Obama the wisest president since Kennedy, does it again!!

[NotfooledbyW]

TipsyC 11106278

Shhhhhh

She thinks there was an agreement. Don't spoil it by telling her there's no agreement. Just a way for John Kerry to leave an empty room.

So Obama negotiated too tough of an agreement if Iran refuses to sign because the framework agreement dictates they must prove transparency and full access to inspectors before sanctions are lifted. The Iranian public is now expecting sanctions to be lifted and won't want to hear that their leaders are breaking the deal already.

And it means any Dems in the Senate ready to take the Republican warmongers' side can stop whatever they think they need to do prior to June. Republicans can't do anything about it unless they get a few Dems on board to pass a veto proof bill on sanctions relief.

the Ayatollah's actions are making the deal framework look very tough and stoing. Idiots on the right are now openly believing every word the ayatollahs in Iran have to say. Funny how that works.

 

[Bfgrn]

You've got this little clique of liberal doves posthumously declaring that "privately" JFK told them he was going to pull of Vietnam. Why are they saying this? Because one of the unforgivable "stains" on the Kennedy liberal resume is that he DID in fact increase the number of American troops from the few hundred that were there under Ike to 15,000 under his administration. Kennedy was NOT a dove when it came to the spread of communism! Stopping it was one of the cornerstones of his Presidency. You can see that in his attempt to overthrow Castro. You can see that with the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can see that with the Berlin airlift. You still haven't explained Bobby Kennedy's adamant denials that JFK ever intended to abandon Vietnam to the communists. You've also failed to explain why Kennedy gave the go ahead for the military coup that eliminated Diem if he was going to pull US troops out of Vietnam. Why bother if you're going to let South Vietnam turn communist?

WHAT!!!!! I explained EXACTLY why a member of LBJ's cabinet, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy tersely answered the questions the way he did. Do you need help READING or comprehending? And you tried to school me on "politics"?

The facts are there is a clique of conservatives who are trying to claim JFK as one of their own. He was NOT. He was as liberal as Ted Kennedy, who worshiped Jack.

Yes, Kennedy increased the number of advisors in Vietnam to 16,000. And he had decided to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965...win OR lose. He did NOT send in 560,000 fighting troops, divisions and Americanize the Vietnam war. To make THAT leap is nothing but sheer ignorance.

Kennedy was a dove. At EVERY SINGLE turn in his presidency, Kennedy NEVER ONCE opted for military force. Not in Cuba...twice. Not in Laos. Not in Berlin.

You really don't know shit about JFK. And your slandering his family, friends and colleagues makes you look like a real loser...

John F. Kennedy despised communism, but not the people who lived in communist countries. Kennedy was extremely confident that freedom and capitalism would win out.

The Lessons of J.F.K.

Today's hawks like to claim J.F.K. as one of their heroes by pointing to his steep increase in defense spending and to defiant speeches like his June 1963 denunciation of communist tyranny in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. It is certainly true that Kennedy brought a new vigor to the global duel with the Soviet Union and its client governments. But it is also clear that Kennedy preferred to compete ideologically and economically with the communist system than engage with the enemy militarily. He was supremely confident that the advantages of the capitalist system would ultimately prevail, as long as a nuclear catastrophe could be avoided. In the final months of his Administration, J.F.K. even opened a secret peace channel to Castro, led by U.N. diplomat William Attwood. "He would have recognized Cuba," Milt Ebbins, a Hollywood crony of J.F.K.'s, says today. "He told me that if we recognize Cuba, they'll buy our refrigerators and toasters, and they'll end up kicking Castro out."

Kennedy often said he wanted his epitaph to be "He kept the peace." Even Khrushchev and Castro, Kennedy's toughest foreign adversaries, came to appreciate J.F.K.'s commitment to that goal. The roly-poly Soviet leader, clowning and growling, had thrown the young President off his game when they met at the Vienna summit in 1961. But after weathering storms like the Cuban missile crisis, the two leaders had settled into a mutually respectful quest for détente. When Khrushchev got the news from Dallas in November 1963, he broke down and sobbed in the Kremlin, unable to perform his duties for days. Despite his youth, Kennedy was a "real statesman," Khrushchev later wrote in his memoir, after he was pushed from power less than a year following J.F.K.'s death. If Kennedy had lived, he wrote, the two men could have brought peace to the world.

Castro too had come to see J.F.K. as an agent of change, despite their long and bitter jousting, declaring that Kennedy had the potential to become "the greatest President" in U.S. history. Tellingly, the Cuban leader never blamed the Kennedys for the numerous assassination attempts on him. Years later, when Bobby Kennedy's widow Ethel made a trip to Havana, she assured Castro that "Jack and Bobby had nothing to do with the plots to kill you." The tall, graying leader—who had survived so long in part because of his network of informers in the U.S.—looked down at her and said, "I know."

J.F.K. was slow to define his global vision, but under withering attacks from an increasingly energized right, he finally began to do so toward the end of his first year in office. Taking to the road in the fall of 1961, he told the American people why his efforts to extricate the world from the cold war's death grip made more sense than the right's militaristic solutions. On Nov. 16, Kennedy delivered a landmark speech at the University of Washington campus in Seattle. There was nothing "soft," he declared that day, about averting nuclear war—America showed its true strength by refraining from military force until all other avenues were exhausted. And then Kennedy made a remarkable acknowledgment about the limits of U.S. power—one that seemed to reject his Inaugural commitment to "oppose any foe" in the world. "We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only 6% of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94% of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."

Sorensen—the young progressive raised in a pacifist, Unitarian household who helped write the speech—calls it today "one of Kennedy's great speeches on foreign policy." If J.F.K. had lived, he adds, "there is no doubt in my mind [that] we would have laid the groundwork for détente. The cold war would have ended much sooner than it did."

 

[Oldstyle]

Barack Obama and John Kerry are two naive fools. Anyone who takes the Iranians at their word at this point is an idiot.

 

[Oldstyle]

What Kennedy did was THREATEN to withdraw 1,000 troops. He was trying to get Diem to straighten up and fly right and that was why he included that "plan" to pull out troops. When that didn't succeed, Kennedy OK'd the coup that removed Diem. The bottom line is that there is ZERO proof that Kennedy had any intention of pulling all of our troops out of Vietnam other than the "recollections" of some people who are invested in perpetuating this myth about JFK. Robert Kennedy simply stated the truth as he knew it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, for God's sake...now you're claiming that Kennedy's death kept Kruschev and he from bringing "peace to the earth"? You liberals get more absurd with each new attempt to reconstitute JFK's legacy! There is a reason why Time has the circulation of a supermarket coupon book these days, Bfgrn...and it's because it's become such a progressive "mouthpiece" that nobody with any sense takes what it prints seriously!

 

[Oldstyle]

And you seriously think that Ethel Kennedy was apprised of what JFK's plans were for dealing with Castro? God, you're even more naive than Kerry and Obama! I suppose you're now claiming that Kennedy knew nothing about Operation Mongoose even though he signed off on it?

 

[Bfgrn]

What Kennedy did was THREATEN to withdraw 1,000 troops. He was trying to get Diem to straighten up and fly right and that was why he included that "plan" to pull out troops. When that didn't succeed, Kennedy OK'd the coup that removed Diem. The bottom line is that there is ZERO proof that Kennedy had any intention of pulling all of our troops out of Vietnam other than the "recollections" of some people who are invested in perpetuating this myth about JFK. Robert Kennedy simply stated the truth as he knew it.

You really can't be serious. Your desperation is showing. HOW MANY TIMES do you need to be reminded?

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

This was an official government meeting attended by:

Bundy, McGeorge, President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs
Harkins, General Paul D., USA, Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam
Lodge, Henry Cabot, Jr., Ambassador to South Vietnam from August 26, 1963
McNamara, Robert S., Secretary of Defense
Rusk, Dean, Secretary of State

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, for God's sake...now you're claiming that Kennedy's death kept Kruschev and he from bringing "peace to the earth"? You liberals get more absurd with each new attempt to reconstitute JFK's legacy! There is a reason why Time has the circulation of a supermarket coupon book these days, Bfgrn...and it's because it's become such a progressive "mouthpiece" that nobody with any sense takes what it prints seriously!

Are you THAT obtuse OS? So let's get this straight...because Time posted what Khrushchev wrote in his memoir, they are "a progressive "mouthpiece" that nobody with any sense takes what it prints seriously"

 

[Bfgrn]

What Kennedy did was THREATEN to withdraw 1,000 troops. He was trying to get Diem to straighten up and fly right and that was why he included that "plan" to pull out troops. When that didn't succeed, Kennedy OK'd the coup that removed Diem. The bottom line is that there is ZERO proof that Kennedy had any intention of pulling all of our troops out of Vietnam other than the "recollections" of some people who are invested in perpetuating this myth about JFK. Robert Kennedy simply stated the truth as he knew it.

FALSE (again)...

JFK and Vietnam - John M. Newman excerpt

On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:

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.

In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.

The alternative would have been to withdraw the troops while acknowledging failure. And this, Newman argues, Kennedy was prepared to do if it became necessary. He saw no reason, however, to take this step before it became necessary. If the troops could be pulled while the South Vietnamese were still standing, so much the better.4 But from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.

(4) On November 1 there came the coup in Saigon and the assassination of Diem and Nhu. At a press conference on November 12, Kennedy publicly restated his Vietnam goals. They were “to intensify the struggle” and “to bring Americans out of there.” Victory, which had figured prominently in a similar statement on September 12, was no longer on the list.

(5) The Honolulu Conference of senior cabinet and military officials on November 20–21 was called to review plans in the wake of the Saigon coup. The military and the CIA, however, planned to use that meeting to pull the rug from under the false optimism which some had used to rationalize NSAM 263. However, Kennedy did not himself believe that we were withdrawing with victory. It follows that the changing image of the military situation would not have changed JFK’s decision.

 

[tigerred59]

The fact that Kennedy wasn't that wise notwithstanding, what the fuck is the OP babbling about? I mean besides stating that he wanted some Obama cock...

Amazing the shit you people can say, but I'm banned for a week.

 

[Bfgrn]

And you seriously think that Ethel Kennedy was apprised of what JFK's plans were for dealing with Castro? God, you're even more naive than Kerry and Obama! I suppose you're now claiming that Kennedy knew nothing about Operation Mongoose even though he signed off on it?

Kennedy Castro The Secret History


Washington D.C. - On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the eve of the broadcast of a new documentary film on Kennedy and Castro, the National Security Archive today posted an audio tape of the President and his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, discussing the possibility of a secret meeting in Havana with Castro. The tape, dated only seventeen days before Kennedy was shot in Dallas, records a briefing from Bundy on Castro's invitation to a U.S. official at the United Nations, William Attwood, to come to Havana for secret talks on improving relations with Washington. The tape captures President Kennedy's approval if official U.S. involvement could be plausibly denied.

The possibility of a meeting in Havana evolved from a shift in the President's thinking on the possibility of what declassified White House records called "an accommodation with Castro" in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Proposals from Bundy's office in the spring of 1963 called for pursuing "the sweet approach…enticing Castro over to us," as a potentially more successful policy than CIA covert efforts to overthrow his regime. Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in [the prospect for negotiations]." Castro, too, appeared interested. In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations.

The untold story of the Kennedy-Castro effort to seek an accommodation is the subject of a new documentary film, KENNEDY AND CASTRO: THE SECRET HISTORY, broadcast on the Discovery/Times cable channel on November 25 at 8pm. The documentary film, which focuses on Ms. Howard's role as a secret intermediary in the effort toward dialogue, was based on an article -- "JFK and Castro: The Secret Quest for Accommodation" -- written by Archive Senior Analyst Peter Kornbluh in the magazine, Cigar Aficionado. Kornbluh served as consulting producer and provided key declassified documents that are highlighted in the film. "The documents show that JFK clearly wanted to change the framework of hostile U.S. relations with Cuba," according to Kornbluh. "His assassination, at the very moment this initiative was coming to fruition, leaves a major 'what if' in the ensuing history of the U.S. conflict with Cuba."



Kennedy s Last Act Reaching Out to Cuba UNREDACTED


On November 5, Kennedy’s secret taping system in the Oval Office recorded in a conversation with his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, on whether to send William Attwood, who was serving as a deputy to U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson at the United Nations, to Havana to meet secretly with Castro. Attwood, Bundy told the President, “now has an invitation to go down and talk to Fidel about terms and conditions in which he would be interested in a change of relations with the U.S.” The president is heard agreeing to the idea but asking if “we can get Attwood off the payroll before he goes” so as to “sanitize” him as a private citizen in case word of the secret meeting leaked.

On November 14, Howard arranged for Attwood to come to her home and talk via telephone to Castro’s top aide, Rene Vallejo, about obtaining the Cuban agenda for a secret meeting between in Havana with the Cuban commandante. Vallejo agreed to transmit a proposed agenda to Cuba’s UN ambassador, Lechuga, to give to the Americans. When Attwood passed this information onto Bundy at the White House, he was told that when the agenda was received, “the president wanted to see me at the White House and decide what to say and whether to go [to Cuba] or what we should do next.”

“That was the 19th of November,” Attwood recalled. “Three days before the assassination.”

Kennedy’s Final Act

But Kennedy also sent another message of potential reconciliation to Castro. His emissary, a French journalist named Jean Daniel, had met with Kennedy in Washington to discuss Cuba. Kennedy gave him a message for Fidel Castro: Better relations were possible, and the two countries should work toward an end to hostilities. On November 22, Daniel passed that message to Castro, and the two were discussing it optimistically over lunch when Castro received a phone call reporting that Kennedy had been shot. “This is terrible,” Castro told Daniel, realizing that his mission had been aborted by an assassins’ bullet. “There goes your mission of peace.”

Castro then accurately predicted: “They are going to say we did it.”

 

[Bfgrn]

Papers reveal JFK efforts on Vietnam - The Boston Globe


Papers reveal JFK efforts on Vietnam
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 6, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Newly uncovered documents from both American and Polish archives show that President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Union secretly sought ways to find a diplomatic settlement to the war in Vietnam, starting three years before the United States sent combat troops.

Kennedy, relying on his ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith, planned to reach out to the North Vietnamese in April 1962 through a senior Indian diplomat, according to a secret State Department cable that was never dispatched.

Back-channel discussions also were attempted in January 1963, this time through the Polish government, which relayed the overture to Soviet leaders. New Polish records indicate Moscow was much more open than previously thought to using its influence with North Vietnam to cool a Cold War flash point.

The attempts to use India and Poland as go-betweens ultimately fizzled, partly because of North Vietnamese resistance and partly because Kennedy faced pressure from advisers to expand American military involvement, according to the documents and interviews with scholars. Both India and Poland were members of the International Control Commission that monitored the 1954 agreement that divided North and South Vietnam.

The documents are seen by former Kennedy aides as new evidence of his true intentions in Vietnam. The question of whether Kennedy would have escalated the war or sought some diplomatic exit has been heatedly debated by historians and officials who served under both Kennedy and his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson.

 

[Oldstyle]

What Kennedy did was THREATEN to withdraw 1,000 troops. He was trying to get Diem to straighten up and fly right and that was why he included that "plan" to pull out troops. When that didn't succeed, Kennedy OK'd the coup that removed Diem. The bottom line is that there is ZERO proof that Kennedy had any intention of pulling all of our troops out of Vietnam other than the "recollections" of some people who are invested in perpetuating this myth about JFK. Robert Kennedy simply stated the truth as he knew it.

FALSE (again)...

JFK and Vietnam - John M. Newman excerpt

On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:

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.

In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.

The alternative would have been to withdraw the troops while acknowledging failure. And this, Newman argues, Kennedy was prepared to do if it became necessary. He saw no reason, however, to take this step before it became necessary. If the troops could be pulled while the South Vietnamese were still standing, so much the better.4 But from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.

(4) On November 1 there came the coup in Saigon and the assassination of Diem and Nhu. At a press conference on November 12, Kennedy publicly restated his Vietnam goals. They were “to intensify the struggle” and “to bring Americans out of there.” Victory, which had figured prominently in a similar statement on September 12, was no longer on the list.

(5) The Honolulu Conference of senior cabinet and military officials on November 20–21 was called to review plans in the wake of the Saigon coup. The military and the CIA, however, planned to use that meeting to pull the rug from under the false optimism which some had used to rationalize NSAM 263. However, Kennedy did not himself believe that we were withdrawing with victory. It follows that the changing image of the military situation would not have changed JFK’s decision.

You can keep repeating the same "reconstitution" of history by the same small group of Kennedy legacy repairers, Bfgrn and it's not going to change what really took place. Please explain what purpose it would serve to keep the planned withdrawal of 1,000 troops secret from Diem? Doesn't it make more sense that Kennedy would use the THREAT of a troop withdrawal to try and rein in Diem's excesses during the crackdown on political dissidents in South Vietnam? When that ploy didn't work, Kennedy approved a military coup to depose the Diem brothers. Why would he do that when he supposedly planned on pulling out anyways?

 

[Bfgrn]

What Kennedy did was THREATEN to withdraw 1,000 troops. He was trying to get Diem to straighten up and fly right and that was why he included that "plan" to pull out troops. When that didn't succeed, Kennedy OK'd the coup that removed Diem. The bottom line is that there is ZERO proof that Kennedy had any intention of pulling all of our troops out of Vietnam other than the "recollections" of some people who are invested in perpetuating this myth about JFK. Robert Kennedy simply stated the truth as he knew it.

FALSE (again)...

JFK and Vietnam - John M. Newman excerpt

On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:

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.

In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.

The alternative would have been to withdraw the troops while acknowledging failure. And this, Newman argues, Kennedy was prepared to do if it became necessary. He saw no reason, however, to take this step before it became necessary. If the troops could be pulled while the South Vietnamese were still standing, so much the better.4 But from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.

(4) On November 1 there came the coup in Saigon and the assassination of Diem and Nhu. At a press conference on November 12, Kennedy publicly restated his Vietnam goals. They were “to intensify the struggle” and “to bring Americans out of there.” Victory, which had figured prominently in a similar statement on September 12, was no longer on the list.

(5) The Honolulu Conference of senior cabinet and military officials on November 20–21 was called to review plans in the wake of the Saigon coup. The military and the CIA, however, planned to use that meeting to pull the rug from under the false optimism which some had used to rationalize NSAM 263. However, Kennedy did not himself believe that we were withdrawing with victory. It follows that the changing image of the military situation would not have changed JFK’s decision.

You can keep repeating the same "reconstitution" of history by the same small group of Kennedy legacy repairers, Bfgrn and it's not going to change what really took place. Please explain what purpose it would serve to keep the planned withdrawal of 1,000 troops secret from Diem? Doesn't it make more sense that Kennedy would use the THREAT of a troop withdrawal to try and rein in Diem's excesses during the crackdown on political dissidents in South Vietnam? When that ploy didn't work, Kennedy approved a military coup to depose the Diem brothers. Why would he do that when he supposedly planned on pulling out anyways?

There is no 'reconstitution' of history. WHAT there has been is more information released under the FOIA, usually through lawsuit. And there has been small groups of individuals and researchers over the years who have taken on the task of searching the records to get to the truth, not only about the assassination, but events of national importance like the Vietnam War.

I find it amazing just how fearful people like you are of the truth. When you are confronted with it, you turn to slander, gross ignorance and denial. And I am sad at just how poorly the media has served us as a watchdog.

Here are the FACTS:

On the day President Kennedy died the US policy was to withdraw 1,000 military advisors from Vietnam by the end of 1963 and the remaining advisors by the end of 1965.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that EVERYTHING that happened AFTER the president expired in trauma room one at Parkland Hospital could not POSSIBLY be Kennedy's decision?

 

[Bfgrn]

More FACTS:

Time-frame 20-21 Nov 1963

(6) In Honolulu, McGeorge Bundy prepared a draft of what would eventually be NSAM 273. The plan was to present it to Kennedy after the meeting ended. Dated November 21, this draft reflected the change in military reporting. It speaks, for example, of a need to “turn the tide not only of battle but of belief.” Plans to intensify the struggle, however, do not go beyond what Kennedy would have approved: A paragraph calling for actions against the North underscores the role of Vietnamese forces:

7. With respect to action against North Vietnam, there should be a detailed plan for the development of additional Government of Vietnam resources, especially for sea-going activity, and such planning should indicate the time and investment necessary to achieve a wholly new level of effectiveness in this field of action. (Emphasis added.)​

(7) At Honolulu, a preliminary plan, known as CINCPAC OPLAN 34-63 and later implemented as OPLAN 34A, was prepared for presentation. This plan called for intensified sabotage raids against the North, employing Vietnamese commandos under U.S. control—a significant escalation.5 While JCS chief Taylor had approved preparation of this plan, it had not been shown to McNamara. Tab E of the meeting’s briefing book, also approved by Taylor and also not sent in advance to McNamara, showed that the withdrawal ordered by Kennedy in October was already being gutted, by the device of substituting for the withdrawal of full units that of individual soldiers who were being rotated out of Vietnam in any event.


(8) The final version of NSAM 273, signed by Johnson on November 26, differs from the draft in several respects. Most are minor changes of wording. The main change is that the draft paragraph 7 has been struck in its entirety (there are two pencil slashes on the November 21 draft), and replaced with the following:

Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in each instance there be estimates such factors as: A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam; B. The plausibility denial; C. Vietnamese retaliation; D. Other international reaction. Plans submitted promptly for approval by authority.​

The new language is incomplete. It does not begin by declaring outright that the subject is attacks on the North. But the thrust is unmistakable, and the restrictive reference to “Government of Vietnam resources” is now missing. Newman concludes that this change effectively provided new authority for U.S.–directed combat actions against North Vietnam. Planning for these actions began therewith, and we now know that an OPLAN 34A raid in August 1964 provoked the North Vietnamese retaliation against the destroyer Maddox, which became the first Gulf of Tonkin incident. And this in turn led to the confused incident a few nights later aboard the Turner Joy, to reports that it too had been attacked, and to Johnson’s overnight decision to seek congressional support for “retaliation” against North Vietnam. From this, of course, the larger war then flowed.

 

[Oldstyle]

The "truth" is that Kennedy asked for his advisers to come up with all available options for South Vietnam...not just troop withdrawals! The "plan" that you speak of was one that was drawn up prior to that when Kennedy had been assured that we were winning in South Vietnam. The Diem coup changed EVERYTHING! It did not however change Kennedy's "policy" of stopping the spread of international communism.

 

[Bfgrn]

The "truth" is that Kennedy asked for his advisers to come up with all available options for South Vietnam...not just troop withdrawals! The "plan" that you speak of was one that was drawn up prior to that when Kennedy had been assured that we were winning in South Vietnam. The Diem coup changed EVERYTHING! It did not however change Kennedy's "policy" of stopping the spread of international communism.

Back to square one 'eh? You are not reading anything I posted are you?

AGAIN...

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam
reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam
reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam
reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam

despite the recent coup in Vietnam
despite the recent coup in Vietnam
despite the recent coup in Vietnam
despite the recent coup in Vietnam

The Diem coup changed NOTHING!
The Diem coup changed NOTHING!
The Diem coup changed NOTHING!
The Diem coup changed NOTHING!

 

[Oldstyle]

If a total withdrawal of US troops was US "policy" and locked in...then kindly explain why JFK asked his advisers to give him every possible scenario as to what they might do in South Vietnam? Gee, how inconvenient for your premise that Kennedy's mind was made up! The truth is that the Diem coup changed everything. Kennedy was still searching for a US partner in South Vietnam with whom he could prevent the communists from taking that country. That was why he approved the Diem coup in the first place! Robert Kennedy is STILL adamant that JFK wasn't planning on abandoning South Vietnam!

You've taken two things...a proposed "plan" to withdraw 1,000 troops...a plan that was drawn up when Kennedy believed the war was being won by South Vietnam...along with Kennedy's private conversations with some anti war democrats that he was considering pulling all troops out of South Vietnam but only after he was reelected to a second term...conversations that Kennedy was having leading up to a reelection that he needed liberal support to win...and reached the conclusion that Kennedy was in fact going to pull out all of our troops. It's a premise that fails to take into account the reality that a politician up for reelection tends to tell people what they want to hear in order to garner their support. In doing so you show your usual naivete.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Bfgrn]

If a total withdrawal of US troops was US "policy" and locked in...then kindly explain why JFK asked his advisers to give him every possible scenario as to what they might do in South Vietnam? Gee, how inconvenient for your premise that Kennedy's mind was made up! The truth is that the Diem coup changed everything. Kennedy was still searching for a US partner in South Vietnam with whom he could prevent the communists from taking that country. That was why he approved the Diem coup in the first place! Robert Kennedy is STILL adamant that JFK wasn't planning on abandoning South Vietnam!

You've taken two things...a proposed "plan" to withdraw 1,000 troops...a plan that was drawn up when Kennedy believed the war was being won by South Vietnam...along with Kennedy's private conversations with some anti war democrats that he was considering pulling all troops out of South Vietnam but only after he was reelected to a second term...conversations that Kennedy was having leading up to a reelection that he needed liberal support to win...and reached the conclusion that Kennedy was in fact going to pull out all of our troops. It's a premise that fails to take into account the reality that a politician up for reelection tends to tell people what they want to hear in order to garner their support. In doing so you show your usual naivete.

Naivete? WOW!!! You really don't know anything about John F. Kennedy do you?

WRONG AGAIN!

Kennedy was CONCEALING his plans to withdraw to avoid giving the bellicose Republican war hawks ammo in the '64 election...

As he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell.

Fearing a backlash from his generals and the right—under the feisty leadership of Barry Goldwater, his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential race—Kennedy never made his Vietnam plans public. And, in true Kennedy fashion, his statements on the Southeast Asian conflict were a blur of ambiguity. Surrounded by national-security advisers bent on escalation and trying to prevent a public split within his Administration, Kennedy operated on "multiple levels of deception" in his Vietnam decision making, in the words of historian Gareth Porter.

Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, McNamara says today, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."

-------------

Kennedy REJECTED the "scenarios" his advisors provided. In a heated NSC meeting to discuss those "scenarios", newly discovered notes show that after listening to the arguments for intervention, an impassioned Bobby Kennedy kept insisting, "We are not sending combat troops. Not committing ourselves to combat troops." They also show that when Rusk suavely proposed making "saving Vietnam" a formal national policy goal, the President--who'd been largely silent until then--briskly refused. Telling the group coolly that "troops are a last resort," he said that if they were ever to be sent, he would let them go only as part of a multilateral force, under the sanction of the UN Security Council.

-------------

NSAM 263 was not a "proposed plan", it was a NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM... an ORDER signed by the commander in chief. The directive articulates the chief executive's national security policy and carries the "full force and effect of law"

-------------

Kennedy was NOT being told the war was being won in South Vietnam after issuing the ORDERED withdrawal of 1,000 advisors by the end of 1963, and supporting full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.

-------------

If a total withdrawal of US troops was NOT US "policy" and locked in...then kindly explain why ...on President Kennedy's last full day on earth, he told asst press secretary Malcolm Killduff: “I’ve just been given a list of the most recent casualties in Vietnam. We’re losing too damned many people over there. It’s time for us to get out. The Vietnamese aren’t fighting for themselves. We’re the ones who are doing the fighting. After I come back from Texas, that’s going to change. There’s no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life.”