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

[Oldstyle]

So Kennedy was being "deceptive" in what he was telling people about his plans for Vietnam? If that's the case...who would know best what his real plans were...Bobby Kennedy...his brother and closest confidant...or McNamara and O'Donnell? What makes you so positive that Kennedy wasn't being "deceptive" to them and being honest with his brother?

The truth of the matter is that your entire premise is based on the recollections of people who have an incentive to reinvent the Kennedy legacy when it comes to Vietnam. That had become a regular "cottage industry" as the fifty year anniversary of JFK's death came and went.

 

[Oldstyle]

And you neglected to address JFK's asking his people to explore ALL options in Vietnam. Why would he do that if he'd already made up his mind to remove the troops and that decision was set in stone? It would make sense only if that wasn't a policy he was settled on!

 

[Oldstyle]

Your own cited article point that out unwittingly! When Kennedy states that he will send in combat troops only "as a last resort" you seem to think that is Kennedy saying he will NEVER send in combat troops! That isn't what he's saying. He's actually saying that as a last resort that he WOULD consider sending in combat troops if it meant keeping South Vietnam from going communist!

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth of the matter is that Kennedy has been sending combat troops to Vietnam for quite some time in ever increasing numbers...up from the several hundred advisers who were there under Ike to 16,000 that were there under his leadership. Those were troops that were actively engaging the enemy as well...something that wasn't taking place under the President who preceded him.

 

[Bfgrn]

So Kennedy was being "deceptive" in what he was telling people about his plans for Vietnam? If that's the case...who would know best what his real plans were...Bobby Kennedy...his brother and closest confidant...or McNamara and O'Donnell? What makes you so positive that Kennedy wasn't being "deceptive" to them and being honest with his brother?

The truth of the matter is that your entire premise is based on the recollections of people who have an incentive to reinvent the Kennedy legacy when it comes to Vietnam. That had become a regular "cottage industry" as the fifty year anniversary of JFK's death came and went.

Robert McNamara would have a HUGE incentive to protect his own legacy. To do that, McNamara would have said "Kennedy would have sent in 500,000 combat troops the same as Johnson..."...he didn't.

The man who helped LBJ. 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 said, 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."

He told the TRUTH

Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, had a HUGE incentive to protect LBJ's legacy. To do that he would have said “"Kennedy would have sent in 500,000 combat troops the same as Johnson..."...he didn't.

Instead, he said:
"there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died"


The 'truth of the matter' IS the merely THE truth...

 

[Bfgrn]

And you neglected to address JFK's asking his people to explore ALL options in Vietnam. Why would he do that if he'd already made up his mind to remove the troops and that decision was set in stone? It would make sense only if that wasn't a policy he was settled on!

In 1961 he asked and received options...and for the whole of his administration, he rejected at every turn anything more than sending advisors. By October 1963, withdrawal WAS settled on policy.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your own cited article point that out unwittingly! When Kennedy states that he will send in combat troops only "as a last resort" you seem to think that is Kennedy saying he will NEVER send in combat troops! That isn't what he's saying. He's actually saying that as a last resort that he WOULD consider sending in combat troops if it meant keeping South Vietnam from going communist!

Unwittingly? I KNOW what I posted.

I think better words for what you are doing is "wittingly" being dishonest. You...a) ignored what Robert Kennedy said and b) willingly left out that the ONLY troops Kennedy would consider sending would be as part of a multilateral force, under the sanction of the UN Security Council.

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.

 

[Oldstyle]

Your own cited article point that out unwittingly! When Kennedy states that he will send in combat troops only "as a last resort" you seem to think that is Kennedy saying he will NEVER send in combat troops! That isn't what he's saying. He's actually saying that as a last resort that he WOULD consider sending in combat troops if it meant keeping South Vietnam from going communist!

Unwittingly? I KNOW what I posted.

I think better words for what you are doing is "wittingly" being dishonest. You...a) ignored what Robert Kennedy said and b) willingly left out that the ONLY troops Kennedy would consider sending would be as part of a multilateral force, under the sanction of the UN Security Council.

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.

A last resort for what, Brgrn? What is Kennedy willing to send troops into Vietnam as a "last resort" to keep from happening? South Vietnam from going communist? I rest my case...because that was EXACTLY what Kennedy had been doing since he took office! He'd sent 16,000 combat troops to Vietnam up from the several hundred that Ike had there and those troops were NOT under the banner of the UN!. He had US planes and helicopters flying combat missions. Your claims that JFK was going to walk away from Vietnam simply because he told some liberals that he would prior to running for reelection are laughable. You yourself just admitted that Kennedy was willing to deceive people about his plans for political expediency! Yet now you've decided that YOU know what he was being deceptive about and what he was being honest about and his brother Bobby...his closest confidant in the world...didn't?

Robert Kennedy quite clearly stated that his brother had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam. JFK' s actions back up Robert Kennedy's statement.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your own cited article point that out unwittingly! When Kennedy states that he will send in combat troops only "as a last resort" you seem to think that is Kennedy saying he will NEVER send in combat troops! That isn't what he's saying. He's actually saying that as a last resort that he WOULD consider sending in combat troops if it meant keeping South Vietnam from going communist!

Unwittingly? I KNOW what I posted.

I think better words for what you are doing is "wittingly" being dishonest. You...a) ignored what Robert Kennedy said and b) willingly left out that the ONLY troops Kennedy would consider sending would be as part of a multilateral force, under the sanction of the UN Security Council.

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.

A last resort for what, Brgrn? What is Kennedy willing to send troops into Vietnam as a "last resort" to keep from happening? South Vietnam from going communist? I rest my case...because that was EXACTLY what Kennedy had been doing since he took office! He'd sent 16,000 combat troops to Vietnam up from the several hundred that Ike had there and those troops were NOT under the banner of the UN!. He had US planes and helicopters flying combat missions. Your claims that JFK was going to walk away from Vietnam simply because he told some liberals that he would prior to running for reelection are laughable. You yourself just admitted that Kennedy was willing to deceive people about his plans for political expediency! Yet now you've decided that YOU know what he was being deceptive about and what he was being honest about and his brother Bobby...his closest confidant in the world...didn't?

Robert Kennedy quite clearly stated that his brother had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam. JFK' s actions back up Robert Kennedy's statement.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Clearly you are bound and determined to slander JFK and liberals as being no better than the fear infested, war mongering right you belong to. Herein lies you problem. President Kennedy was not a war hawk and NONE of his actions betray that FACT.

You continue to ignore the FACTS.

1) Throughout his presidency, Kennedy consistently sought a peaceful solution to every crisis. And when a crisis arose, he refused to use military action.

a) Bay of Pigs, when the anti-Castro insurgents failed, Kennedy REFUSED to order airstrikes against Castro.

b) Laos, the military wanted 140,000 ground troops sent in to prop up the CIA's puppet government in Laos against the communist Pathet Lao guerrillas, Kennedy REFUSED and instead signed a neutrality agreement the following year and was joined by 13 nations, including the Soviet Union.

c) Berlin, a US General made an unauthorized armed threat to knock down the Berlin Wall using tanks equipped with dozer plows, seeking to provoke the Soviets into some action that would justify a nuclear first strike. A 16 hour US-Soviet tank face off at Checkpoint Charley ensued. Kennedy negotiated a peaceful withdrawal.

d) Cuban Missile Crisis, the Pentagon, the CIA and many of JFK's advisers urged airstrikes and a U.S. invasion of the island. Kennedy REFUSED, he instead ordered a naval blockade and negotiated removal of the missiles from Cuba through back channel negotiations and prevented a nuclear attack on American cities.

e) Vietnam, Kennedy did build up forces to 16,000 advisors in Vietnam. That's correct. But Kennedy began to get evidence and intelligence showing that Vietnam was not likely to be won under any circumstances. John Kenneth Galbraith was one of the first to come back with a report urging Kennedy to rethink the policy in Vietnam. Kennedy sent Averell Harriman and Michael Forrestal to Vietnam, telling them to seize upon any moment to reduce our commitment in Vietnam.

Your Robert Kennedy interview, in my opinion, reflects the answers of the Attorney General of the United States, a high cabinet member of the Lyndon Johnson administration, not as the late president's brother.

But let's analyze...

Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?



Kennedy:
No.


Martin:
But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .


Kennedy:
No . . .


Martin:
. . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?


Kennedy:
Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

RFK CLEARLY shoots down any inkling of a mass escalation or Americanization of the war under President Kennedy.

Finally...

1) the official policy the day Kennedy died was:

"there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died"
Francis Bator, President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser

2) The withdrawal of 1,000 advisors was MADE PUBLIC by Press Secretary Pierre Salinger and President Kennedy fielded questions about the withdrawal at his final press conference as president on November 14, 1963...So Bobby's memory was faulty in April 1964.

3) Backround

As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.

Before a large audience at the LBJ Library on May 1, 1995, McNamara restated his account of this meeting and stressed its importance. He confirmed that President Kennedy’s action had three elements: (1) complete withdrawal “by December 31, 1965,” (2) the first 1,000 out by the end of 1963, and (3) a public announcement, to set these decisions “in concrete,” which was made.

4) You have a right to your own opinions, just not your own facts. As I said in the beginning, you can speculate on what Kennedy might have done...

 

[Oldstyle]

What's laughable is that you still think going from a few hundred to 16,000 wasn't an escalation simply because we called them "advisers".

What's even more amusing is that you think Robert Kennedy's memory is "faulty" in 1964...yet you think McNamara's is spot on in 1995...because as we all know...it's easier to remember things from thirty years ago than it is from last year!

 

[Bfgrn]

What's laughable is that you still think going from a few hundred to 16,000 wasn't an escalation simply because we called them "advisers".

What's even more amusing is that you think Robert Kennedy's memory is "faulty" in 1964...yet you think McNamara's is spot on in 1995...because as we all know...it's easier to remember things from thirty years ago than it is from last year!

The withdrawal of 1,000 military advisors by the end of 1963 and the intention to be out of Vietnam by 1965 was officially announced on October 2, 1963. So YES, Robert Kennedy's memory is faulty.

John F. Kennedy White House Statement Following the Return of a Special Mission to South Viet-Nam.

What is laughable and ignorant is trying to pin what Lyndon Johnson did on John K. Kennedy.

On Nov. 21, 1963, a day before his death, Kennedy was quoted as saying, “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.”

So what YOU are saying is JFK would go from "Vietnam is not worth another American life” to "Vietnam is worth 58,000 American lives.”