avoid bloodshed so I see your crystal ball is
still malfunctioning.
>
> The extreme right took over that day and have continued to liquidated
> the liberal elements in our society.
Lyndon Johnson took over that day. He was to the left of John
Kennedy.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
>
Robcap! Boy am I glad to see you back. I just knew that Chuck had
kicked you out of his black Huey.
Now look, you told me that to win a war you had to capture the enemy’s
capital. Therefore, to defeat France Ho would have had to take
Paris. And silly boy, he couldn’t march to Paris. He’d have to go by
sampan. And he never took Hanoi or Saigon. So much for your taking
the capital to win a war.
As for hoots, I’m still in shock at you telling me Nixon didn’t
withdraw American troops. I hope you’ve got that one straighten out
in your raging mind.
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
The impossible tale of Paul "THERE WAS NO BRAIN TO BE REMOVED"
O'Connor:
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 5, 10:45 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 9:55 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > "In the years since 11/22/63, a darkness has settled over this land.
> > America has become AmeriKKKa. Vietnam, which JFK would have resolved
> > peacefully and without bloodshed, tore this country apart.
>
"Well it was too late to avoid bloodshed so I see your crystal ball is
still malfunctioning."
I didn't say this so my understanding of your reading comprehension
deficiencies is still intact.
> > The extreme right took over that day and have continued to liquidated
> > the liberal elements in our society.
>
"Lyndon Johnson took over that day. He was to the left of John
Kennedy."
Sure he was, that is why he passed all of JFK's plans. LBJ was a war
hawk and was to the right of JFK on military issues. He was also very
controllable after seeing JFK murdered. JFK had a good balance on the
big issues though, he was very conservative on many issues.
robcap...@netscape.com
Bill, you must have put a hex on my response to your last post
regarding Vietnam as I cannot get it to post. I even tried to start a
new post and it refuses to post. I know of Nixon's plans but the
irony is he was following JFK's plans of training the SVA before he
removed the US troops. Funny how things work, huh?
"Now look, you told me that to win a war you had to capture the
enemy’s capital. Therefore, to defeat France Ho would have had to take
Paris."
No, because their real enemy (and goal) was South Vietnam, and the
last time I looked their capital was NOT Paris.
"And silly boy, he couldn’t march to Paris. He’d have to go by
sampan. And he never took Hanoi or Saigon. So much for your taking
the capital to win a war."
Yes he did, you don't remember those scenes of people fighting to get
onto helicopters at the US Embassy in Saigon? The Northern forces
most certainly did take Saigon.
"As for hoots, I’m still in shock at you telling me Nixon didn’t
withdraw American troops. I hope you’ve got that one straighten out
in your raging mind."
He did withdraw troop, BUT first he exapanded the war by attacking
bases in Cambodia to destroy the Northern supplies. He also did NOT
withdraw troops until the same number of SVA forces were fully
trained. Sound familar?
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 5, 2:48 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 10:45 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 9:55 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > "In the years since 11/22/63, a darkness has settled over this land.
> > > America has become AmeriKKKa. Vietnam, which JFK would have resolved
> > > peacefully and without bloodshed, tore this country apart.
>
> "Well it was too late to avoid bloodshed so I see your crystal ball is
> still malfunctioning."
>
> I didn't say this so my understanding of your reading comprehension
> deficiencies is still intact.
I meant that blood had been shed under JFK before his assassination.
Too late to avoid bloodshed.
> > > The extreme right took over that day and have continued to liquidated
> > > the liberal elements in our society.
>
> "Lyndon Johnson took over that day. He was to the left of John
> Kennedy."
>
> Sure he was, that is why he passed all of JFK's plans.
I assume you mean “bypassed” Kennedy’s plans for Vietnam in NSAM 273.
You have any historians of note that agrees with you? LBJ did get
some bills through Congress that JFK couldn’t get passed.
> LBJ was a war hawk and was to the right of JFK on military issues. He was also very
> controllable after seeing JFK murdered. JFK had a good balance on the
> big issues though, he was very conservative on many issues.
Again, I don’t think you will find a historian of respect claiming
that LBJ wanted a war in Vietnam. He didn’t want the mess in Vietnam
anymore than JFK did.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 5, 3:00 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
>
> "Robcap! Boy am I glad to see you back. I just knew that Chuck had
> kicked you out of his black Huey.
>
> Bill, you must have put a hex on my response to your last post
> regarding Vietnam as I cannot get it to post. I even tried to start a
> new post and it refuses to post.
Probably a conspiracy of McAdams and those pesky WC defenders: those
rascals.
> I know of Nixon's plans but the irony is he was following JFK's plans of training the SVA before he
> removed the US troops. Funny how things work, huh?
Basically true but Congress rushed the American troop withdrawal more
than was prudent. Thankfully Nixon had a more stable government in SV
and a much better General in Abrams than JFK had in Diem and Harkins/
Westmoreland.
> "Now look, you told me that to win a war you had to capture the
> enemy’s capital. Therefore, to defeat France Ho would have had to take
> Paris."
>
> No, because their real enemy (and goal) was South Vietnam, and the
> last time I looked their capital was NOT Paris.
>
> "And silly boy, he couldn’t march to Paris. He’d have to go by
> sampan. And he never took Hanoi or Saigon. So much for your taking
> the capital to win a war."
>
> Yes he did, you don't remember those scenes of people fighting to get
> onto helicopters at the US Embassy in Saigon? The Northern forces
> most certainly did take Saigon.
Not while the French were there and that was the time period being
discussed, the French. Ho passed to that great place where all dead
communist go in 1969 so he still missed marching into Siagon.
> "As for hoots, I’m still in shock at you telling me Nixon didn’t
> withdraw American troops. I hope you’ve got that one straighten out
> in your raging mind."
>
> He did withdraw troop, BUT first he exapanded the war by attacking
> bases in Cambodia to destroy the Northern supplies.
No, not first. Stick with me son and I’ll give you a free history
lesson in Vietnam 101. Nixon withdrew 25,000 American troops during
July and August of 1969. We went into Cambodia in April-May of 1970.
Now these are hard historical facts and can’t be changed so don’t
bother, please. You are correct that the Cambodia mission was to
destroy enemy supply depots. It is estimated that it gave ARVN
another year to get ready before Giap made his move.
> He also did NOT withdraw troops until the same number of SVA forces were fully
> trained. Sound familar?- Hide quoted text -
Well, that isn’t exactly true. We had reached the point where we were
leaving, make a damn what ARVN did. But General Abrams was able to
make rapid progress with the SV, as was shown in the Easter Offense of
1972.
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
Here's a three-part audio recording taped on October 2nd and October
5th of 1963, featuring President Kennedy and high-ranking staff
members. The topic is the withdrawal of 1,000 troops from Vietnam:
http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am
http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/index.htm
http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm
===================================
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f80e0b51fc97ecd2
===================================
aeffects
bong... 45 questions coward stop hiding....Chuckie Schuler... no
making funnies till you prove your measure here.....
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 5, 5:30 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 2:48 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 10:45 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 5, 9:55 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "In the years since 11/22/63, a darkness has settled over this land.
> > > > America has become AmeriKKKa. Vietnam, which JFK would have resolved
> > > > peacefully and without bloodshed, tore this country apart.
>
> > "Well it was too late to avoid bloodshed so I see your crystal ball is
> > still malfunctioning."
>
> > I didn't say this so my understanding of your reading comprehension
> > deficiencies is still intact.
>
"I meant that blood had been shed under JFK before his assassination.
Too late to avoid bloodshed."
You thought I said this and I didn't, Chuck did. You are full of it
as you have produced nothing showing JFK started a war. NADA!
> > > > The extreme right took over that day and have continued to liquidated
> > > > the liberal elements in our society.
>
> > "Lyndon Johnson took over that day. He was to the left of John
> > Kennedy."
>
> > Sure he was, that is why he passed all of JFK's plans.
>
"I assume you mean “bypassed” Kennedy’s plans for Vietnam in NSAM 273.
You have any historians of note that agrees with you? LBJ did get
some bills through Congress that JFK couldn’t get passed."
No I meant all of his civil proposals. LBJ had all of the civil
rights and other domestic things JFK had planned passed. Of course he
got things passed JFK couldn't as there was guilt involved as they
knew JFK was murdered by powerful groups and covered up by the
government.
> > LBJ was a war hawk and was to the right of JFK on military issues. He was also very
> > controllable after seeing JFK murdered. JFK had a good balance on the
> > big issues though, he was very conservative on many issues.
>
"Again, I don’t think you will find a historian of respect claiming
that LBJ wanted a war in Vietnam. He didn’t want the mess in Vietnam
anymore than JFK did."
He was for it when JFK was alive as he was pushing for one. He
wouldn't have created the Gulf of Tonkin incident if he wasn't for war
in Vietnam.
Walt
> On November 21st and 22nd, 1986, the cable television network
> "Showtime" aired a two-part, five-and-a-half-hour special program --
> "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- which represented a first-of-its-kind
> JFK assassination "mock" courtroom trial, with the accused assassin of
> President John F. Kennedy as the defendant. (There was no actor used
> to play the now-deceased Oswald, however; the defendant's chair was
> left empty during the trial.)
Ha,ha,ha,ha.....ROTFLMAO!!..... Ol Pea Brain thinks a made for TV
docu-drama is the same as a real trial in court..... What a moron!!
> SELECTED WITNESS TESTIMONY:
>
> VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was
> carrying the bag?"
>
> BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER (Oswald's co-worker; he drove LHO to work on
> 11/22/63 and watched Lee carry a paper package into the Book
> Depository that morning) -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to
> his body."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
> body....on the right side?"
>
> MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
> think you've said that in the past."
>
> MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
> attention to this bag?"
>
> MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
> his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
>
> MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
NO it's NOT true .......This is nothing but a shyster lawyer trick.
He's asking for Frazier's OPINION. If he had used a man the same
size as Oswald it would have been clear that Da Bug was a shyster
liar.....because the distance from Oswald's cupped hand to the top of
his shoulder was about 27 inches. The shortest dissassembled length
of the rifle was about 35 inches....... which means that about 8
inches of the rifle would have been protruding above Oswald's
shoulder. EIGHT INCHES above Oswald's shoulder would have been well
ABOVE Oswald's right ear. Is Bugliosi so damned dumb that he would
think that Frazier couldn't have seen Oswald's ear as Oswald walked in
front of him??
Nice try Pea Brain......Got any other lies ya want ta try out??
> CHARLES ...
>
> read more »
billc...@live.com
> Here's a three-part audio recording taped on October 2nd and October
> 5th of 1963, featuring President Kennedy and high-ranking staff
> members. The topic is the withdrawal of 1,000 troops from Vietnam:
>
> http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am
>
>
> http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm
>
> ===================================
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f80e0b51fc97ecd2
>
> ===================================
I posted those links several times trying to assist robcap in
understanding NSAM 263. He must not have liked what he heard because
he told me the tapes had been “altered”. Go figure!
These links are a must read/hear for those wishing to discuss NSAM 263
with any understanding.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 5, 11:34 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 5:30 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 2:48 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > > On May 5, 10:45 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 5, 9:55 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "In the years since 11/22/63, a darkness has settled over this land.
> > > > > America has become AmeriKKKa. Vietnam, which JFK would have resolved
> > > > > peacefully and without bloodshed, tore this country apart.
>
> > > "Well it was too late to avoid bloodshed so I see your crystal ball is
> > > still malfunctioning."
>
> > > I didn't say this so my understanding of your reading comprehension
> > > deficiencies is still intact.
>
> "I meant that blood had been shed under JFK before his assassination.
> Too late to avoid bloodshed."
>
> You thought I said this and I didn't, Chuck did. You are full of it
> as you have produced nothing showing JFK started a war. NADA!
I don’t know what the hell you call a war but there was shooting,
bombing and dying going on in Vietnam during JFK’s term. Looks like a
war to me.
> > > > > The extreme right took over that day and have continued to liquidated
> > > > > the liberal elements in our society.
>
> > > "Lyndon Johnson took over that day. He was to the left of John
> > > Kennedy."
>
> > > Sure he was, that is why he passed all of JFK's plans.
>
> "I assume you mean “bypassed” Kennedy’s plans for Vietnam in NSAM 273.
> You have any historians of note that agrees with you? LBJ did get
> some bills through Congress that JFK couldn’t get passed."
>
> No I meant all of his civil proposals. LBJ had all of the civil
> rights and other domestic things JFK had planned passed. Of course he
> got things passed JFK couldn't as there was guilt involved as they
> knew JFK was murdered by powerful groups and covered up by the
> government.
I’ll pass comment here, your comment being too far out in lala land.
> > > LBJ was a war hawk and was to the right of JFK on military issues. He was also very
> > > controllable after seeing JFK murdered. JFK had a good balance on the
> > > big issues though, he was very conservative on many issues.
>
> "Again, I don’t think you will find a historian of respect claiming
> that LBJ wanted a war in Vietnam. He didn’t want the mess in Vietnam
> anymore than JFK did."
>
> He was for it when JFK was alive as he was pushing for one. He
> wouldn't have created the Gulf of Tonkin incident if he wasn't for war
> in Vietnam.- Hide quoted text -
LBJ didn’t create the Tokin Gulf incident, Dumbo. You got a
historian? You, I chortle, don’t count as a historian.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 5, 5:36 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 3:00 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "Robcap! Boy am I glad to see you back. I just knew that Chuck had
> > kicked you out of his black Huey.
>
> > Bill, you must have put a hex on my response to your last post
> > regarding Vietnam as I cannot get it to post. I even tried to start a
> > new post and it refuses to post.
>
"Probably a conspiracy of McAdams and those pesky WC defenders: those
rascals."
Most definitely!! :-)
> > I know of Nixon's plans but the irony is he was following JFK's plans of training the SVA before he
> > removed the US troops. Funny how things work, huh?
>
"Basically true but Congress rushed the American troop withdrawal more
than was prudent. Thankfully Nixon had a more stable government in SV
and a much better General in Abrams than JFK had in Diem and Harkins/
Westmoreland."
So which is it Bill? First you said Nixon withdrew the troops, and now
it is the Congress that made him do it. I think JFK wanted the Diem
brothers removed (and not assassinated) for that very reason, to be
more stable. JFK's main advisor was Gen. Taylor, NOT Westmoreland and
since there was no war there was no heavy reliance on the general
beyond training.
> > "Now look, you told me that to win a war you had to capture the
> > enemy’s capital. Therefore, to defeat France Ho would have had to take
> > Paris."
>
> > No, because their real enemy (and goal) was South Vietnam, and the
> > last time I looked their capital was NOT Paris.
>
> > "And silly boy, he couldn’t march to Paris. He’d have to go by
> > sampan. And he never took Hanoi or Saigon. So much for your taking
> > the capital to win a war."
>
> > Yes he did, you don't remember those scenes of people fighting to get
> > onto helicopters at the US Embassy in Saigon? The Northern forces
> > most certainly did take Saigon.
>
"Not while the French were there and that was the time period being
discussed, the French. Ho passed to that great place where all dead
communist go in 1969 so he still missed marching into Siagon."
You are right, and this shows beyond a doubt the North was not
interested in taking the South as the French left in 1954 and we did
not deploy en masse until 1965, why did they not invade during these
years?
> > "As for hoots, I’m still in shock at you telling me Nixon didn’t
> > withdraw American troops. I hope you’ve got that one straighten out
> > in your raging mind."
>
> > He did withdraw troop, BUT first he exapanded the war by attacking
> > bases in Cambodia to destroy the Northern supplies.
>
"No, not first. Stick with me son and I’ll give you a free history
lesson in Vietnam 101. Nixon withdrew 25,000 American troops during
July and August of 1969. We went into Cambodia in April-May of 1970.
Now these are hard historical facts and can’t be changed so don’t
bother, please. You are correct that the Cambodia mission was to
destroy enemy supply depots. It is estimated that it gave ARVN
another year to get ready before Giap made his move."
25,000 troops is nothing when we had 550,000 there. Also, they were
reduced by Congress because the same number of Southern troops were
trained. Don't go giving Nixon all the credit, although he had the
sense to follow the JFK plan, and NOT the war hawk plan of LBJ. Nixon
would have been more like LBJ if he had gotten in office in 1961.
> > He also did NOT withdraw troops until the same number of SVA forces were fully
> > trained. Sound familar?- Hide quoted text -
>
"Well, that isn’t exactly true. We had reached the point where we
were leaving, make a damn what ARVN did. But General Abrams was able
to make rapid progress with the SV, as was shown in the Easter Offense
of 1972."
We left because we got our butts kicked and this was due to poor
planning (if there was much) and NO goals. Not invading the northern
area was ridiculous if we really wanted to win, but this goal was
really null and void from the start as did not want to piss the
Chinese off. A sad waste of good lives.
robcap...@netscape.com
"Here's a three-part audio recording taped on October 2nd and October
5th of 1963, featuring President Kennedy and high-ranking staff
members. The topic is the withdrawal of 1,000 troops from Vietnam:"
This is the first part and the major part was the removal of the bulk
of forces by the end of 1965. Why is this part of the conference not
available on tape? We know it was discussed based on his advisors and
closests aides saying it was.
>
> http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am
>
> http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/ind...
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 6, 5:23 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 11:34 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 5:30 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 5, 2:48 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 5, 10:45 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 5, 9:55 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "In the years since 11/22/63, a darkness has settled over this land.
> > > > > > America has become AmeriKKKa. Vietnam, which JFK would have resolved
> > > > > > peacefully and without bloodshed, tore this country apart.
>
> > > > "Well it was too late to avoid bloodshed so I see your crystal ball is
> > > > still malfunctioning."
>
> > > > I didn't say this so my understanding of your reading comprehension
> > > > deficiencies is still intact.
>
> > "I meant that blood had been shed under JFK before his assassination.
> > Too late to avoid bloodshed."
>
> > You thought I said this and I didn't, Chuck did. You are full of it
> > as you have produced nothing showing JFK started a war. NADA!
>
"I don’t know what the hell you call a war but there was shooting,
bombing and dying going on in Vietnam during JFK’s term. Looks like a
war to me."
I call a war what our constitution calls one, WHEN the Congress
ratifies one. Did JFK ever go to Congress for ratification of a war?
NO. Did LBJ go to Congress for ratification of a war? YES. That is
the difference. JFK wanted to train and get out, LBJ wanted the US
troops to take the lead in the war against "communism."
>
> > > > > > The extreme right took over that day and have continued to liquidated
> > > > > > the liberal elements in our society.
>
> > > > "Lyndon Johnson took over that day. He was to the left of John
> > > > Kennedy."
>
> > > > Sure he was, that is why he passed all of JFK's plans.
>
> > "I assume you mean “bypassed” Kennedy’s plans for Vietnam in NSAM 273.
> > You have any historians of note that agrees with you? LBJ did get
> > some bills through Congress that JFK couldn’t get passed."
>
> > No I meant all of his civil proposals. LBJ had all of the civil
> > rights and other domestic things JFK had planned passed. Of course he
> > got things passed JFK couldn't as there was guilt involved as they
> > knew JFK was murdered by powerful groups and covered up by the
> > government.
>
"I’ll pass comment here, your comment being too far out in lala land."
Equals your comment smacks of the truth too much to dispute it.
> > > > LBJ was a war hawk and was to the right of JFK on military issues. He was also very
> > > > controllable after seeing JFK murdered. JFK had a good balance on the
> > > > big issues though, he was very conservative on many issues.
>
> > "Again, I don’t think you will find a historian of respect claiming
> > that LBJ wanted a war in Vietnam. He didn’t want the mess in Vietnam
> > anymore than JFK did."
>
> > He was for it when JFK was alive as he was pushing for one. He
> > wouldn't have created the Gulf of Tonkin incident if he wasn't for war
> > in Vietnam.- Hide quoted text -
>
"LBJ didn’t create the Tokin Gulf incident, Dumbo. You got a
historian? You, I chortle, don’t count as a historian."
As Commander-in-Chief moron he was responsible for everything, just
like JFK had to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 6, 12:19 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> "Basically true but Congress rushed the American troop withdrawal more
> than was prudent. Thankfully Nixon had a more stable government in SV
> and a much better General in Abrams than JFK had in Diem and Harkins/
> Westmoreland."
>
> So which is it Bill? First you said Nixon withdrew the troops, and now
> it is the Congress that made him do it.
Come on son, you know how it works. Congress funds it and the
president runs it. Reduced funds equal reduced troops. I’m not sure
Nixon would have reduced the troops significantly without some
pressure. Please note I’m not saying I know what he would have done,
this is my guess.
> I think JFK wanted the Diem brothers removed (and not assassinated) for that very reason, to be
> more stable.
This is certainly true but our knowledge of what would happen after
Diem was gone was almost zero. Sadly, VN had eight governments in
about 18 months. What a mess!
> JFK's main advisor was Gen. Taylor, NOT Westmoreland and
> since there was no war there was no heavy reliance on the general
> beyond training.
JFK thought highly of Taylor but McNamara was his chief advisor on the
war. Neither one was worth a damn in my book. JFK and LBJ both were
ill served by their generals in Vietnam. You have got to get over
this foolish notion that no war was going on in Vietnam in 1962
onward. We’ll call it an insurgent/counterinsurgent war if it makes
you feel better but despite your foolish notion the Vietnamese were
mixing it up. Our advisors were part of this and I’ve given you the
American body count for Ap Bac. I just don’t know what more I can do
except physically help you pull your head out of your ass. The
generals (Harkins) sent up reports on how operations were going in the
countryside. Harkins sent up nothing but positive reports on the
counterinsurgent and this was far from the truth.
> "Not while the French were there and that was the time period being
> discussed, the French. Ho passed to that great place where all dead
> communist go in 1969 so he still missed marching into Siagon."
>
> You are right, and this shows beyond a doubt the North was not
> interested in taking the South as the French left in 1954 and we did
> not deploy en masse until 1965, why did they not invade during these
> years?
Sigh! Good god Man, Ho never wavered from reuniting his country under
a communist rule. Stay with me now Robbie. The French got their ass
kicked in 1954 and began leaving VN. Ho got NVN, the site of most of
the fighting with the French. He had to repair the war ravaged
country and consolidate his power. His (or Truong Chinh’s) northern
land reform was a disaster and Ho admitted that this delayed their
march south by 5 years. So we are up to 1959, the same year the
communist decided to begin armed conflict in the south. South Vietnam
was able to handle this (the counterinsurgent WAR) with American
advisors help until 1965 when main force communist had moved south in
numbers.
In short, the communist were not strong enough to invade in force.
> "No, not first. Stick with me son and I’ll give you a free history
> lesson in Vietnam 101. Nixon withdrew 25,000 American troops during
> July and August of 1969. We went into Cambodia in April-May of 1970.
> Now these are hard historical facts and can’t be changed so don’t
> bother, please. You are correct that the Cambodia mission was to
> destroy enemy supply depots. It is estimated that it gave ARVN
> another year to get ready before Giap made his move."
>
> 25,000 troops is nothing when we had 550,000 there.
It was significant because it signaled a turning point in American
involvement in Vietnam.
> Also, they were reduced by Congress because the same number of Southern troops were
> trained. Don't go giving Nixon all the credit, although he had the
> sense to follow the JFK plan, and NOT the war hawk plan of LBJ. Nixon
> would have been more like LBJ if he had gotten in office in 1961.
Horse shit.
> "Well, that isn’t exactly true. We had reached the point where we
> were leaving, make a damn what ARVN did. But General Abrams was able
> to make rapid progress with the SV, as was shown in the Easter Offense
> of 1972."
>
> We left because we got our butts kicked and this was due to poor
> planning (if there was much) and NO goals. Not invading the northern
> area was ridiculous if we really wanted to win, but this goal was
> really null and void from the start as did not want to piss the
> Chinese off. A sad waste of good lives.
I agree, mostly.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 6, 2:23 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "Here's a three-part audio recording taped on October 2nd and October
> 5th of 1963, featuring President Kennedy and high-ranking staff
> members. The topic is the withdrawal of 1,000 troops from Vietnam:"
>
> This is the first part and the major part was the removal of the bulk
> of forces by the end of 1965. Why is this part of the conference not
> available on tape? We know it was discussed based on his advisors and
> closests aides saying it was.
I didn’t think you were reading the references I gave you. How are we
going to make any progress, and we have much to make, if you don’t
read a bit for me.
To answer your question it is on the tapes, which you declared
“doctored” in the first place. Here it is again.
JFK: Is that going to be an assumption that it’s going well, but if it
doesn’t go well [unclear]
McNamara: No, no, sir. One of the major premises- two [unclear] we
have. First, we believe we can complete the military campaign in the
first three corps in 64 and the fourth corps in 65. But secondly, if
it extends beyond that period we believe we can train the Vietnamese
to take over the essential functions and WITHDRAW THE BULK OF OUR
FORCES (Caps mine for your benefit).
McNamara: Well, not really, because what- the thousand people are
just not needed out there.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 6, 12:13 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
>
> "I don’t know what the hell you call a war but there was shooting,
> bombing and dying going on in Vietnam during JFK’s term. Looks like a
> war to me."
>
> I call a war what our constitution calls one, WHEN the Congress
> ratifies one. Did JFK ever go to Congress for ratification of a war?
> NO. Did LBJ go to Congress for ratification of a war? YES.
More Horseshit.
> That is the difference. JFK wanted to train and get out, LBJ wanted the US
> troops to take the lead in the war against "communism."
Are you under the impression that JFK was training ARVN in a safe
parking lot someplace? I know that is farfetched but I never know
about you.
No, Johnson didn’t want that at all. He was forced to commit troops
to match the communist escalation. ARVN could no longer handle it.
> "LBJ didn’t create the Tokin Gulf incident, Dumbo. You got a
> historian? You, I chortle, don’t count as a historian."
>
> As Commander-in-Chief moron he was responsible for everything, just
> like JFK had to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs.- Hide quoted text -
Moron? You got a lot of studying to do before you call anyone a moron
about Vietnam. Dickhead.
If you will note, moron, I didn’t say LBJ wasn’t responsible. He
certainly was. I said he didn’t CREATE the Tokin Gulf incident.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 6, 11:09 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 12:19 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "Basically true but Congress rushed the American troop withdrawal more
> > than was prudent. Thankfully Nixon had a more stable government in SV
> > and a much better General in Abrams than JFK had in Diem and Harkins/
> > Westmoreland."
>
> > So which is it Bill? First you said Nixon withdrew the troops, and now
> > it is the Congress that made him do it.
>
"Come on son, you know how it works. Congress funds it and the
president runs it. Reduced funds equal reduced troops. I’m not sure
Nixon would have reduced the troops significantly without some
pressure. Please note I’m not saying I know what he would have done,
this is my guess."
So your assertion Nixon reduced the troops is NOT true, he was forced
to approve it due to a smaller budget. Guesses are not good enough,
you said Nixon withdrew troops and blabbed about this as some triumph
over me, and NOW we see it was really the Congress that made him do
it. LOL!!!! You crack me up Bill. :-)
> > I think JFK wanted the Diem brothers removed (and not assassinated) for that very reason, to be
> > more stable.
"This is certainly true but our knowledge of what would happen after
Diem was gone was almost zero. Sadly, VN had eight governments in
about 18 months. What a mess!"
No it isn't, JFK would have put someone in charge who carried out his
plan, which was fully training the SVA so we could leave. I don't
have blinders on about JFK, I admire him and his work, but he could be
a bastard when he needed to be. You don't get to be President without
that trait. He had more compassion and thoughtfulness than bad, so he
was a very good President, but he would have had the next guy toe the
line to meet his goals.
> > JFK's main advisor was Gen. Taylor, NOT Westmoreland and
> > since there was no war there was no heavy reliance on the general
> > beyond training.
>
"JFK thought highly of Taylor but McNamara was his chief advisor on
the war. Neither one was worth a damn in my book. JFK and LBJ both
were ill served by their generals in Vietnam. You have got to get
over this foolish notion that no war was going on in Vietnam in 1962
onward."
There wasn't one and you have proven it by failing to show any
credible document or citation showing there was a war under JFK. JFK
was AGAINST a war, so why would he start one in 1962 or 1963? This is
the claim all LNers make, but they NEVER can prove there was a war on,
and that is because there was NONE until 1965 under LBJ.
"We’ll call it an insurgent/counterinsurgent war if it makes you feel
better but despite your foolish notion the Vietnamese were mixing it
up."
Counter-insurgency flies in the face of a war, by its very nature it
is a secret act, war is for the military and it is very open. It has
to be ratified by the Congress (or should be) for the full might of
the armed forces can be used. Your point makes no sense.
"Our advisors were part of this and I’ve given you the American body
count for Ap Bac. I just don’t know what more I can do except
physically help you pull your head out of your ass. The generals
(Harkins) sent up reports on how operations were going in the
countryside. Harkins sent up nothing but positive reports on the
counterinsurgent and this was far from the truth."
They may have been, but my point is this was AGAINST JFK's direct
orders as he was NOT looking for a war in SE Asia. That is why he did
NSAM's 54, 55 and 56 to take counter-insurgency acts away from the CIA
and give them to the military. Those participating in these acts were
violating orders from JFK's administration, that is the point you are
not getting.
> > "Not while the French were there and that was the time period being
> > discussed, the French. Ho passed to that great place where all dead
> > communist go in 1969 so he still missed marching into Siagon."
>
> > You are right, and this shows beyond a doubt the North was not
> > interested in taking the South as the French left in 1954 and we did
> > not deploy en masse until 1965, why did they not invade during these
> > years?
>
"Sigh! Good god Man, Ho never wavered from reuniting his country
under a communist rule. Stay with me now Robbie. The French got
their ass kicked in 1954 and began leaving VN. Ho got NVN, the site
of most of the fighting with the French. He had to repair the war
ravaged country and consolidate his power. His (or Truong Chinh’s)
northern land reform was a disaster and Ho admitted that this delayed
their march south by 5 years. So we are up to 1959, the same year the
communist decided to begin armed conflict in the south. South Vietnam
was able to handle this (the counterinsurgent WAR) with American
advisors help until 1965 when main force communist had moved south in
numbers. In short, the communist were not strong enough to invade in
force."
Please, you are guessing. They could have taken South Vietnam quite
easily as they were in a shambles. A million people moved from the
north into the Mekong Delta (Christians mostly) and the farmers were
displaced. Their whole economic system was in a shambles. You have
shown NO valid reason why they did not invade if that was their
goal.
> > "No, not first. Stick with me son and I’ll give you a free history
> > lesson in Vietnam 101. Nixon withdrew 25,000 American troops during
> > July and August of 1969. We went into Cambodia in April-May of 1970.
> > Now these are hard historical facts and can’t be changed so don’t
> > bother, please. You are correct that the Cambodia mission was to
> > destroy enemy supply depots. It is estimated that it gave ARVN
> > another year to get ready before Giap made his move."
>
> > 25,000 troops is nothing when we had 550,000 there.
>
"It was significant because it signaled a turning point in American
involvement in Vietnam."
But the Congress made Nixon do it, you said so.
> > Also, they were reduced by Congress because the same number of Southern troops were
> > trained. Don't go giving Nixon all the credit, although he had the
> > sense to follow the JFK plan, and NOT the war hawk plan of LBJ. Nixon
> > would have been more like LBJ if he had gotten in office in 1961.
>
"Horse shit."
Doesn't change the truth.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 6, 11:20 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 12:13 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "I don’t know what the hell you call a war but there was shooting,
> > bombing and dying going on in Vietnam during JFK’s term. Looks like a
> > war to me."
>
> > I call a war what our constitution calls one, WHEN the Congress
> > ratifies one. Did JFK ever go to Congress for ratification of a war?
> > NO. Did LBJ go to Congress for ratification of a war? YES.
>
"More Horseshit."
Your a Bush supporter so following our Constitution is NOT high on
your list.
> > That is the difference. JFK wanted to train and get out, LBJ wanted the US
> > troops to take the lead in the war against "communism."
>
> Are you under the impression that JFK was training ARVN in a safe
> parking lot someplace? I know that is farfetched but I never know
> about you.
>
> No, Johnson didn’t want that at all. He was forced to commit troops
> to match the communist escalation. ARVN could no longer handle it.
>
> > "LBJ didn’t create the Tokin Gulf incident, Dumbo. You got a
> > historian? You, I chortle, don’t count as a historian."
>
> > As Commander-in-Chief moron he was responsible for everything, just
> > like JFK had to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs.- Hide quoted text -
>
"Moron? You got a lot of studying to do before you call anyone a
moron about Vietnam. Dickhead."
I don't think so oldtimer, you are full of bluster but can't back any
of it up with ANY facts or proof. It is all your silly theories.
"If you will note, moron, I didn’t say LBJ wasn’t responsible. He
certainly was. I said he didn’t CREATE the Tokin Gulf incident."
So humor me, who created it then?
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 6, 4:22 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> "Come on son, you know how it works. Congress funds it and the
> president runs it. Reduced funds equal reduced troops. I’m not sure
> Nixon would have reduced the troops significantly without some
> pressure. Please note I’m not saying I know what he would have done,
> this is my guess."
>
> So your assertion Nixon reduced the troops is NOT true, he was forced
> to approve it due to a smaller budget. Guesses are not good enough,
> you said Nixon withdrew troops and blabbed about this as some triumph
> over me, and NOW we see it was really the Congress that made him do
> it. LOL!!!! You crack me up Bill. :-)
You silly shit-head, Nixon was the CIC and was the one that order the
troop withdrawals. I “babbled” when you told me that Nixon DID NOT
withdraw the troops. That was a stupid statement you made. I made
clear to you the Congress actions was my opinion and not necessary
fact. Did you stupid ass miss that.
> > > I think JFK wanted the Diem brothers removed (and not assassinated) for that very reason, to be
> > > more stable.
>
> "This is certainly true but our knowledge of what would happen after
> Diem was gone was almost zero. Sadly, VN had eight governments in
> about 18 months. What a mess!"
>
> No it isn't, JFK would have put someone in charge who carried out his
> plan, which was fully training the SVA so we could leave.
I know you think the man was going to fix the world but he had no
influence with the communist Vietnamese and very little with Diem in
the south. Both Vietnamese fractions would have to cooperate for NSAM
263 to come true. Both didn’t! Not even your hero could fix that.
> "JFK thought highly of Taylor but McNamara was his chief advisor on
> the war. Neither one was worth a damn in my book. JFK and LBJ both
> were ill served by their generals in Vietnam. You have got to get
> over this foolish notion that no war was going on in Vietnam in 1962
> onward."
>
> There wasn't one and you have proven it by failing to show any
> credible document or citation showing there was a war under JFK.
Gee General, looks like our State Department was calling it a war back
during JFK’s term. Hey, but what do they know compared to your
brilliant observations? McNamara speaks of winning the WAR in the
tapes I listed for you but hey, what does the Secretary of Defense
know about things. Seems it looks like a war to everyone but your
goofy ass.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
BUREAU OF INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH
Research Memorandum
RFE-90, October 22, 1963
TO: The Secretary
THROUGH: S/S
FROM: INR-Thomas L. Hughes
SUBJECT: Statistics on the War Effort in South Vietnam Show
Unfavorable Trends
This report reviews the more significant statistics on the Communist
insurgency in South Vietnam as indicators of trends in the military
situation since July 1963.
> "Our advisors were part of this and I’ve given you the American body
> count for Ap Bac. I just don’t know what more I can do except
> physically help you pull your head out of your ass. The generals
> (Harkins) sent up reports on how operations were going in the
> countryside. Harkins sent up nothing but positive reports on the
> counterinsurgent and this was far from the truth."
>
> They may have been, but my point is this was AGAINST JFK's direct
> orders as he was NOT looking for a war in SE Asia. That is why he did
> NSAM's 54, 55 and 56 to take counter-insurgency acts away from the CIA
> and give them to the military. Those participating in these acts were
> violating orders from JFK's administration, that is the point you are
> not getting.
JFK sent over bombers but they had “orders” not to bomb. Does this
really make sense to you? Oh god, it probably does!
> "Sigh! Good god Man, Ho never wavered from reuniting his country
> under a communist rule. Stay with me now Robbie. The French got
> their ass kicked in 1954 and began leaving VN. Ho got NVN, the site
> of most of the fighting with the French. He had to repair the war
> ravaged country and consolidate his power. His (or Truong Chinh’s)
> northern land reform was a disaster and Ho admitted that this delayed
> their march south by 5 years. So we are up to 1959, the same year the
> communist decided to begin armed conflict in the south. South Vietnam
> was able to handle this (the counterinsurgent WAR) with American
> advisors help until 1965 when main force communist had moved south in
> numbers. In short, the communist were not strong enough to invade in
> force."
>
> Please, you are guessing. They could have taken South Vietnam quite
> easily as they were in a shambles. A million people moved from the
> north into the Mekong Delta (Christians mostly) and the farmers were
> displaced. Their whole economic system was in a shambles. You have
> shown NO valid reason why they did not invade if that was their
> goal.
As I pointed out, the North wasn’t in such great shape either. That
you are too dumb to get the point doesn’t surprise me. I don’t want
to overwhelm you with too much material but Ho’s sponsors pressured
him to accept the partition of the Geneva Accords.
> > > "No, not first. Stick with me son and I’ll give you a free history
> > > lesson in Vietnam 101. Nixon withdrew 25,000 American troops during
> > > July and August of 1969. We went into Cambodia in April-May of 1970.
> > > Now these are hard historical facts and can’t be changed so don’t
> > > bother, please. You are correct that the Cambodia mission was to
> > > destroy enemy supply depots. It is estimated that it gave ARVN
> > > another year to get ready before Giap made his move."
>
> > > 25,000 troops is nothing when we had 550,000 there.
>
> "It was significant because it signaled a turning point in American
> involvement in Vietnam."
>
> But the Congress made Nixon do it, you said so.
I pointed out that this was my opinion. Unlike you, I don’t consider
all my opinions to be cast in stone. I might be wrong. You on the
other hand are almost always wrong.
Bbill Clarke
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 6, 4:57 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > "I don’t know what the hell you call a war but there was shooting,
> > > bombing and dying going on in Vietnam during JFK’s term. Looks like a
> > > war to me."
>
> > > I call a war what our constitution calls one, WHEN the Congress
> > > ratifies one. Did JFK ever go to Congress for ratification of a war?
> > > NO. Did LBJ go to Congress for ratification of a war? YES.
>
> "More Horseshit."
>
> Your a Bush supporter so following our Constitution is NOT high on
> your list.
Got your crystal ball out again I see. I didn’t vote for Bush for
governor and I didn’t vote for him for president. I have condemned
him and his other draft dodging buddies for starting this mess in
Iraq. What the hell makes your goofy ass think I support him? One
more of your opinions shot to hell.
> > > That is the difference. JFK wanted to train and get out, LBJ wanted the US
> > > troops to take the lead in the war against "communism."
>
> > Are you under the impression that JFK was training ARVN in a safe
> > parking lot someplace? I know that is farfetched but I never know
> > about you.
>
> > No, Johnson didn’t want that at all. He was forced to commit troops
> > to match the communist escalation. ARVN could no longer handle it.
>
> > > "LBJ didn’t create the Tokin Gulf incident, Dumbo. You got a
> > > historian? You, I chortle, don’t count as a historian."
>
> > > As Commander-in-Chief moron he was responsible for everything, just
> > > like JFK had to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> "Moron? You got a lot of studying to do before you call anyone a
> moron about Vietnam. Dickhead."
>
> I don't think so oldtimer, you are full of bluster but can't back any
> of it up with ANY facts or proof. It is all your silly theories.
I have given you links, books with page numbers and all the patience I
can muster and you still are too goofy to get the picture.
> "If you will note, moron, I didn’t say LBJ wasn’t responsible. He
> certainly was. I said he didn’t CREATE the Tokin Gulf incident."
>
> So humor me, who created it then?- Hide quoted text -
Well General, how about them communist torpedo boats?
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 6, 4:00 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 4:22 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "Come on son, you know how it works. Congress funds it and the
> > president runs it. Reduced funds equal reduced troops. I’m not sure
> > Nixon would have reduced the troops significantly without some
> > pressure. Please note I’m not saying I know what he would have done,
> > this is my guess."
>
> > So your assertion Nixon reduced the troops is NOT true, he was forced
> > to approve it due to a smaller budget. Guesses are not good enough,
> > you said Nixon withdrew troops and blabbed about this as some triumph
> > over me, and NOW we see it was really the Congress that made him do
> > it. LOL!!!! You crack me up Bill. :-)
>
"You silly shit-head, Nixon was the CIC and was the one that order the
troop withdrawals. I “babbled” when you told me that Nixon DID NOT
withdraw the troops. That was a stupid statement you made. I made
clear to you the Congress actions was my opinion and not necessary
fact. Did you stupid ass miss that."
So now silly Billy is back to the CIC being responsible for all
things. JFK was for the Bay of Pigs, LBJ was NOT for the Gulf of
Tonkin, and Nixon was for withdrawing troops he was forced to withdraw
by Congress. Silly Billy is like a Yoyo. I like how you mess up and
it is my fault.
> > > > I think JFK wanted the Diem brothers removed (and not assassinated) for that very reason, to be
> > > > more stable.
>
> > "This is certainly true but our knowledge of what would happen after
> > Diem was gone was almost zero. Sadly, VN had eight governments in
> > about 18 months. What a mess!"
>
> > No it isn't, JFK would have put someone in charge who carried out his
> > plan, which was fully training the SVA so we could leave.
>
"I know you think the man was going to fix the world but he had no
influence with the communist Vietnamese and very little with Diem in
the south. Both Vietnamese fractions would have to cooperate for NSAM
263 to come true. Both didn’t! Not even your hero could fix that."
I think the opposite Silly Billy. JFK was NOT for fixing the world as
he believed that each country had sovereignty and should decide their
own destiny. He was not for the "Police of the World" role we have
taken on. Think about it, we were founded on the wish of self-
destiny, but now we dictate to all the countries of the world how they
should conduct their business. Does this make any sense to you? Not
me. You are wrong as usual as JFK would NOT have given them a choice,
they would be responsible for their own country's defense one war or
another. We were stuck in South Korea and Japan, therefore, JFK did
not want another country in Asia to be our responsibility.
> > "JFK thought highly of Taylor but McNamara was his chief advisor on
> > the war. Neither one was worth a damn in my book. JFK and LBJ both
> > were ill served by their generals in Vietnam. You have got to get
> > over this foolish notion that no war was going on in Vietnam in 1962
> > onward."
>
> > There wasn't one and you have proven it by failing to show any
> > credible document or citation showing there was a war under JFK.
>
"Gee General, looks like our State Department was calling it a war
back during JFK’s term. Hey, but what do they know compared to your
brilliant observations?
McNamara speaks of winning the WAR in the tapes I listed for you but
hey, what does the Secretary of Defense know about things. Seems it
looks like a war to everyone but your goofy ass."
Then it should be quite easy to provide a document with JFK's
signature showing he knew there was a war and we would not leave until
the war was won. Why can't you do this?
"DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUREAU OF INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH
Research Memorandum
RFE-90, October 22, 1963
TO: The Secretary
THROUGH: S/S
FROM: INR-Thomas L. Hughes
SUBJECT: Statistics on the War Effort in South Vietnam Show
Unfavorable Trends
This report reviews the more significant statistics on the Communist
insurgency in South Vietnam as indicators of trends in the military
situation since July 1963."
Any remarks to war was the one between the South and North, NOT
American forces. We were "advisors" not active participants. The
American people would have had a fit if we had been in a war this
early, that is why LBJ made up a fake attack to get the American
people behind it. This is hardly proof JFK started a war involving US
troops.
> > "Our advisors were part of this and I’ve given you the American body
> > count for Ap Bac. I just don’t know what more I can do except
> > physically help you pull your head out of your ass. The generals
> > (Harkins) sent up reports on how operations were going in the
> > countryside. Harkins sent up nothing but positive reports on the
> > counterinsurgent and this was far from the truth."
>
> > They may have been, but my point is this was AGAINST JFK's direct
> > orders as he was NOT looking for a war in SE Asia. That is why he did
> > NSAM's 54, 55 and 56 to take counter-insurgency acts away from the CIA
> > and give them to the military. Those participating in these acts were
> > violating orders from JFK's administration, that is the point you are
> > not getting.
>
"JFK sent over bombers but they had “orders” not to bomb. Does this
really make sense to you? Oh god, it probably does!"
First of all I don't know if this is true, and secondly so what? None
of the men who followed and started the war bombed Nothern Vietnam
either. JFK was NOT at war with North Vietnam so these were probably
practice runs for SV airmen. IF they did drop the bombs then a real
war would have started. What is so hard to understand about this?
> > "Sigh! Good god Man, Ho never wavered from reuniting his country
> > under a communist rule. Stay with me now Robbie. The French got
> > their ass kicked in 1954 and began leaving VN. Ho got NVN, the site
> > of most of the fighting with the French. He had to repair the war
> > ravaged country and consolidate his power. His (or Truong Chinh’s)
> > northern land reform was a disaster and Ho admitted that this delayed
> > their march south by 5 years. So we are up to 1959, the same year the
> > communist decided to begin armed conflict in the south. South Vietnam
> > was able to handle this (the counterinsurgent WAR) with American
> > advisors help until 1965 when main force communist had moved south in
> > numbers. In short, the communist were not strong enough to invade in
> > force."
>
> > Please, you are guessing. They could have taken South Vietnam quite
> > easily as they were in a shambles. A million people moved from the
> > north into the Mekong Delta (Christians mostly) and the farmers were
> > displaced. Their whole economic system was in a shambles. You have
> > shown NO valid reason why they did not invade if that was their
> > goal.
>
"As I pointed out, the North wasn’t in such great shape either. That
you are too dumb to get the point doesn’t surprise me. I don’t want
to overwhelm you with too much material but Ho’s sponsors pressured
him to accept the partition of the Geneva Accords."
Please, a Communist dictatorship requires much less in an economy than
a free captial system. They were way better off than the South, and
they had two major allies nearby, China and Russia. Wrong, Ho was an
ally of the US until the start of the Vietnam war, this is why he did
not attack the south.
> > > > "No, not first. Stick with me son and I’ll give you a free history
> > > > lesson in Vietnam 101. Nixon withdrew 25,000 American troops during
> > > > July and August of 1969. We went into Cambodia in April-May of 1970.
> > > > Now these are hard historical facts and can’t be changed so don’t
> > > > bother, please. You are correct that the Cambodia mission was to
> > > > destroy enemy supply depots. It is estimated that it gave ARVN
> > > > another year to get ready before Giap made his move."
>
> > > > 25,000 troops is nothing when we had 550,000 there.
>
> > "It was significant because it signaled a turning point in American
> > involvement in Vietnam."
>
> > But the Congress made Nixon do it, you said so.
>
"I pointed out that this was my opinion. Unlike you, I don’t consider
all my opinions to be cast in stone. I might be wrong. You on the
other hand are almost always wrong."
I haven't expressed any opinions, you have. In your opinion JFK
started a war, you can't prove it. In your opinion NSAM 263 and 273
are the same document, but you can't prove it. I can go on and on but
the point is you have NOT provided proof for any of your opinions.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 6, 4:03 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 4:57 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > > "I don’t know what the hell you call a war but there was shooting,
> > > > bombing and dying going on in Vietnam during JFK’s term. Looks like a
> > > > war to me."
>
> > > > I call a war what our constitution calls one, WHEN the Congress
> > > > ratifies one. Did JFK ever go to Congress for ratification of a war?
> > > > NO. Did LBJ go to Congress for ratification of a war? YES.
>
> > "More Horseshit."
>
> > Your a Bush supporter so following our Constitution is NOT high on
> > your list.
>
"Got your crystal ball out again I see. I didn’t vote for Bush for
governor and I didn’t vote for him for president. I have condemned
him and his other draft dodging buddies for starting this mess in
Iraq. What the hell makes your goofy ass think I support him? One
more of your opinions shot to hell."
Sorry, you sound like a far right-wing fanatic, and you do live in
Texas, so I incorrectly assumed you were. I apologize.
> > > > That is the difference. JFK wanted to train and get out, LBJ wanted the US
> > > > troops to take the lead in the war against "communism."
>
> > > Are you under the impression that JFK was training ARVN in a safe
> > > parking lot someplace? I know that is farfetched but I never know
> > > about you.
>
> > > No, Johnson didn’t want that at all. He was forced to commit troops
> > > to match the communist escalation. ARVN could no longer handle it.
>
> > > > "LBJ didn’t create the Tokin Gulf incident, Dumbo. You got a
> > > > historian? You, I chortle, don’t count as a historian."
>
> > > > As Commander-in-Chief moron he was responsible for everything, just
> > > > like JFK had to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > "Moron? You got a lot of studying to do before you call anyone a
> > moron about Vietnam. Dickhead."
>
> > I don't think so oldtimer, you are full of bluster but can't back any
> > of it up with ANY facts or proof. It is all your silly theories.
>
"I have given you links, books with page numbers and all the patience
I can muster and you still are too goofy to get the picture."
I DON'T CARE about books, I want documents showing JFK's signature
that we were at war in Vietnam, that he wanted war in Vietnam, and
that show he said we would "assist them (S. Vietnam) win their war"
against communism. That is all I want to see, why haven't you
produced them?
> > "If you will note, moron, I didn’t say LBJ wasn’t responsible. He
> > certainly was. I said he didn’t CREATE the Tokin Gulf incident."
>
> > So humor me, who created it then?>>
"Well General, how about them communist torpedo boats?"
Sure, and the U.S.S. Maine was really attacked too!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 7, 4:37=A0pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>> On May 6, 4:03=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 6, 4:57=A0pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > "I don=92t know what the hell you call a war but there was shooting,=
>
>> > > > bombing and dying going on in Vietnam during JFK=92s term. =A0Looks =
>like a
>> > > > war to me."
>>
>> > > > I call a war what our constitution calls one, WHEN the Congress
>ar?
>> > > > NO. =A0Did LBJ go to Congress for ratification of a war? =A0YES.
>>
>> > "More Horseshit."
>>
>> > Your a Bush supporter so following our Constitution is NOT high on
>> > your list.
Bush follows the Constitution no better than any Democrat does. (Well... on the
other hand, Bush was never impeached...)
>"Got your crystal ball out again I see. =A0I didn=92t vote for Bush for
>governor and I didn=92t vote for him for president. =A0I have condemned
>him and his other draft dodging buddies for starting this mess in
>Iraq. =A0What the hell makes your goofy ass think I support him? =A0One
>more of your opinions shot to hell."
>
>Sorry, you sound like a far right-wing fanatic, and you do live in
>Texas, so I incorrectly assumed you were. I apologize.
Any "far left-wing" fanatics around here?
I sure hope no-one thinks that Bush is a "far right-wing fanatic" (although I
know that's not what you stated.)
>> > > > That is the difference. =A0JFK wanted to train and get out, LBJ want=
>ed the US
>> > > > troops to take the lead in the war against "communism."
>>
>> > > Are you under the impression that JFK was training ARVN in a safe
>> > > parking lot someplace? =A0I know that is farfetched but I never know
>> > > about you.
>>
>> > > No, Johnson didn=92t want that at all. =A0He was forced to commit troo=
>ps
>> > > to match the communist escalation. =A0ARVN could no longer handle it.
>>
>> > > > "LBJ didn=92t create the Tokin Gulf incident, Dumbo. =A0You got a
>> > > > historian? =A0You, I chortle, don=92t count as a historian."
>>
>> > > > As Commander-in-Chief moron he was responsible for everything, just
>> > > > like JFK had to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs.- Hide quoted tex=
>t -
>>
>> > "Moron? =A0You got a lot of studying to do before you call anyone a
>> > moron about Vietnam. =A0Dickhead."
>>
>> > I don't think so oldtimer, you are full of bluster but can't back any
>> > of it up with ANY facts or proof. =A0It is all your silly theories.
>>
>
>"I have given you links, books with page numbers and all the patience
>I can muster and you still are too goofy to get the picture."
>
>I DON'T CARE about books, I want documents showing JFK's signature
>that we were at war in Vietnam, that he wanted war in Vietnam, and
>that show he said we would "assist them (S. Vietnam) win their war"
>against communism. That is all I want to see, why haven't you
>produced them?
>
>
>
>> > "If you will note, moron, I didn=92t say LBJ wasn=92t responsible. =A0He=
>
>> > certainly was. =A0I said he didn=92t CREATE the Tokin Gulf incident."
aeffects
he's having a tough time, Walt.... all these ghost writers working for
Vinnie daBug, making a ton of bucks and poor old Davey Von Pein stuck
here on the internet doing it gratis.... he pissed and depressed...
billc...@live.com
wrote:
>
> I DON'T CARE about books,
That has become apparent.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
wrote:
>
I directed you to tapes to help you understand NSAM 263. You didn’t
like what it said so now they are “doctored”.
I reference the battle of Ap Bac to show you the American deaths in
what you said were not a war. I showed the State Department and the
Secretary of Defense both calling it a war. That isn’t good enough
for you.
I showed you American pilots bombing SVN and you say it must be a
“training mission”. And if so the bastards had violated JFK’s
“orders”. Sure!
I showed you why Ho didn’t come south in 1954, as detailed in most
history books of Vietnam. You won’t read a history book but you
dismiss it regardless.
You said Nixon didn’t withdraw troops from Vietnam. I gave you book
and page number which showed he did. This was perhaps the nuttiest
thing you came out with.
When caught in that whopper, you said well he expanded the war first
by going into Cambodia first. I showed that to be false but you
continue to whine.
You claim the Tokin Gulf was a fake. I’ve pointed out several time
the first attack was very real and recommended you read Mr. Moise’s
book on the incident. Again you refused to anything but squeal like a
pig.
You state your opinion that JFK would have made sure NSAM 263 was a
success as fact. Of course it isn’t fact and why you think a man that
couldn’t get his bills through the American Congress could control
Diem, much less the communist, again indicates your stupidity.
And so no and so on. Now we are re-plowing the same ground for about
the third time and you have, Dumbo, grown boring. You have, as they
say, become not worth fucking with.
So I leave you in your ignorance of American involvement in Vietnam.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
"That has become apparent."
Funny, I meant the ones you are putting forth as proof, which by the
way they are NOT. They have proved nothing just like you.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 7, 4:26 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
"I directed you to tapes to help you understand NSAM 263. You didn’t
like what it said so now they are “doctored”."
I understand NSAM 263 totally, you are the one who thinks it says
things it does NOT, and have failed miserably in providing proof to
support your assertions.
"I reference the battle of Ap Bac to show you the American deaths in
what you said were not a war. I showed the State Department and the
Secretary of Defense both calling it a war. That isn’t good enough
for you."
It was NOT a war for America at this junction, they are refering to a
North and South conflict. The deaths you are talking about were due
to actions being taken without approval in many cases as JFK was not
for escalating the conflict. He did not want this, he wanted to train
the Southern forces and get out. Your proof is not good enough as you
claim JFK started a war, but can't show any documentation (which is
needed to do so) to prove this claim.
"I showed you American pilots bombing SVN and you say it must be a
“training mission”. And if so the bastards had violated JFK’s
“orders”. Sure!"
You showed nothing, you are pasting ambiguous book cites and think
this is proof. I want proof it was a war like you claim, why is this
so hard?
"I showed you why Ho didn’t come south in 1954, as detailed in most
history books of Vietnam. You won’t read a history book but you
dismiss it regardless."
How do you know I don't read history books? You don't, I just don't
believe all the things in them, especially when one reads the
"Pentagon Papers" as see most of our "History" regarding Vietnam is
made up. Sounds like the JFK case.
"You said Nixon didn’t withdraw troops from Vietnam. I gave you book
and page number which showed he did. This was perhaps the nuttiest
thing you came out with."
I said Nixon did NOT withdraw troops right away, that he escalated the
war first. You said he did, and then showed he did not withdraw
25,000 troops UNTIL 1972. He was President as of 1/69! He did expand
the war first by sending raids into Cambodia to take away the supplies
for the North. You are the one that is saying nutty things.
"When caught in that whopper, you said well he expanded the war first
by going into Cambodia first. I showed that to be false but you
continue to whine."
How can you show the fact he attacked the storage facilities in
Cambodia to be false? I guess I need to see proof of this one too.
The list grows of things Bill can't prove. Nixon, at the orders of
Congress, withdrew 25,000 troops nearly 3 years after he became
President and Bill thinks this is something great. He ran on a
platform of leaving Vietnam, but waits 3 YEARS to reduce our troop
size.
"You claim the Tokin Gulf was a fake. I’ve pointed out several time
the first attack was very real and recommended you read Mr. Moise’s
book on the incident. Again you refused to anything but squeal like a
pig."
Bill, you are obvioulsy close-minded as most historians and even media
folks admit the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident was made up to get us into
the war. Note the wording of "into the war", there was a war at this
point, but the US had no involvement officially at this point, it was
between the North and South only.
"You state your opinion that JFK would have made sure NSAM 263 was a
success as fact. Of course it isn’t fact and why you think a man that
couldn’t get his bills through the American Congress could control
Diem, much less the communist, again indicates your stupidity."
Your stupidity is in thinking JFK couldn't control Diem, he did for a
few years, and whe he no longer could he had him removed from office.
Again, over zealous subordinates had it handled in a way that led to
him being assassinated , but this was NOT JFK's plan. JFK was NOT
trying to control the Communist, that is why he was killed, as he said
this part of the world was not ours to rule. He was right as the
North took the South and we went on like nothing happened. We are
even opening up relations with them now.
"And so no and so on. Now we are re-plowing the same ground for about
the third time and you have, Dumbo, grown boring. You have, as they
say, become not worth fucking with."
Who's the whiner now? It is all my fault because Bill wants to act
like an expert on Vietnam and make outrageous claims, and then NOT
back any of them. It has grown boring as everyone has seen you are a
liar, and you are anti-JFK. You have NOT supported ANY of your wild
accusations with a lick of proof. You are right, it has become
boring, you are a liar and it is obvious. What else is there to
discuss? Nothing.
"So I leave you in your ignorance of American involvement in Vietnam."
The only one ignorant is you, as you think things happened that did
NOT. Just because you were there does NOT make you an expert.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 8, 9:05 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
>
> "You said Nixon didn’t withdraw troops from Vietnam. I gave you book
> and page number which showed he did. This was perhaps the nuttiest
> thing you came out with."
>
> I said Nixon did NOT withdraw troops right away, that he escalated the
> war first. You said he did, and then showed he did not withdraw
> 25,000 troops UNTIL 1972. He was President as of 1/69! He did expand
> the war first by sending raids into Cambodia to take away the supplies
> for the North. You are the one that is saying nutty things.
I just can’t let your falsehood here pass. If you look back I said
Nixon withdrew 25,000 troops in 1969. NINETEEN SIXTY NINE. You got
that you lying pile of dogshit.
> "When caught in that whopper, you said well he expanded the war first
> by going into Cambodia first. I showed that to be false but you
> continue to whine."
>
> How can you show the fact he attacked the storage facilities in
> Cambodia to be false? I guess I need to see proof of this one too.
> The list grows of things Bill can't prove. Nixon, at the orders of
> Congress, withdrew 25,000 troops nearly 3 years after he became
> President and Bill thinks this is something great. He ran on a
> platform of leaving Vietnam, but waits 3 YEARS to reduce our troop
> size.
I didn’t say the Cambodia operation was false and you are being
dishonest again. I said he WITHDREW TROOPS before he went into
Cambodia. It was in reply to you saying the opposite. I gave you
the dates of the troop withdrawal and the date of the Cambodia
operation. Hard evidence that you are too dumb to digest.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 8, 12:52 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 9:05 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "You said Nixon didn’t withdraw troops from Vietnam. I gave you book
> > and page number which showed he did. This was perhaps the nuttiest
> > thing you came out with."
>
> > I said Nixon did NOT withdraw troops right away, that he escalated the
> > war first. You said he did, and then showed he did not withdraw
> > 25,000 troops UNTIL 1972. He was President as of 1/69! He did expand
> > the war first by sending raids into Cambodia to take away the supplies
> > for the North. You are the one that is saying nutty things.
>
"I just can’t let your falsehood here pass. If you look back I said
Nixon withdrew 25,000 troops in 1969. NINETEEN SIXTY NINE. You got
that you lying pile of dogshit."
You are a liar, and thanks for pointing it out. This is from
historyplace.com:
"July 8, 1969 - The very first U.S. troop withdrawal occurs as 800 men
from the 9th Infantry Division are sent home. The phased troop
withdrawal will occur in **14 stages from July 1969 through November
1972.**"
Where does it say ALL 25,000 were taken out in 1969?
> > "When caught in that whopper, you said well he expanded the war first
> > by going into Cambodia first. I showed that to be false but you
> > continue to whine."
>
> > How can you show the fact he attacked the storage facilities in
> > Cambodia to be false? I guess I need to see proof of this one too.
> > The list grows of things Bill can't prove. Nixon, at the orders of
> > Congress, withdrew 25,000 troops nearly 3 years after he became
> > President and Bill thinks this is something great. He ran on a
> > platform of leaving Vietnam, but waits 3 YEARS to reduce our troop
> > size.
>
"I didn’t say the Cambodia operation was false and you are being
dishonest again. I said he WITHDREW TROOPS before he went into
Cambodia. It was in reply to you saying the opposite. I gave you
the dates of the troop withdrawal and the date of the Cambodia
operation. Hard evidence that you are too dumb to digest."
He did NOT withdraw massive amounts of troops in 1969, you are full of
it as usual. You can't even get this right, so why should anyone even
listen to you? No reason I can see.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 8, 8:03 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 12:52 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 8, 9:05 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > "You said Nixon didn’t withdraw troops from Vietnam. I gave you book
> > > and page number which showed he did. This was perhaps the nuttiest
> > > thing you came out with."
>
> > > I said Nixon did NOT withdraw troops right away, that he escalated the
> > > war first. You said he did, and then showed he did not withdraw
> > > 25,000 troops UNTIL 1972. He was President as of 1/69! He did expand
> > > the war first by sending raids into Cambodia to take away the supplies
> > > for the North. You are the one that is saying nutty things.
>
> "I just can’t let your falsehood here pass. If you look back I said
> Nixon withdrew 25,000 troops in 1969. NINETEEN SIXTY NINE. You got
> that you lying pile of dogshit."
>
> You are a liar, and thanks for pointing it out. This is from
> historyplace.com:
>
> "July 8, 1969 - The very first U.S. troop withdrawal occurs as 800 men
> from the 9th Infantry Division are sent home. The phased troop
> withdrawal will occur in **14 stages from July 1969 through November
> 1972.**"
>
> Where does it say ALL 25,000 were taken out in 1969?
Aw what the hell, I’ve got time. I realize it is camp to run around
calling everybody a liar on the net. FYI, if we were eye to eye you
would regret it.
So you’ve evolved from “Nixon didn’t withdraw troops” (LOL) and now at
least you know he did indeed do this. So I guess we are making some
progress. And you’ve even done some research instead of blowing your
opinions at me. I’m impressed Cappie.
Please note that your historyplace.com reference says the 800 troops
were the very first. It doesn’t say nor imply that 800 was the
total. Did you miss that? Or did you think all 65,500 troops went
down and got on the planes the firt day? Ha!
Here it is again hotshot. I’ve posted this before for you. I didn’t
say 25,000 was the total: I quoted page 128 which says the 25,000 was
the first announcement. I quoted Page 178 at the same time which says
65,500 troops were withdrawn. Can’t you read?
“A Better War, Lewis Sorley.
Page 128: “When President Nixon and Thieu met at Midway Island on 8
June 1969, they jointly announced that an initial increment of 25,000
U.S. troops would depart Vietnam during July and August.”
Page 178: “During 1969, 65,500 Americans were withdrawn from Vietnam
in two increments”.
Vietnam; A History, Stanley Karnow.
Page 610: “The Midway sessions ended with Nixon announcing the
repatriation of Americans-and he added another forty thousand to the
redeployment schedule in three months.”
> "I didn’t say the Cambodia operation was false and you are being
> dishonest again. I said he WITHDREW TROOPS before he went into
> Cambodia. It was in reply to you saying the opposite. I gave you
> the dates of the troop withdrawal and the date of the Cambodia
> operation. Hard evidence that you are too dumb to digest."
>
> He did NOT withdraw massive amounts of troops in 1969, you are full of
> it as usual.
I did not say he withdrew “MASSIVE’ amounts of troops in 1969 and this
is one of your dishonest moves that you lie about what I say. That
makes you a liar, and a stupid one at that. I think 65,000 is a
pretty good start.
>You can't even get this right, so why should anyone even
> listen to you? No reason I can see.
One reason I can think of would be for folks to see me kick your ass
all over this thread. I’m sure many are laughing their ass off at
your goofy ignorant ass.
Bill Clarke