NSAM 263
robcap...@netscape.com
and multiple trips to the area by McNamara and Gen. Taylor. Some
people like to act like the memo did NOT say anything about JFK's
intention to withdraw the bulk of the troops by the end of 1965. This
is NOT true of course, but if one simply looks at the memo itself they
will come away with the idea that JFK only intended to withdraw 1,000
troops by Christmas 1963. The smart perputrators of the
assassination, assisted by NSA McGeorge Bundy, were able to hide the
documents that NSAM 263 refers to.
Here is the full memo, sans attachments:
Washington, October 11, 1963.
TO
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
SUBJECT
South Vietnam
At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered
the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and
General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
The President approved the military recommendations
contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no
formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw
1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the
report, the President approved an instruction to Ambassador Lodge
which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.
McGeorge Bundy
The keys to the memo are the report by McNamara & Taylor and the No.
534 telegram as it outlines fully what the short-term plans were going
to be in regards to our plans in Vietnam. JFK convened the final
conference on South Vietnam before the drafting of NSAM 263 on October
5, 1963. Here is what was going to be dealt with:
Memorandum for the Files of a Conference With the
President, White House, Washington, October 5, 1963, 9:30 a.m.
SUBJECT
Presidential Conference on South Vietnam
A conference on South Vietnam was held in the Cabinet Room
at 9:30 a.m., October 5, 1963. Present were the Vice President,
Secretary Rusk, Secretary McNamara, Under Secretary Harriman, General
Taylor, Mr. McCone, Administrator Bell, Mr. Bundy and Mr. Forrestal.
The meeting discussed the report of Secretary McNamara and
General Taylor and considered draft instructions to Ambassador Lodge.
It began with a discussion of comodities for South Vietnam. They then
discussed suspending aid to Colonel Tung "...which were located in
Saigon rather than in the field. The President emphasized that we
should make clear the basis upon which we were suspending aid to these
forces, i.e. that they were not directly contributing to the war
effort and therefore we could not support them."
The McNamara-Taylor report was then presented at the conference for
review. This report was finished on October 2, 1963 highlighted their
visits to all the key operational areas (and were accompanied by CIA
officials). Here are the key components of this report:
a. Endorsed the basic presentation on Vietnam made by Secretary
McNamara and General Taylor.
b. Noted the President's approval of the following statement
of U.S. policy which was later released to the press:
"1. The security of South Viet Nam is a major interest of the United
States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working
with the people and Government of South Viet Nam to deny this country
to Communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported
insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective
performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy
in South Viet Nam.
2. The military program in South Viet Nam has made progress and is
sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically
sought.
3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed
only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national
security forces of the Government of South Viet Nam are capable of
suppressing it.
**Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that
the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end
of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited
number of U.S. training personnel.** They reported that by the end of
this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have
progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned
to South Viet Nam can be withdrawn.
4. The political situation in South Viet Nam remains deeply serious.
The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any
repressive actions in South Viet Nam. While such actions have not yet
significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the
future.
5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet Nam as in
other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that
country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free
society."
Here it is, in writing, the plans to withdraw the majority of our
forces by the end of 1965 and the outline of the goal of making the
SVN self-sufficient.
YoHarvey
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
After World War II JFK had been one of those who pilloried Truman for
having "lost China to the Communists." So he was deeply concerned not
to provoke a similar campaign of vilification against himself by
losing in Vietnam. From the 1950s he had been espoused the domino
theory, saying "that a Communist takeover in Indo-China would imperil
Burma, Thailand and other independent states." Privately he told Dean
Rusk, "'If we have to fight in SEAsia, lets fight in Vietnam. The
Vietnamese, at least, are committed and will fight. There are a
million refugees from Communism in S. Vietnam. Vietnam is the place.'"
On many occasions JFK publicly rejected withdrawal, announcing his
determination to stay in South Vietnam to defeat the "Communist
aggression" against it because "For us to withdraw from this effort
would begin a collapse not only of South Vietnam but of Southeast
Asia. So we are going to stay there." This theme was emphatically
reiterated in the speech he was going to give in Dallas the day he was
killed
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaa2f9a8-4fde-4689...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Yo((Momma)Harvey wrote;
After World War II JFK had been one of those who pilloried Truman for
having "lost China to the Communists." So he was deeply concerned not
to provoke a similar campaign of vilification against himself by
losing in Vietnam. From the 1950s he had been espoused the domino
theory, saying "that a Communist takeover in Indo-China would imperil
Burma, Thailand and other independent states." Privately he told Dean
Rusk, "'If we have to fight in SEAsia, lets fight in Vietnam. The
Vietnamese, at least, are committed and will fight. There are a
million refugees from Communism in S. Vietnam. Vietnam is the place.'"
On many occasions JFK publicly rejected withdrawal, announcing his
determination to stay in South Vietnam to defeat the "Communist
aggression" against it because "For us to withdraw from this effort
would begin a collapse not only of South Vietnam but of Southeast
Asia. So we are going to stay there." This theme was emphatically
reiterated in the speech he was going to give in Dallas the day he was
killed
I write;
You Lying Scumbucket;
Here's JFK's Dallas speech>>>
Remarks Prepared for Delivery at the Trade Mart in Dallas
President John F. Kennedy
November 22, 1963
I am honored to have this invitation to address the annual
meeting of the Dallas Citizens Council, joined by the members of the Dallas
Assembly--and pleased to have this opportunity to salute the Graduate
Research Center of the Southwest.
It is fitting that these two symbols of Dallas progress are
united in the sponsorship of this meeting. For they represent the best
qualities, I am told, of leadership and learning in this city--and
leadership and learning are indispensable to each other. The advancement of
learning depends on community leadership for financial and political support
and the products of that learning, in turn, are essential to the
leadership's hopes for continued progress and prosperity. It is not a
coincidence that those communities possessing the best in research and
graduate facilities--from MIT to Cal Tech--tend to attract the new and
growing industries. I congratulate those of you here in Dallas who have
recognized these basic facts through the creation of the unique and
forward-looking Graduate Research Center.
This link between leadership and learning is not only essential
at the community level. It is even more indispensable in world affairs.
Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a
company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap
this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a
world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be
guided by the lights of learning and reason or else those who confuse
rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the
popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every
world problem.
There will always be dissident voices heard in the land,
expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor,
perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility.
Those voices are inevitable.
But today other voices are heard in the land--voices preaching
doctrines wholly unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties,
doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons,
that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of
weakness. At a time when the national debt is steadily being reduced in
terms of its burden on our economy, they see that debt as the greatest
single threat to our security. At a time when we are steadily reducing the
number of Federal employees serving every thousand citizens, they fear those
supposed hordes of civil servants far more than the actual hordes of
opposing armies.
We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade
ago, will "talk sense to the American people." But we can hope that fewer
people will listen to nonsense. And the notion that this Nation is headed
for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of slogans, is
nothing but just plain nonsense.
I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and
our security because this question clearly calls for the most responsible
qualities of leadership and the most enlightened products of scholarship.
For this Nation's strength and security are not easily or cheaply obtained,
nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength
and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a
guerrilla war. Formal pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion.
Displays of material wealth cannot stop the disillusionment of diplomats
subjected to discrimination.
Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a
peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our
words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong,
our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no
help.
I realize that this Nation often tends to identify
turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded
them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this
hemisphere--it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the
Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept
communism out of Western Europe--it was the strength and stability made
possible by our military and economic assistance.
In this administration also it has been necessary at times to
issue specific warnings--warnings that we could not stand by and watch the
Communists conquer Laos by force, or intervene in the Congo, or swallow West
Berlin, or maintain offensive missiles on Cuba. But while our goals were at
least temporarily obtained in these and other instances, our successful
defense of freedom was due not to the words we used, but to the strength we
stood ready to use on behalf of the principles we stand ready to defend.
This strength is composed of many different elements, ranging
from the most massive deterrents to the most subtle influences. And all
types of strength are needed--no one kind could do the job alone. Let us
take a moment, therefore, to review this Nation's progress in each major
area of strength.
I.
First, as Secretary McNamara made clear in his address last
Monday, the strategic nuclear power of the United States has been so greatly
modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and
deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all potential
aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic
victory--and the certainty of total destruction--if by reckless attack they
should ever force upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.
In less than 3 years, we have increased by 50 percent the number
of Polaris submarines scheduled to be in force by the next fiscal year,
increased by more than 70 percent our total Polaris purchase program,
increased by more than 75 percent our Minuteman purchase program, increased
by 50 percent the portion of our strategic bombers on 15-minute alert, and
increased by too percent the total number of nuclear weapons available in
our strategic alert forces. Our security is further enhanced by the steps we
have taken regarding these weapons to improve the speed and certainty of
their response, their readiness at all times to respond, their ability to
survive an attack, and their ability to be carefully controlled and directed
through secure command operations.
II.
But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom
cannot be defended by strategic nuclear power alone. We have, therefore, in
the last 3 years accelerated the development and deployment of tactical
nuclear weapons, and increased by 60 percent the tactical nuclear forces
deployed in Western Europe.
Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces
alone, whether they are strategic or tactical. We have radically improved
the readiness of our conventional forces--increased by 45 percent the number
of combat ready Army divisions, increased by 100 percent the procurement of
modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent our ship
construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by too
percent our procurement of tactical aircraft, increased by 30 percent the
number of tactical air squadrons, and increased the strength of the Marines.
As last month's "Operation Big Lift"--which originated here in Texas--showed
so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never before to move substantial
numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions anywhere in
the world. We have increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift
aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75 percent increase in our existing
strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the traditional roles
of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent
in our special forces--those forces that are prepared to work with our
allies and friends against the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and
assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but equally dangerous
manner.
III.
But American military might should not and need not stand alone
against the ambitions of international communism. Our security and strength,
in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of
others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a
key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world
to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations
can be painful, risky and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we
dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing
of 3-5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the
cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful
Communist breakthrough in these areas, necessitating direct United States
intervention, would cost us several times as much as our entire foreign aid
program, and might cost us heavily in American lives as well.
About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key
countries located on or near the borders of the Communist bloc--nine
countries confronted directly or indirectly with the threat of Communist
aggression--Viet-Nam, Free China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece,
Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the
resources to maintain the forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed
in the common interest. Reducing our efforts to train, equip, and assist
their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time
the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing
the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help
defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50
billion we spend each year on our own defense could well be ineffective
without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.
Our foreign aid program is not growing in size, it is, on the
contrary, smaller now than in previous years. It has had its weaknesses, but
we have undertaken to correct them. And the proper way of treating
weaknesses is to replace them with strength, not to increase those
weaknesses by emasculating essential programs. Dollar for dollar, in or out
of government, there is no better form of investment in our national
security than our much-abused foreign aid program. We cannot afford to lose
it. We can afford to maintain it. We can surely afford, for example, to do
as much for our 19 needy neighbors of Latin America as the Communist bloc is
sending to the island of Cuba alone.
IV.
I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and
resistance of aggression and attack. But, in today's world, freedom can be
lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success
of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as
well as our missiles--on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as
well as the evils of tyranny.
That is why our Information Agency has doubled the shortwave
broadcasting power of the Voice of America and increased the number of
broadcasting hours by 30 percent, increased Spanish language broadcasting to
Cuba and Latin America from I to 9 hours a day, increased seven-fold to more
than 3-5 million copies the number of American books being translated and
published for Latin American readers, and taken a host of other steps to
carry our message of truth and freedom to all the far corners of the earth.
And that is also why we have regained the initiative in the
exploration of outer space, making an annual effort greater than the
combined total of all space activities undertaken during the fifties,
launching more than 130 vehicles into earth orbit, putting into actual
operation valuable weather and communications satellites, and making it
clear to all that the United States of America has no intention of finishing
second in space.
This effort is expensive--but it pays its own way, for freedom
and for America. For there is no longer any fear in the free world that a
Communist lead in space will become a permanent assertion of supremacy and
the basis of military superiority. There is no longer any doubt about the
strength and skill of American science, American industry, American
education, and the American free enterprise system. In short, our national
space effort represents a great gain in, and a great resource of, our
national strength--and both Texas and Texans are contributing greatly to
this strength.
Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no
stronger abroad than she is at home. Only an America which practices what it
preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those
whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully educated
its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and
perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an
America which is growing and prospering economically can sustain the
worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to all concerned the
opportunities of our system and society.
It is clear, therefore, that we are strengthening our security
as well as our economy by our recent record increases in national income and
output--by surging ahead of most of Western Europe in the rate of business
expansion and the margin of corporate profits, by maintaining a more stable
level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting
personal and corporate income taxes by some $ I I billion, as I have
proposed, to assure this Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in
our peacetime economic history.
This Nation's total output--which 3 years ago was at the $500
billion mark--will soon pass $600 billion, for a record rise of over $too
billion in 3 years. For the first time in history we have 70 million men and
women at work. For the first time in history average factory earnings have
exceeded $100 a week. For the first time in history corporation profits
after taxes--which have risen 43 percent in less than 3 years--have an
annual level f $27.4 billion.
My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures
to make it clear that America today is stronger than ever before. Our
adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not
diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military,
the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for
the preservation and promotion of freedom.
That strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive
ambitions--it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used
to promote provocations--it will always be used to promote the peaceful
settlement of disputes.
We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather
than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore,
that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise
our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time
and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward
men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must
always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord
keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> This is a very important memo that was based on over FIFTY meetings
> and multiple trips to the area by McNamara and Gen. Taylor. Some
> people like to act like the memo did NOT say anything about JFK's
> intention to withdraw the bulk of the troops by the end of 1965. This
> is NOT true of course, but if one simply looks at the memo itself they
> will come away with the idea that JFK only intended to withdraw 1,000
> troops by Christmas 1963. The smart perputrators of the
> assassination, assisted by NSA McGeorge Bundy, were able to hide the
> documents that NSAM 263 refers to.
>
Well, at least you are now using the "bulk" of troops so I guess we
are making some progress, though it be a long and hard journey.
Now if you could just understand that the reason JFK was going to
withdraw the bulk of troops in 1965 is because the dumb asses thought
they would WIN the war by 1965.
If you are going to hold forth on NSAM 263 you really should view
these links.
1. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
2. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/ind...
3. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm
This is from # 1.
JFK: Do you think this thousand reduction can really....
McNamara: Yes, sir. We ....
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.
Do you have the cites for the gloomy reports JFK was receiving about
VN? Please don't forget these.
Bill Clarke
aeffects
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> After World War II JFK had been one of those who pilloried Truman for
> having "lost China to the Communists." So he was deeply concerned not
> to provoke a similar campaign of vilification against himself by
> losing in Vietnam. From the 1950s he had been espoused the domino
> theory, saying "that a Communist takeover in Indo-China would imperil
> Burma, Thailand and other independent states." Privately he told Dean
> Rusk, "'If we have to fight in SEAsia, lets fight in Vietnam. The
> Vietnamese, at least, are committed and will fight. There are a
> million refugees from Communism in S. Vietnam. Vietnam is the place.'"
> On many occasions JFK publicly rejected withdrawal, announcing his
> determination to stay in South Vietnam to defeat the "Communist
> aggression" against it because "For us to withdraw from this effort
> would begin a collapse not only of South Vietnam but of Southeast
> Asia. So we are going to stay there." This theme was emphatically
> reiterated in the speech he was going to give in Dallas the day he was
> killed
ONI-DMZ? Lying fuck.... take a peek at JFK's Dallas speech....
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 4, 6:30 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is a very important memo that was based on over FIFTY meetings
> > and multiple trips to the area by McNamara and Gen. Taylor. Some
> > people like to act like the memo did NOT say anything about JFK's
> > intention to withdraw the bulk of the troops by the end of 1965. This
> > is NOT true of course, but if one simply looks at the memo itself they
> > will come away with the idea that JFK only intended to withdraw 1,000
> > troops by Christmas 1963. The smart perputrators of the
> > assassination, assisted by NSA McGeorge Bundy, were able to hide the
> > documents that NSAM 263 refers to.
>
"Well, at least you are now using the "bulk" of troops so I guess we
are making some progress, though it be a long and hard journey."
I have always agreed it meant the bulk of the troops, which is really
the same as all because there were be so few we couldn't even think of
a major offensive.
"Now if you could just understand that the reason JFK was going to
withdraw the bulk of troops in 1965 is because the dumb asses thought
they would WIN the war by 1965."
I understand fully why JFK was going to leave Vietnam as he felt it
was their war to win or lose. He believed you cannot govern or
dictate policy to sovereign countries (this was supposed to be our
doctrine all along but you wouldn't know it these days) as they have a
right to self-determination. He said by the end of 1965 they should
be sufficiently trained to fight the war themselves, or at least
defend their own country. He was NOT thinking war, let alone whether
we would win it or not, that came with your man LBJ as he did the
bidding of those who killed JFK.
"If you are going to hold forth on NSAM 263 you really should view
these links.
1.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
2.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/
ind...
3.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/
index.htm
This is from # 1.
JFK: Do you think this thousand reduction can really....
McNamara: Yes, sir. We ....
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."
They are discussing the training of the SVA at this point, NOT winning
a war. You don't get this do you? These soldiers were called
advisors for a reason, they were there to train the SVA. Here is the
not about pulling the 1,000 again:
"They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for
training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000
U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet Nam can be withdrawn."
See why 1,000 were going to be brought home? Because they were going
to progress far enought into the TRAINING to make this possible. This
had nothing to do with winning a battle or contest.
"Do you have the cites for the gloomy reports JFK was receiving about
VN? Please don't forget these."
I'm NOT citing anymore until I see the documet you claim exists that
shows JFK signed it when it contained the words "...to assist them in
winning their contest." Why can't you cite this since you said it
exists?
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> "Well, at least you are now using the "bulk" of troops so I guess we
> are making some progress, though it be a long and hard journey."
>
> I have always agreed it meant the bulk of the troops, which is really
> the same as all because there were be so few we couldn't even think of
> a major offensive.
You are very wrong on two points. First, bulk and all do not mean the
same and your statement that they are indicates a serious lack of
understanding on your part. The bulk means we got them trained and
could withdraw most of the troops. By leaving some U.S. troops we
signal our continued involvement and support of SVN. "All" means we
have left the building. That is not what is indicated in NSAM 263.
Second, if you knew any Vietnam history you would know that a few U.S.
advisors using ARVN forces successfully defended against the NVA
invasion of 1972. They then went on the offensive to successfully
regain territory. Not one single U.S. combat unit was on the
ground.
> "Now if you could just understand that the reason JFK was going to
> withdraw the bulk of troops in 1965 is because the dumb asses thought
> they would WIN the war by 1965."
>
> He was NOT thinking war, let alone whether we would win it or not, that came with your man LBJ as he did the
> bidding of those who killed JFK.
You are very wrong again. Vietnam doesn't seem to be your cup of tea,
does it? Do you fare better in the conspiracy department? Contrary
to your fool statement, not only was JFK thinking war but he was
thinking of winning it.
1. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
McNamara: The only slightest difference between Max and me in this
entire report is this one estimate of whether or not we can WIN (CAPs
mine for your benefit) the war in '64 in the upper [unclear: three]
territories and '65 in the [unclear:forth].
I'll let your other fool statement about LBJ, Mac Bundy and god knows
who else killing Kennedy go without comment.
> They are discussing the training of the SVA at this point, NOT winning
> a war. You don't get this do you? These soldiers were called
> advisors for a reason, they were there to train the SVA. Here is the
> not about pulling the 1,000 again:
As for not winning the war, please see above. Now, what they were
discussing was winning the war by 1965 and if not by 1965 then we
could finish training the ARVN to take over.
> "Do you have the cites for the gloomy reports JFK was receiving about
> VN? Please don't forget these."
>
> I'm NOT citing anymore until I see the documet you claim exists that
> shows JFK signed it when it contained the words "...to assist them in
> winning their contest." Why can't you cite this since you said it
> exists?
Okay hotshot. I don't remember saying that and I doubt that I did. I
certainly have no documentation to prove it nor do I intend on
searching for any. You point was a bit silly since JFK and his
brilliant fools thought we could win it by 1965. By winning I
consider that a hell of an assist. So I don't have the cite you
requested. You don't have the Cite I requested so I guess we'll call
that one a draw.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 5, 2:37 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 10:09 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "Well, at least you are now using the "bulk" of troops so I guess we
> > are making some progress, though it be a long and hard journey."
>
> > I have always agreed it meant the bulk of the troops, which is really
> > the same as all because there were be so few we couldn't even think of
> > a major offensive.
>
"You are very wrong on two points. First, bulk and all do not mean
the same and your statement that they are indicates a serious lack of
understanding on your part. The bulk means we got them trained and
could withdraw most of the troops. By leaving some U.S. troops we
signal our continued involvement and support of SVN. "All" means we
have left the building. That is not what is indicated in NSAM 263.
Second, if you knew any Vietnam history you would know that a few U.S.
advisors using ARVN forces successfully defended against the NVA
invasion of 1972. They then went on the offensive to successfully
regain territory. Not one single U.S. combat unit was on the ground."
I don't know how I made it through college since I don't know the
difference between "all" and "bulk of" according to you. The main
point is the fact leaving a few soldiers (even 1,000 or 2,000) would
NOT have turned into the major land war we had. You are obviously
ignorant of the "Tuesday Cabinet" led by your man LBJ. This powerful
group included Lyndon Johnson, McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara and
Dean Rusk, and were absolutely committed in their determination to win
the Vietnam war and as far as they were concerned, any discussion
which was not strategy-oriented was absolutely not necessary.
Needless to say they were very frustrated with the Kennedy decision-
making process. They wanted war, JFK did not.
Roger Hilsman, Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern
Affairs clearly defined the genuine record when he said: "The
historical record, in sum, is clear: President Kennedy was determined
not to let Vietnam become an American war -that is, he was determined
not to send U.S. combat troops [as opposed to advisers] to fight in
Vietnam nor to bomb North Vietnam." (Roger Hilsman, Letter to the
Editor, The New York Times, Book Review, March 8, 1992, p.30.)
> > "Now if you could just understand that the reason JFK was going to
> > withdraw the bulk of troops in 1965 is because the dumb asses thought
> > they would WIN the war by 1965."
>
> > He was NOT thinking war, let alone whether we would win it or not, that came with your man LBJ as he did the
> > bidding of those who killed JFK.
>
"You are very wrong again. Vietnam doesn't seem to be your cup of
tea, does it? Do you fare better in the conspiracy department?
Contrary to your fool statement, not only was JFK thinking war but he
was thinking of winning it."
You are the one who is wrong about the whole thing, and you would have
been able to avoid going there if JFK was not killed by the groups who
wanted war at all cost. You never cite anything, just your opinion,
so why should anyone believe you? Just because you were there does not
make you an expert on US policies.
> 1. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
> McNamara: The only slightest difference between Max and me in this
> entire report is this one estimate of whether or not we can WIN (CAPs
> mine for your benefit) the war in '64 in the upper [unclear: three]
> territories and '65 in the [unclear:forth].
>
"I'll let your other fool statement about LBJ, Mac Bundy and god knows
who else killing Kennedy go without comment."
Of course because they were part of it. I'm not saying they planned
it, but when it was proposed to them they obviously had no problem
with is as their actions show.
> > They are discussing the training of the SVA at this point, NOT winning
> > a war. You don't get this do you? These soldiers were called
> > advisors for a reason, they were there to train the SVA. Here is the
> > not about pulling the 1,000 again:
>
"As for not winning the war, please see above. Now, what they were
discussing was winning the war by 1965 and if not by 1965 then we
could finish training the ARVN to take over."
You have no understanding of our government. Just because JFK's
advisors were pushing for war (just like they did during the Bay of
Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis) doesn't mean he was for war. Here
is what traitor Bundy wrote about JFK's feeling on the war in 1961:
"The President made clear his own deep concern with the need for
realism and accuracy in such military planning. He had observed in
earlier military plans with respect to Laos that optimistic estimates
were invariably proven false in the event. He was not persuaded that
the airfields and the existing situation in Southern Laos would permit
any real operation to save that part of the country, and he emphasized
the reluctance of the American people and many distinguished military
leaders to see any direct involvement of U.S. troops in that part of
the world. In reply it was urged that with a proper plan, with outside
support, and above all with a clear and open American commitment, the
results would be very different from anything that had happened
before. But the President remarked that General de Gaulle, out of
painful French experience, had spoken with feeling of the difficulty
of fighting in this part of the world." (Memorandum of Discussion on
Southeast Asia, July 28, 1961, Mational Security Files, Meetings and
Memoranda, Box 317A-318, John F. Kennedy Library.)
JFK was determined not to follow in the French's footsteps when they
lost 50,000 troops fighting in SVN.
>
> > "Do you have the cites for the gloomy reports JFK was receiving about
> > VN? Please don't forget these."
>
> > I'm NOT citing anymore until I see the documet you claim exists that
> > shows JFK signed it when it contained the words "...to assist them in
> > winning their contest." Why can't you cite this since you said it
> > exists?
>
"Okay hotshot. I don't remember saying that and I doubt that I did.
I certainly have no documentation to prove it nor do I intend on
searching for any. You point was a bit silly since JFK and
hisbrilliant fools thought we could win it by 1965. By winning I
consider that a hell of an assist. So I don't have the cite you
requested. You don't have the Cite I requested so I guess we'll call
that one a draw."
Of course you did when you acted like NSAM 273 (which was begun the
day before the President's murder by traitor Bundy) was the same exact
document as NSAM 263. You were sticking up for your pal LBJ,
remember? JFK never thought we could win by 1965 as you can't
comprehend that JFK felt the conflict was the responsiblity of SVN,
not the US. His goal was to have them trained to conduct the conflict
on their own. Of course you don't as you lied. NSAM 273 is a
complete change of course from NSAM 263 and it is one of the major
reasons JFK was assassinated in the first place. I certainly have
cited way more than you have.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 6, 12:47 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> "You are very wrong on two points. First, bulk and all do not mean
> the same and your statement that they are indicates a serious lack of
> understanding on your part. The bulk means we got them trained and
> could withdraw most of the troops. By leaving some U.S. troops we
> signal our continued involvement and support of SVN. "All" means we
> have left the building. That is not what is indicated in NSAM 263.
> Second, if you knew any Vietnam history you would know that a few U.S.
> advisors using ARVN forces successfully defended against the NVA
> invasion of 1972. They then went on the offensive to successfully
> regain territory. Not one single U.S. combat unit was on the ground."
> I don't know how I made it through college
Me either!
> difference between "all" and "bulk of" according to you. The main
> point is the fact leaving a few soldiers (even 1,000 or 2,000) would
> NOT have turned into the major land war we had.
Of course not. Because if we had left 3,500 troops (the # McNamara
uses) that means we had been successful in winning in I, II, and III
Corps in 1964 and IV Corps in 1965 just as the tapes tell us was the
planning and basis for NSAM 263. I'll go slow here: If NSAM 263 had
proven true (it did not) that would mean we had won, there would be no
farther combat, certainly none that ARVN couldn't handle by 1965. And
what if it didn't work out by 1965. Here is what your man had to say:
"JFK: Well, let's say it anyway. Then '65 if it doesn't work out
{unclear] we'll get a new date."
. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
Again, the subject is withdrawal. There is no record that JFK was
going to abandon SVN.
> You are obviously ignorant of the "Tuesday Cabinet" led by your man LBJ. This powerful
> group included Lyndon Johnson, McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara and
> Dean Rusk, and were absolutely committed in their determination to win
> the Vietnam war and as far as they were concerned, any discussion
> which was not strategy-oriented was absolutely not necessary.
> Needless to say they were very frustrated with the Kennedy decision-
> making process. They wanted war, JFK did not.
What the fuck are you blathering about? You have just demonstrated
your ignorance of the Tuesday Cabinet, among other things. The
Tuesday Cabinet was formed in 1965. I can assure you that JFK wasn't
making decisions at this time and they were certainly not frustrating
the Tuesday Cabinet.
*Henry F. Graff, The Tuesday Cabinet: Deliberation and Decision on
Peace and War under Lyndon B. Johnson (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1970, $6.95), 200 pages.
Almost every Tuesday, President Johnson met for lunch in the
President's Dining Room on the second floor of the White House with
his closest senior foreign policy advisers, to discuss the Vietnam War
and the issues associated with it--thus, the "Tuesday Cabinet." When
these meetings began early in 1965, the members of the Tuesday Cabinet
were Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert S.
McNamara, and McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs.
No one wanted war. No one wanted a communist victory either. You
really do seem to be out of your league here.
> > > He was NOT thinking war, let alone whether we would win it or not, that came with your man LBJ as he did the
> > > bidding of those who killed JFK.
>
> "You are very wrong again. Vietnam doesn't seem to be your cup of
> tea, does it? Do you fare better in the conspiracy department?
> Contrary to your fool statement, not only was JFK thinking war but he
> was thinking of winning it."
>
> wanted war at all cost. You never cite anything, just your opinion,
If you wish to discuss NSAM 263, for god sake read this cite I have
been giving you for some time now.
1. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
2. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/ind...
3. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm
> Of course you did when you acted like NSAM 273 (which was begun the
> day before the President's murder by traitor Bundy) was the same exact
> document as NSAM 263. You were sticking up for your pal LBJ,
> remember? JFK never thought we could win by 1965 as you can't
> comprehend that JFK felt the conflict was the responsiblity of SVN,
> not the US. His goal was to have them trained to conduct the conflict
> on their own. Of course you don't as you lied. NSAM 273 is a
> complete change of course from NSAM 263 and it is one of the major
> reasons JFK was assassinated in the first place. I certainly have
> cited way more than you have.
Dear stupid dickhead, I have never said NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 were the
same. You cannot show me the post in which you lie and said I made
the statement.
You are, once again, very confused. The argument is if the draft NSAM
273, which was ready for JFK signature when he was assassinated, is
the same as the NSAM 273 that Johnson signed. William Duiker and Ed
Moise say there was not significant difference in the two. I agree.
If you ever pull your head out of your ass and figure out what is
going on you will too.
You can't cite a reference for your claim that JFK was getting
negative reports about VN. Did you lie or was you simply confused
again.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 6, 11:02 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 12:47 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "You are very wrong on two points. First, bulk and all do not mean
> > the same and your statement that they are indicates a serious lack of
> > understanding on your part. The bulk means we got them trained and
> > could withdraw most of the troops. By leaving some U.S. troops we
> > signal our continued involvement and support of SVN. "All" means we
> > have left the building. That is not what is indicated in NSAM 263.
> > Second, if you knew any Vietnam history you would know that a few U.S.
> > advisors using ARVN forces successfully defended against the NVA
> > invasion of 1972. They then went on the offensive to successfully
> > regain territory. Not one single U.S. combat unit was on the ground."
> > I don't know how I made it through college
>
"Me either!"
Typical trick of those who can't back up what they claim to be true,
the personal attack.
> > difference between "all" and "bulk of" according to you. The main
> > point is the fact leaving a few soldiers (even 1,000 or 2,000) would
> > NOT have turned into the major land war we had.
>
> Of course not. Because if we had left 3,500 troops (the # McNamara
> uses) that means we had been successful in winning in I, II, and III
> Corps in 1964 and IV Corps in 1965 just as the tapes tell us was the
> planning and basis for NSAM 263. I'll go slow here: If NSAM 263 had
> proven true (it did not) that would mean we had won, there would be no
> farther combat, certainly none that ARVN couldn't handle by 1965. And
> what if it didn't work out by 1965. Here is what your man had to say:
> "JFK: Well, let's say it anyway. Then '65 if it doesn't work out
> {unclear] we'll get a new date."
> .http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
>
"Again, the subject is withdrawal. There is no record that JFK was
going to abandon SVN."
You obviously have ignored all he said and did, because he was NOT
going to get us into a large land war in Vietnam. You believe the
lair and traitor LBJ.
> > You are obviously ignorant of the "Tuesday Cabinet" led by your man LBJ. This powerful
> > group included Lyndon Johnson, McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara and
> > Dean Rusk, and were absolutely committed in their determination to win
> > the Vietnam war and as far as they were concerned, any discussion
> > which was not strategy-oriented was absolutely not necessary.
> > Needless to say they were very frustrated with the Kennedy decision-
> > making process. They wanted war, JFK did not.
>
"What the fuck are you blathering about? You have just demonstrated
your ignorance of the Tuesday Cabinet, among other things. The
Tuesday Cabinet was formed in 1965. I can assure you that JFK wasn't
making decisions at this time and they were certainly not frustrating
the Tuesday Cabinet."
No it wasn't. LBJ was the head of it and it started in 1962, the cite
below just shows it continuation when he was President.
> *Henry F. Graff, The Tuesday Cabinet: Deliberation and Decision on
> Peace and War under Lyndon B. Johnson (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
> Prentice-Hall, 1970, $6.95), 200 pages.
> Almost every Tuesday, President Johnson met for lunch in the
> President's Dining Room on the second floor of the White House with
> his closest senior foreign policy advisers, to discuss the Vietnam War
> and the issues associated with it--thus, the "Tuesday Cabinet." When
> these meetings began early in 1965, the members of the Tuesday Cabinet
> were Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert S.
> McNamara, and McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President for
> National Security Affairs.
>
"No one wanted war. No one wanted a communist victory either. You
really do seem to be out of your league here."
I don't think so. You are clueless as many people wanted war and that
is why JFK was assassinated. The day you make me "out of any league"
is the day JFK comes back to life.
> > > > He was NOT thinking war, let alone whether we would win it or not, that came with your man LBJ as he did the
> > > > bidding of those who killed JFK.
>
> > "You are very wrong again. Vietnam doesn't seem to be your cup of
> > tea, does it? Do you fare better in the conspiracy department?
> > Contrary to your fool statement, not only was JFK thinking war but he
> > was thinking of winning it."
>
> > wanted war at all cost. You never cite anything, just your opinion,
>
"If you wish to discuss NSAM 263, for god sake read this cite I have
been giving you for some time now.
> 1.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
> 2.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/ind...
> 3.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm"
So in your mind these are the only cites that discuss NSAM 263
correctly? Must be as I have read a lot about this memo so I don't
need to just listen to these to get the story.
> > Of course you did when you acted like NSAM 273 (which was begun the
> > day before the President's murder by traitor Bundy) was the same exact
> > document as NSAM 263. You were sticking up for your pal LBJ,
> > remember? JFK never thought we could win by 1965 as you can't
> > comprehend that JFK felt the conflict was the responsiblity of SVN,
> > not the US. His goal was to have them trained to conduct the conflict
> > on their own. Of course you don't as you lied. NSAM 273 is a
> > complete change of course from NSAM 263 and it is one of the major
> > reasons JFK was assassinated in the first place. I certainly have
> > cited way more than you have.
>
"Dear stupid dickhead, I have never said NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 were
the same. You cannot show me the post in which you lie and said I
made the statement."
You have said there was no significant difference. Your rude language
also shows you are classless person, no wonder you love LBJ. Of
course I can, but it was several months ago and you are not worth the
time. You know what you said.
> You are, once again, very confused. The argument is if the draft NSAM 273, which was ready for JFK signature when he was assassinated, is the same as the NSAM 273 that Johnson signed. William Duiker and Ed Moise say there was not significant difference in the two. I agree. If you ever pull your head out of your ass and figure out what is going on you will too."
The famous "head of your ass" retort. Only you can see things
clearly, huh? You wish. I understand exactly what you said. You
thought the two documents were the same basically and NSAM 273
contains the words "assist them in winning their contest" and JFK
would NOT have signed this if he had lived. Thus, it was done with
the knowledge he would NOT be around to stop it. I see more and more
why you worship LBJ.
"You can't cite a reference for your claim that JFK was getting
negative reports about VN. Did you lie or was you simply confused
again."
Of course I can, McArthur, DeGualle and Gen. Taylor were giving him
reports all the time that were negative.
>
> Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:45 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> Typical trick of those who can't back up what they claim to be true,
> the personal attack.
That wasn't a personal attack. I wasn't playing around. I really
can't see how you got out of college, and wonder if you really did.
What with your striking inability at logic and reason as demonstrated
here.
>
> "Again, the subject is withdrawal. There is no record that JFK was
> going to abandon SVN."
>
> You obviously have ignored all he said and did, because he was NOT
> going to get us into a large land war in Vietnam. You believe the
> lair and traitor LBJ.
God dammit you stupid fucker, the Thread is NSAM 263. You keep trying
to drift off into the never land of what "Jack" WOULD have done. No
doubt you spend much time in never land but try to concentrate here.
NSAM 263 doesn't go to never land. It clearly describes Kennedy's
plans for Vietnam for at least the next two years (until 1965). No
guessing, no quoting past speeches no dishonest revision of history.
NSAM 263 spells it out in black and white. What JFK would have done
if NSAM 263 didn't pan out (which it didn't) is left a mystery.
> "What the fuck are you blathering about? You have just demonstrated
> your ignorance of the Tuesday Cabinet, among other things. The
> Tuesday Cabinet was formed in 1965. I can assure you that JFK wasn't
> making decisions at this time and they were certainly not frustrating
> the Tuesday Cabinet."
>
> No it wasn't. LBJ was the head of it and it started in 1962, the cite
> below just shows it continuation when he was President.
Then why, you stupid peckerhead, does it say, "." When these meetings
BEGAN (Caps mine for your goofy ass) early in 1965". Do you savvy
BEGAN, college boy? Your claim that they began in 1962 is either a
willful lie on your part or one more example of your ignorance. Cite
please.
> > *Henry F. Graff, The Tuesday Cabinet: Deliberation and Decision on
> > Peace and War under Lyndon B. Johnson (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
> > Prentice-Hall, 1970, $6.95), 200 pages.
> > Almost every Tuesday, President Johnson met for lunch in the
> > President's Dining Room on the second floor of the White House with
> > his closest senior foreign policy advisers, to discuss the Vietnam War
> > and the issues associated with it--thus, the "Tuesday Cabinet." When
> > these meetings began early in 1965, the members of the Tuesday Cabinet
> > were Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert S.
> > McNamara, and McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President for
> > National Security Affairs.
>
> "No one wanted war. No one wanted a communist victory either. You
> really do seem to be out of your league here."
>
> I don't think so. You are clueless as many people wanted war and that
> is why JFK was assassinated.
Billie Sol Estes tell you that bullshit?
> iThe day you make me "out of any league" s the day JFK comes back to life.
Well look for old Jack back in the whorehouses because you are most
definitely out of your league here. Your ignorance of the subject is
shocking, considering you bought it up.
>
> "If you wish to discuss NSAM 263, for god sake read this cite I have
> been giving you for some time now.
>
> > 1.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
> > 2.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/ind...
> > 3.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm"
>
> So in your mind these are the only cites that discuss NSAM 263
> correctly? Must be as I have read a lot about this memo so I don't
> need to just listen to these to get the story.
The tapes are the only ones I know of that allows us to listen and
read the discussion going on about drafting NSAM 263. Now I don't
believe, hotshot, that one can be anymore correct than hearing it from
the horse's mouth. No doubt you prefer to read some whacked out far
left wing crap and take it to your breast. Why read crap when you can
read exactly what JFK, McNamara, Bundy, Taylor and the other big
wheels have to say. Did you read the tapes? You either didn't read
them or you didn't like what they said.
> > > Of course you did when you acted like NSAM 273 (which was begun the
> > > day before the President's murder by traitor Bundy) was the same exact
> > > document as NSAM 263. You were sticking up for your pal LBJ,
> > > remember? JFK never thought we could win by 1965 as you can't
> > > comprehend that JFK felt the conflict was the responsiblity of SVN,
> > > not the US. His goal was to have them trained to conduct the conflict
> > > on their own. Of course you don't as you lied. NSAM 273 is a
> > > complete change of course from NSAM 263 and it is one of the major
> > > reasons JFK was assassinated in the first place. I certainly have
> > > cited way more than you have.
>
> "Dear stupid dickhead, I have never said NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 were
> the same. You cannot show me the post in which you lie and said I
> made the statement."
>
> You have said there was no significant difference.
I said there was no significant difference between the DRAFT version
of NSAM 273 ready for JFK's signature and the formal version of NSAM
273 that Johnson signed. You are confused again.
> Your rude language also shows you are classless person, no wonder you love LBJ.
I worked in the oil patch to pay for my college. Those folks had more
class in their little finger than you. They had big hearts, loved
America but cussed the politicians amongst other things. And besides,
is there any other way I can describe a goofy fucker without using the
words goofy and fucker?
> Of course I can, but it was several months ago and you are not worth the
> time. You know what you said.
No you can't and it wouldn't take a brilliant fool college boy like
you two minutes to get on the advanced search and find it if it was
there. It is not there. But take the pussy way out, it is the way
with classless people.
> > You are, once again, very confused. The argument is if the draft NSAM 273, which was ready for JFK signature when he was assassinated, is the same as the NSAM 273 that Johnson signed. William Duiker and Ed Moise say there was not significant difference in the two. I agree. If you ever pull your head out of your ass and figure out what is going on you will too."
>
> The famous "head of your ass" retort. Only you can see things
> clearly, huh? You wish. I understand exactly what you said. You
> thought the two documents were the same basically and NSAM 273
> contains the words "assist them in winning their contest" and JFK
> would NOT have signed this if he had lived. Thus, it was done with
> the knowledge he would NOT be around to stop it.
You don't know what the fuck JFK would have signed or not signed. My
god, you are beginning to sound like Anthony Marsh.
> I see more and more why you worship LBJ.
I see more and more why so many people in this group dismiss your
goofy ass.
> "You can't cite a reference for your claim that JFK was getting
> negative reports about VN. Did you lie or was you simply confused
> again."
>
> Of course I can, McArthur, DeGualle and Gen. Taylor were giving him
> reports all the time that were negative.
You're killing me here. How fucking old are you? MacArthur and
DeGualle both told him to stay out of a land war in Asia, a general
recommendation. Both fellows left Asia with egg on their face but no
doubt you already knew that. Neither had the least ideal what was
happening in Vietnam at the time, their advice was based on their
history, not present conditions in Vietnam. Several others told JFK
the same.
Your use of Taylor really cracks me up. Do you even know who the
Taylor is in the McNamara/Taylor report? The report was what gives us
the, "we can win by 1965" horseshit.
But if you insist, how about posting these negative reports.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 7, 6:42 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 5:45 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > Typical trick of those who can't back up what they claim to be true,
> > the personal attack.
>
"That wasn't a personal attack. I wasn't playing around. I really
can't see how you got out of college, and wonder if you really did.
What with your striking inability at logic and reason as demonstrated
here."
Yet someone like you who probably never went to college can reason so
well, right? In your dreams. You have no clue about JFK's policies
as you only worship LBJ. The fact you do tells me all I need to know
about your personality.
> > "Again, the subject is withdrawal. There is no record that JFK was
> > going to abandon SVN."
>
> > You obviously have ignored all he said and did, because he was NOT
> > going to get us into a large land war in Vietnam. You believe the
> > lair and traitor LBJ.
>
"God dammit you stupid fucker, the Thread is NSAM 263. You keep
trying to drift off into the never land of what "Jack" WOULD have
done. No doubt you spend much time in never land but try to
concentrate here. NSAM 263 doesn't go to never land. It clearly
describes Kennedy's plans for Vietnam for at least the next two years
(until 1965). No guessing, no quoting past speeches no dishonest
revision of history. NSAM 263 spells it out in black and white. What
JFK would have done
if NSAM 263 didn't pan out (which it didn't) is left a mystery."
Right on cue numbnuts shows us his utter lack of knowledge regarding
the JFK policy towards Vietnam as NSAM 263 was his policy!! NO more
troops, train them and get out by 1965. How is this changing the
subject? He would have made sure it panned out as he was against a
land war in Vietnam, period. You are too brain dead to know he went
there several times before he was President and he said this after one
of the visits (he was then a congressman):
"... the speeches of President Eisenhower, Secretary Dulles and others
have left too much unsaid.. to pour money, material and men into the
jungles of Indochina without at least a remote prospect of victory
would be dangerously futile and destructive. Of course, all
discussions of united action (by many nations) assume the
inevitability of such victory, but such assumptions are not unlike
similar predictions of confidence which have lulled the American
people for many years. **I am frankly of the belief that no amount of
American military assistance in Indochina, can conquer an enemy which
is everywhere, and at the same time nowhere." **
Why don't you put down your silicone LBJ love doll and start reading
about the policies of JFK's administration? The traitors McNamara,
Bundy, Rusk and LBJ wanted war, JFK did not.
> > "What the fuck are you blathering about? You have just demonstrated
> > your ignorance of the Tuesday Cabinet, among other things. The
> > Tuesday Cabinet was formed in 1965. I can assure you that JFK wasn't
> > making decisions at this time and they were certainly not frustrating
> > the Tuesday Cabinet."
>
> > No it wasn't. LBJ was the head of it and it started in 1962, the cite
> > below just shows it continuation when he was President.
>
"Then why, you stupid peckerhead, does it say, "." When these meetings
BEGAN (Caps mine for your goofy ass) early in 1965". Do you savvy
BEGAN, college boy? Your claim that they began in 1962 is either a
willful lie on your part or one more example of your ignorance. Cite
please."
Because he is LYING (caps mine for the brain dead) in an effort to
cover the fact that JFK was NOT for war. Those cabinet meetings began
during JFK's administration. JFK was in fact so thoroughly committed
to withdrawal that he had actually forecasted the consequences of his
actions and had resolved to pay the price. In the words of John F.
Kennedy:
"In 1965 I'll become one of the most unpopular presidents in history.
I'll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don't care.
If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have
another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I'm
reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am
reelected." (Kenneth 0'Donnell and Dave Powers, Johnny We Hardly Knew
Ye: Memoirs of John Fitzqerald Kennedy, p.16.)
> > > *Henry F. Graff, The Tuesday Cabinet: Deliberation and Decision on
> > > Peace and War under Lyndon B. Johnson (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
> > > Prentice-Hall, 1970, $6.95), 200 pages.
> > > Almost every Tuesday, President Johnson met for lunch in the
> > > President's Dining Room on the second floor of the White House with
> > > his closest senior foreign policy advisers, to discuss the Vietnam War
> > > and the issues associated with it--thus, the "Tuesday Cabinet." When
> > > these meetings began early in 1965, the members of the Tuesday Cabinet
> > > were Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert S.
> > > McNamara, and McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President for
> > > National Security Affairs.
>
> > "No one wanted war. No one wanted a communist victory either. You
> > really do seem to be out of your league here."
>
> > I don't think so. You are clueless as many people wanted war and that
> > is why JFK was assassinated.
>
"Billie Sol Estes tell you that bullshit?"
You must have wiffed too much Agent Orange over there as you are
unable to read about history at all.
>
> > iThe day you make me "out of any league" s the day JFK comes back to life.
"Well look for old Jack back in the whorehouses because you are most
definitely out of your league here. Your ignorance of the subject is
shocking, considering you bought it up."
You are dense, but then again most rocks are. On October 2 1963,
Kennedy instructed McNamara to announce to the press that all American
forces would be withdrawn from Vietnam by 1965. The announcement
followed a National Security Council meeting. Given the general
disdain for withdrawal, Kennedy had obviously pulled rank and had made
it clear that he was ultimately responsible for determining the course
of American foreign policy. Exasperated over the resistance that his
plans provoked, Kennedy wanted to make sure that McNamara understood
the fact that he was promoting unconditional withdrawal, and as
McNamara was leaving the White House to announce the formal plans of
withdrawal, Kennedy called after him, "And tell them that means all
the helicopter pilots too." (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Robert Kennedy:
And His Times, p. 773.)
McNamara and Taylor wanted to link withdrawal to "the overriding
objective of denying this country to Communism and of suppressing the
Viet Cong insurgency", but John F. Kennedy had repeatedly made it
clear ***[win, lose or draw]*** that the commitment to withdrawal was
not conditional. (Ibid) The fact that "they would close out Vietnam by
'65, whether it was in good shape or bad", was clearly established.
(Arthur M. Schlesinger, Robert Kennedy: And His Tires, p.766. citing
Ellsberg interview.) The Pentagon strategy to impose a condition which
essentially nullified Kennedy's plans for withdrawal reflected the
deep, irreconcilable division between John F. Kennedy and his own
nation security advisers: Rusk, Johnson, McNamara and Bundy.
His advisors put the "win, or else" conditions on the conditions of
leaving, NOT JFK.
>
> > "If you wish to discuss NSAM 263, for god sake read this cite I have
> > been giving you for some time now.
>
> > > 1.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
> > > 2.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/ind...
> > > 3.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm"
>
> > So in your mind these are the only cites that discuss NSAM 263
> > correctly? Must be as I have read a lot about this memo so I don't
> > need to just listen to these to get the story.
>
"The tapes are the only ones I know of that allows us to listen and
read the discussion going on about drafting NSAM 263. Now I don't
believe, hotshot, that one can be anymore correct than hearing it from
the horse's mouth. No doubt you prefer to read some whacked out far
left wing crap and take it to your breast. Why read crap when you can
read exactly what JFK, McNamara, Bundy, Taylor and the other big
wheels have to say. Did you read the tapes? You either didn't read
them or you didn't like what they said."
I'm a Libertarian so the left-wing stuff does not apply. Like you
have ever read what JFK had to say, how funny. Two of the traitors,
LBJ and Rusk, were going to be dumped in 1964 as well by JFK, even
more motivation for those traitors to assist in the coverup. LBJ of
course was facing jail time, but of course you hero worship won't
allow your little brain to comprehend this fact.
> > > > Of course you did when you acted like NSAM 273 (which was begun the
> > > > day before the President's murder by traitor Bundy) was the same exact
> > > > document as NSAM 263. You were sticking up for your pal LBJ,
> > > > remember? JFK never thought we could win by 1965 as you can't
> > > > comprehend that JFK felt the conflict was the responsiblity of SVN,
> > > > not the US. His goal was to have them trained to conduct the conflict
> > > > on their own. Of course you don't as you lied. NSAM 273 is a
> > > > complete change of course from NSAM 263 and it is one of the major
> > > > reasons JFK was assassinated in the first place. I certainly have
> > > > cited way more than you have.
>
> > "Dear stupid dickhead, I have never said NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 were
> > the same. You cannot show me the post in which you lie and said I
> > made the statement."
>
> > You have said there was no significant difference.
>
"I said there was no significant difference between the DRAFT version
of NSAM 273 ready for JFK's signature and the formal version of NSAM
273 that Johnson signed. You are confused again."
So then you are saying the "assist them win their contest" was added
after JFK, right? That is just as good as it proves JFK was NOT for
this kind of policy and your thief, lying traitor LBJ added those
words so he could get his war.
>
> > Your rude language also shows you are classless person, no wonder you love LBJ.
"I worked in the oil patch to pay for my college. Those folks had
more class in their little finger than you. They had big hearts,
loved America but cussed the politicians amongst other things. And
besides, is there any other way I can describe a goofy fucker without
using the words goofy and fucker?"
I thought you worked in an Agent Orange patch since you have no
ability to think at all. You are a brainwashed (what little you have
left) right-winger who loves liars, thieves, and war. I love how this
imbecile knows what kind of class I have from a few posts. Especially
when "Rock" Clarke is the one who can't talk without using curse
words.
>
> > Of course I can, but it was several months ago and you are not worth the
> > time. You know what you said.
>
"No you can't and it wouldn't take a brilliant fool college boy like
you two minutes to get on the advanced search and find it if it was
there. It is not there. But take the pussy way out, it is the way
with classless people."
It will take more than two minutes lamebrain as it was months ago and
I don't remember the name of the post it was under. You still think
you are in high school were calling someone a pussy actually had any
effect. You are truly a dinosaur. I should be nice to old, senile
posters I guess.
>
> > > You are, once again, very confused. The argument is if the draft NSAM 273, which was ready for JFK signature when he was assassinated, is the same as the NSAM 273 that Johnson signed. William Duiker and Ed Moise say there was not significant difference in the two. I agree. If you ever pull your head out of your ass and figure out what is going on you will too."
>
> > The famous "head of your ass" retort. Only you can see things
> > clearly, huh? You wish. I understand exactly what you said. You
> > thought the two documents were the same basically and NSAM 273
> > contains the words "assist them in winning their contest" and JFK
> > would NOT have signed this if he had lived. Thus, it was done with
> > the knowledge he would NOT be around to stop it.
>
"You don't know what the fuck JFK would have signed or not signed. My
god, you are beginning to sound like Anthony Marsh."
Of course I do as I have spent years studying him and his Presidency,
unlike you. I know he was NOT for any land war in Vietnam.
>
> > I see more and more why you worship LBJ.
>
"I see more and more why so many people in this group dismiss your
goofy ass."
Anyone who dismisses me here is no loss, believe me. You do worship
him, how many pictures do you have of him on your walls? You love the
man.
>
> > "You can't cite a reference for your claim that JFK was getting
> > negative reports about VN. Did you lie or was you simply confused
> > again."
>
> > Of course I can, McArthur, DeGualle and Gen. Taylor were giving him
> > reports all the time that were negative.
>
"You're killing me here. How fucking old are you? MacArthur and
DeGualle both told him to stay out of a land war in Asia, a general
recommendation. Both fellows left Asia with egg on their face but no
doubt you already knew that. Neither had the least ideal what was
happening in Vietnam at the time, their advice was based on their
history, not present conditions in Vietnam. Several others told JFK
the same."
Present conditions were the same as they were years earlier, it was
guerilla war and our troops were not trained for this. Furthermore,
much of our superior equipment was made useless in jungle conditions.
The Viet Cong were better suited for this type of war it showed during
the course of the war. That is not a knock on US troops, just the
fact that our soldiers are not trained en masse to fight in jungle
conditions. Just like the Germans lost the initiative in Stalingrad
as their main strength was mobility.
"Your use of Taylor really cracks me up. Do you even know who the
Taylor is in the McNamara/Taylor report? The report was what gives us
the, "we can win by 1965" horseshit."
As cited earlier in this post, the advisors used terms like win, or
lose, JFK did not as he wanted out no matter what.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 8, 12:11 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
Your ignorance has become boring to the extreme and I must say that
you are one of the top ten goofiest pricks I've had the displeasure of
encountering on the net. I've heard enough of your stupid shit to
last for a while.
A few more corrections for you to gag on.
1. I have a BS from Texas A&M University, class of 67 and graduate
school there after the war. What you got, college boy. Why do you
think a college degree makes you special? It doesn't.
2. Nothing in NSAM 263 says "get out by 1965". Can you read, college
boy? Or you just lie a lot.
3. JFK didn't have the power to make NSAM 263 work, as you claim. He
had no power over the communist and they are the ones that blowed NSAM
263 out of the water. That and the political instability in SV caused
by booting Diem out. You know who Okayed that immoral move?
4. To call McNamara, Bundy, Rusk and LBJ traitors is ridiculous. To
say they WANTED war is stupid.
5. That you claim LBJ's Tuesday Cabinet started in 1962 is
hysterically funny. You really think JFK would have put up with such
crap. You think LBJ had that much power in 1962? Do you think?
6. Using Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers as a source for something
JFK said is a bad joke. But then your dumb ass even believes Billie
Sol Estes so why should I be surprised.
7. If JFK was going o bring all the helicopter jocks home it would
only be just. He is the one that sent them over there in the first
place. And Arthur Schlesinger is about as creditable as Kenny
O'Donnell when it involves JFK. There is NO official record of JFK
ordering a complete withdrawal from SVN. If you have something then
post your proof and shut the fuck up.
8. You can't blame Kennedy's advisors for the "Win" part of NSAM
263. JFK was sitting at the table when they spoke it. He didn't
object! You really should listen to those tapes. Or have you
listened and don't like what you hear?
9. No comment on your discourse on guerilla warfare. It was a hoot.
Later, Dumbo.
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
surrounding "National Security Action Memorandum [NSAM] 273"}, his
whole thesis would have crumbled. .... Even though NSAM 273 was issued
under President Johnson on November 26, 1963, four days after
Kennedy's death, the draft, containing the identical language in its
relevant clauses, was prepared by McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy's special
assistant for national security affairs, on November 21, 1963, WHILE
KENNEDY WAS STILL PRESIDENT. So no inference can be drawn that after
Kennedy died, Johnson, by NSAM 273, changed course. ....
"Not only was the draft prepared while Kennedy was still alive,
but its language can only be interpreted as referring to President
Kennedy, not LBJ. ....
"Moreover, NSAM 273 (November 26, 1963) does not, as Stone's
audience was told, reverse NSAM 263 (October 11, 1963). In fact, it
specifically REAFFIRMS Kennedy's decision to withdraw 1,000 troops
{from Vietnam} by the end of 1963. ....
"The main issue being discussed by {Kennedy} and his advisers
during the period of the October 2 {1963} memo and the October 11 NSAM
263 was not the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, but whether to
support a coup of {Vietnam's President} Diem.
"But we learned years later from a Hollywood producer and his
daffy adviser, Colonel Prouty, that the real coup being contemplated
at the time, and eventually carried out, was not against Diem but
against the president of the United States." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI;
Pages 1411-1414 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
lazu...@webtv.net
All Bugliosi any day of the year...
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 8, 5:52 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 12:11 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
"Your ignorance has become boring to the extreme and I must say that
you are one of the top ten goofiest pricks I've had the displeasure of
encountering on the net. I've heard enough of your stupid shit to
last for a while."
No, I think it is more a matter of me shoving down your throat all the
lies you have been spouting forever about JFK not wanting to leave
Vietnam. I guess you consider yourself some kind of expert on the
alt.Vietnam page, but here we know a lot about JFK's presidency. I
guess pointing out the truth makes one goofy.
"A few more corrections for you to gag on.
1. I have a BS from Texas A&M University, class of 67 and graduate
school there after the war. What you got, college boy. Why do you
think a college degree makes you special? It doesn't."
Penn State University, 91, grad school 95. I never said it did matter
you were the one who was claiming I couldn't comprehend something
basic which is a crock.
"2. Nothing in NSAM 263 says "get out by 1965". Can you read,
college boy? Or you just lie a lot."
The reference to the Taylor-McNamara report that it is written from
most definitely said we would pull the bulk of troops (including
helicopter pilots) out by the end of 1965, and I have posted this so
you are just a liar to say it doesn't mention it.
"3. JFK didn't have the power to make NSAM 263 work, as you claim.
He had no power over the communist and they are the ones that blowed
NSAM 263 out of the water. That and the political instability in SV
caused by booting Diem out. You know who Okayed that immoral move?"
JFK was the leader of America, if he wanted troops out by the end of
1965 after they fully trained the SVNA then that is what would have
happened. You are full of it.
"4. To call McNamara, Bundy, Rusk and LBJ traitors is ridiculous. To
say they WANTED war is stupid."
It is the truth, they betrayed their President and this country. It
is a proven fact they all wanted war and that is what happened didn't
it? IF none of these men wanted war as you say, why did one start?
"5. That you claim LBJ's Tuesday Cabinet started in 1962 is
hysterically funny. You really think JFK would have put up with such
crap. You think LBJ had that much power in 1962? Do you think?"
Not in the overt way no, but behind the scenes he was working with key
men like McNamara, Bundy and Rusk (all who would serve under him) to
countermand JFK's policies. You are throwing out your opinions on all
of this with no support yet the thinking issue is always mine, how
come? We all have opinions, they aren't always factual though.
"6. Using Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers as a source for something
JFK said is a bad joke. But then your dumb ass even believes Billie
Sol Estes so why should I be surprised."
They were very close to the man, if they didn't know his innermost
thoughts, who would? You have NOT presented one piece of credible
proof that what Sol Estes said is false, yet you continue to mock it.
You would have served the WC proud.
"7. If JFK was going o bring all the helicopter jocks home it would
only be just. He is the one that sent them over there in the first
place. And Arthur Schlesinger is about as creditable as Kenny
O'Donnell when it involves JFK. There is NO official record of JFK
ordering a complete withdrawal from SVN. If you have something then
post your proof and shut the fuck up."
He did send a lot of advisors under the idea it was better to do this
and get the SVNA up to speed as quickly as possible so we could get
out of there, versus sending in hundreds of thousands of soldiers to
fight a jungle war later on. I have posted it lamebrain, you post
something that shows the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real since that
was the whole reason the war supposedly started.
"8. You can't blame Kennedy's advisors for the "Win" part of NSAM
263. JFK was sitting at the table when they spoke it. He didn't
object! You really should listen to those tapes. Or have you
listened and don't like what you hear?"
I don't believe tapes that can be doctored, just look at the DPD
dictabelts. JFK spoke about this issue for years and he was always
consistent on not getting into a major land war in SE Asia.
"9. No comment on your discourse on guerilla warfare. It was a
hoot."
Hey, it is the facts, our Army is not built for jungle warfare.
"Later, Dumbo".
Later Brickwall! Good riddance.
martyb...@gmail.com
Jesus Gil, your dum. It's scary to realize that there are people like
you out there that believe in the kinda crap you just posted.
billc...@live.com
Finally, a voice of knowledge and reason! Thank you!
I was getting depressed trying to discuss NSAM 263 with robcap, who is
crazy as a loon it seems.
I always wondered where these folks got the crap about NSAM 263 being
a total withdrawal or a get the hell out of VN thing. I should have
suspected a frictional movie. I watched my first and last Oliver
Stone movie when I forced myself to watch Platoon so I've never viewed
JFK. Don't plan on it either.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
> I'll go with McNamara, Prouty, Newman, & the documents... over Know It
> All Bugliosi any day of the year...
You should be more careful of the company you keep. McNamara a
convicted liar. See Tokin Gulf and his book that Halberstam called
"shockingly dishonest". Prouty a known nutcase. Newman a confirmed
Kennedyphile. His "Jack would have saved us from Vietnam" crap was
not well received in his seminar at the LBJ Library.
As for documents: Why don't you pull those out and let us take a look
at them.
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
>>> "robcap...is crazy as a loon it seems." <<<
That's a large-sized understatement, Bill.
But, then again, I guess we can't expect much in the way of
intelligent thought from a mega-kook who said this late last year (I
kid you not....the nut actually had the 'nads to type these words;
honest).....
"There is no real evidence linking him [Saint Oswald] to the two
murders." -- Robcap; 11/24/07
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 8, 11:56 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 5:52 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 8, 12:11 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> "Your ignorance has become boring to the extreme and I must say that
> you are one of the top ten goofiest pricks I've had the displeasure of
> encountering on the net. I've heard enough of your stupid shit to
> last for a while."
>
> No, I think it is more a matter of me shoving down your throat all the
> lies you have been spouting forever about JFK not wanting to leave
> Vietnam. I guess you consider yourself some kind of expert on the
> alt.Vietnam page, but here we know a lot about JFK's presidency. I
> guess pointing out the truth makes one goofy.
Damn son, go play with yourself for a bit. You're so goofy the fun is
gone from this.
Instead of shoving stuff down my throat you have only shown your
ignorance. After a bit it becomes sad. I didn't say JFK didn't want
to leave, he probably did. Wanting to do something and being able to
do it are two different things. There is no official record of JFK
ordering a total disengagement from VN and this most certainly
includes NSAM 263.
I'm no expert on Vietnam but I know some that are. If you have a
question I can get it answered for you. As for you knowing JFK and
his policies you'll probably have to search farther than the glorified
pimp Kenny O'Donnell.
> "A few more corrections for you to gag on.
>
> 1. I have a BS from Texas A&M University, class of 67 and graduate
> school there after the war. What you got, college boy. Why do you
> think a college degree makes you special? It doesn't."
>
> Penn State University, 91, grad school 95. I never said it did matter
> you were the one who was claiming I couldn't comprehend something
> basic which is a crock.
Wow, I'm impressed. Damn shame you slept through the logic and
reasoning class.
> "2. Nothing in NSAM 263 says "get out by 1965". Can you read,
> college boy? Or you just lie a lot."
>
> The reference to the Taylor-McNamara report that it is written from
> most definitely said we would pull the bulk of troops (including
> helicopter pilots) out by the end of 1965, and I have posted this so
> you are just a liar to say it doesn't mention it.
The liar here is you. Nothing in NSAM 263 says a damn thing about the
chopper jocks. It also doesn't say we are leaving in 1965. It says,
from memory, "Should be able to withdraw the BULK of our troops".
Should be able to and WE ARE GOING TO are not the same and you are
being dishonest to attempt this fraud.
> "3. JFK didn't have the power to make NSAM 263 work, as you claim.
> He had no power over the communist and they are the ones that blowed
> NSAM 263 out of the water. That and the political instability in SV
> caused by booting Diem out. You know who Okayed that immoral move?"
>
> JFK was the leader of America, if he wanted troops out by the end of
> 1965 after they fully trained the SVNA then that is what would have
> happened. You are full of it.
Ah true but he wasn't President of the Communist. Are you under the
impression they played no role in this?
> "4. To call McNamara, Bundy, Rusk and LBJ traitors is ridiculous. To
> say they WANTED war is stupid."
>
> It is the truth, they betrayed their President and this country. It
> is a proven fact they all wanted war and that is what happened didn't
> it?
They all served the country the best they could. Like them or not
they were true patriots. Sleazy of you, who has never done a damn
thing for your country, to impinge their honor.
> IF none of these men wanted war as you say, why did one start?
Because JFK sent 17,000 troops to VN, he sent helicopter companies,
Jet fighters and bombers, 113s and so on.
> "5. That you claim LBJ's Tuesday Cabinet started in 1962 is
> hysterically funny. You really think JFK would have put up with such
> crap. You think LBJ had that much power in 1962? Do you think?"
>
> Not in the overt way no, but behind the scenes he was working with key
> men like McNamara, Bundy and Rusk (all who would serve under him) to
> countermand JFK's policies. You are throwing out your opinions on all
> of this with no support yet the thinking issue is always mine, how
> come? We all have opinions, they aren't always factual though.
So the Tuesday Cabinet was COVERT! I should have known. You, son,
are the one full of it.
> "6. Using Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers as a source for something
> JFK said is a bad joke. But then your dumb ass even believes Billie
> Sol Estes so why should I be surprised."
>
> They were very close to the man, if they didn't know his innermost
> thoughts, who would? You have NOT presented one piece of credible
> proof that what Sol Estes said is false, yet you continue to mock it.
> You would have served the WC proud.
Bobby Kennedy. Want to know what he had to say about Jack getting the
hell out of Vietnam?
> "7. If JFK was going o bring all the helicopter jocks home it would
> only be just. He is the one that sent them over there in the first
> place. And Arthur Schlesinger is about as creditable as Kenny
> O'Donnell when it involves JFK. There is NO official record of JFK
> ordering a complete withdrawal from SVN. If you have something then
> post your proof and shut the fuck up."
>
> He did send a lot of advisors under the idea it was better to do this
> and get the SVNA up to speed as quickly as possible so we could get
> out of there, versus sending in hundreds of thousands of soldiers to
> fight a jungle war later on. I have posted it lamebrain, you post
> something that shows the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real since that
> was the whole reason the war supposedly started.
The first incident was real. Didn't know that did you? The war was
ongoing long before 1964.
> "8. You can't blame Kennedy's advisors for the "Win" part of NSAM
> 263. JFK was sitting at the table when they spoke it. He didn't
> object! You really should listen to those tapes. Or have you
> listened and don't like what you hear?"
>
> I don't believe tapes that can be doctored, just look at the DPD
> dictabelts. JFK spoke about this issue for years and he was always
> consistent on not getting into a major land war in SE Asia.
Doctored Tapes! Ha! Didn't like what they said did you?
Bill Clarke
martyb...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jesus Gil, Texas A&M class of 67 and Penn State 91 through 95 huh!