Per Request II
Ted Willies
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------CC34C9AEC1BDD27035D21C44
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>--------------CC34C9AEC1BDD27035D21C44
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="puff.txt"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="puff.txt"
>
> Below a Colonel Angus Mc Puffin questions my posting in that
>it represents an e-mail exchange between me and Ted Willis. He asks
>for the SHWV ID numbers -- message attached. (I admit to trying to post one
>of Willis's e-mail messages to me to SHWV but it was appropriately rejected.
>I then asked permissio from Mr. Willis to let me post it -- but
>he declined. That was the end of that.) I do believe however, if an email
>is sent to SHWV, or if it is referenced to SHWV messages whether SHWV posts
>it or not, it is open to the public.
Just for the record, I object to the posting of my private e-mail messages to
newsgroups. I am not a moderator of SHWV and have no control over what is or
is not posted there. And further for the record, Mr McGehee has NEVER rpt
NEVER asked my permission to post my messages.
And Mr. McGehee, I have made a sincere attempt to spell your name correctly. I
would appreciate the same courtesy.
> In the below messages we debate my awards and conclusions. I neglected
>to add that my receipt of medals and honors from the Vietnamese Special
>Police is recorded by photos of the award ceremonies -- some of the photos
>are included in my web site.
>
> I queried Mr. Willis re his understanding of the forces of the enemy
>and he said: "As I thought you knew, I was the Chief of Intelligence
>Production at II Field Force at the time of Tet. My understanding of the
>forces of the enemy were based on the total of the all-source intelligence
>available at the time. We knew what we were facing and we dealt with the
>situation at hand. Other than that, I don't know what you mean."
>
> Mr. Willis -- I mean what was your understanding re the forces of the
>enemy? you do not provide that information?
I attempt to answer questions posed that are specific. The "forces of the
enemy" is just another example of the vagueness of Mr. McGehees' posts.
Mr. Willis questioned my use of Wilfred Burchett as a source of
>information on the enemy. I should explain, I could have used quotes
>from Vo Nguyen Giap or Mao Tse-tung but they use Communist dialects and their
>terminology is obtuse. I took courses in their history and was tutored in
>their meanings -- and spent much time trying to decipher their writings.
>To the layman those references may be meaningless or convey inaccurate
>impressions. I used Wilfred Burchett's "Vietnam: Inside Story of the
>Guerrilla War," as his explanations are in terminology understandable by all.
>I can also cite a number of establishment academics who have written about
>the forces of the NLF/Viet Cong -- and have done so frequently in the past.
>
>Ralph McGehee
>http//come.to/CIABASE
>
>
>Re: Wartime Illusions
>Author: Edward Combs Jr. <edwc...@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: 1999/04/19
>Forum: alt.war.vietnam
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>So what? Knowing that the SHWV will not post cuss words, I always post two
>messages. One to SHWV and one to another NG. Any one that sends me e-mail
>that I do not ask for I most of the time re-post it out in the NG because
>any un-solicited stuff in mine to do with as I please(like when a company
>sends me anything that I do not order ...is mine...free).
>......................
>Angus McPuffin <mcpu...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:371aa75f...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 08:54:37 -0400, Ralph McGehee <rmcg...@igc.org>
>> wrote:
>> >The below contains a number of messages between myself and TedWillis
>> >that have been posted of SHWV -- that maybe of interest to this
>> >conference. (This was an assumption on my part since it refernced
>earlier correspondence to SHWV -- possiblly an inaccurate assumption.)
>> >
>> >Ralph McGehee
>> >http://come.to/CIABASE
>>
>>
>> Mr. McGehee posted a series of private e-mails, representing that they
>> have been posted to soc.history.war.vietnam.
>>
>> They have not bee, Mr. McGehee is aware of that.
>>
>> This is a basic violation of trust, not to mention basic truth.
>>
>> Perhaps Mr. McGehee would like to retract his comments, cancel his
>> posting and apologize. Or perhaps he'd rather just be know for
>> someone who jumps to incorrect, self-serving conclusions.
>>
>> Prove I'm wrong - supply the SHWV message IDs!
>> Cordially,
>> Col. Angus Mc Puffin
>> Fundy Defense Forces
>> Scot's Bay Rookery, NS
>
>Return-Path: <ewil...@norfolk.infi.net>
>Received: from fh106.infi.net (fh106.infi.net [209.97.16.33])
> by igc7.igc.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00505
> for <rmcg...@igc.org>; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from oemcomputer (pm4-beta-56.orf.infi.net [209.97.24.56])
> by fh106.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA03310
> for <rmcg...@igc.org>; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.1999041...@mailhost.orf.infi.net>
>X-Sender: ewil...@mailhost.orf.infi.net
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:07:09 -0400
>To: rmcg...@igc.org
>From: Ted Willies <ewil...@norfolk.infi.net>
>Subject: Re: Col Hackworth, et.al.
>In-Reply-To: <3719D2CB...@igc.org>
>References: <99shw...@panix3.panix.com>
> <3.0.6.32.1999041...@mailhost.orf.infi.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
>
>At 08:40 AM 4/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>Re the flag I no longer have it, it flew over Saigon market
>>during Tet or that is what the commander of the Special Police told me.
>>The pistol and plaque were confiscated when I departed Vietnam. I also
>>have a high-level medal from the Vietnamese SP -- I guess they also
>>were a dime a dozen?
>>
>Well, I hold the Cross of Gallantry with Palm and the Vietnamese Honor
>Medal, 1st Class. I know what it took to get them-be there for Tet. They
>were awarded to all field-grade officers that had something to do with the
>action. Yes, they were a dime a dozen.
>
>> Rather than dwell on my "awards," you might look at my book, Deadly
>>Deceits, for a history of my efforts in Vietnam. The capture of the
>>large North Vietnamese spy net that I discuss in my book, is also
>>recorded in U.S. newspaper coverage of that time.
>>
>I have read that part of the book that is posted on your web site. My
>local library does not have a copy.
>
>> I have often written about my conclusions re the other side
>>and those conclusions are supported by a number of historians (none
>>in the CIA). If quoting a leftist source makes one unreliable then
>>you can see why our intelligence was no good -- as it refused to
>>acknowledge what Vo Nguyen Giap, Mao Tse-tung as well as Burchett said
>>about those revolutions. We went about drawing a picture of the enemy
>>both contrived and the result of no reliable sources in the other side,
>>to justify the war. We developed layers upon layers of policy-driven
>>and source-challenged fantasies that passed for intelligence and hence
>>our disaster in Vietnam. I know it is comforting to hold on to your
>>illusions rather than challenge them, but in the dangerous world of
>>today we must find some way to look fully at issues -- reality.
>>
>> I thought the guilt by quote citation died with the McCarthy era,
>>apparently not. I confess, I am guilty -- of being a loyal,
>>concerned American who has the unfortunate tendency to try and decern,
>>as best I can, the full dimensions of important issues and to inform, so
>>that we do not repeat the errors of the past. Looking at issues from
>>only the perspective of one-sided war time propaganda inevitably
>>produces distortions -- I had hoped we might have learned this from our
>>recent history.
>
>Of course I agree that we need to read the writings of the enemy in order
>to oppose him. But you put Burchett forward as an authority that we should
>believe. That is the part I cannot accept. Your accusation that I engage in
>McCarthyism is just another example of your hyperbole and seems to be your
>technique for dealing with anyone who does not see things your way.
>
> I believe rhetorical questions can raise important issues
>>and find them a useful writing tool.
>
>I disagree.
>
>> I have quite frequently written about my studies and conclusions
>>of the order of battle of the Vietnamese Communists. To give me some
>>perspective would you please provide to this conference your
>>understanding of the forces of the enemy?
>
>I don't know what conference you are talking about.
>
>Please respond, if you care to, on the newsgroup SHWV. I don't care to
>continue this by e-mail.
>
>Ted Willies
>
>>
>>Ralph McGehee
>>http://come.to/CIABASE
>>
>>Ted Willies wrote:
>>>
>>> At 07:15 AM 4/17/99 -0400, Ralph McGehee wrote:
>>> >Ted Willies wrote:
>>> Snipping....
>>>
>>> >Re Ted Willis post re Hackworth (and me).
>>> >
>>> > I paint too broad a brush re Vietnam. Yes indeed, I have studied
>>> >(poured over) all versions of the Pentagon Papers, reviewed CIA reporting,
>>> >and uniquely read the writings of Vietnamese Communists. I prepared
>>> >a study on Vietnam while in the CIA and have continued by readings
>>> >on Vietnam to this day. I found, and the CIA has acknowledged me
>>> >as an outstanding authority on Asian Communism, the CIA and other U.S.
>>> >intelligence services blinded themselves by policy. For commentary
>>> >on U.S. intelligence reporting and my work in Vietnam and since pls see
>>> >my Web Site http://come.to/CIABASE -- even the Vietnamese Special Police
>>> >acknowledged my work by awarding me inter alia the NLF flag that flew over
>>> >Saigon on Tet 1968.
>>>
>>> (I)nter alia? What else did the Special Police award you, Mr. McGehee?
>>> And by the way, which flag was that? There were quite a few different NLF
>>> units "in town" that day, and they each had at least one flag. Which one
>>> did you get? Where in Saigon was it flown? Who captured it? Was it
>>> documented? "NLF flags" were a dime a dozen, as I thought you would know.
>>> Just driving by the MACSOG compound would get one an offer to buy a
>>> "captured flag". I often wondered how many were made the next block down
>>> on contract to the guys selling them.
>>>
>>> > Yes I do paint a broad brush to counter the narrow reporting of
>>> >policy-dictated U.S. reporting on the war which I found to be
>>> >often devoid of reality. CIA's reporting on the various South
>>> >Vietnamese governments possibly was more accurate than not, but
>>> >its reporting on the other side was inaccurate to the nth degree.
>>> >For a better view of the war see the book by the leftist, Wilfred
>>> >Burchett -- Vietnam: Inside Story of the Guerilla War.
>>>
>>> Great reference there, Mr. McGehee. You finally came out of the closet, I
>>> see.
>>> I'm sure that historians will all support you in identifying this seminal
>>> work and unbiased authority on the war.
>>>
>>> > Was it more honorable to go along than to protest this unwinnable
>>> >war?
>>>
>>> When did you stop beating your wife? You really need to stop using
>>> rhetorical questions in your arguments. They detract from the points you
>>> try to make.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Ralph McGehee
>>> >http://come.to/CIABASE
>>> >
>>> Regards, Ted Willies
>>
>>
>
>--------------CC34C9AEC1BDD27035D21C44--
>
rmcg...@igc.org
I was incorrect, the message was from someone else, not Mr. Willies.
The message covered one of the same subjects as my correspondence
with Mr. Willies which apparently caused my confusion. I apologize to
Mr. Willies for this mistake.
Ralph McGehee
http://conme.to/CIABASE
In article <7ff6it$tp0$1...@nw003t.infi.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own