Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[Camp]

When did you "take me to school" that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam? I well aware that liberally leaning historians have tried to make that contention but I've never seen anything that shows Kennedy doing any such thing. It's amusing how so many now believe that they know what Kennedy's thoughts were on Vietnam. This attempt to "rehabilitate" part of the Kennedy legacy is understandable of course. Here he is this liberal "icon" and yet he was one of the primary drivers of the escalation of the Vietnam War. Liberals HATE that! It doesn't fit with the myth of JFK. The liberal myth that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated that day in Dallas that he would unquestionably been one of the great Presidents of our nation. The truth is...we don't know how Kennedy would have fared going forward. We don't know if he would have pulled out of Vietnam. There is no indication that he was leaning that way. I'm sorry, but there simply isn't.

post #283 on this page is where i took you to school.you ran away from it.

thats because YOU have neber gone to the archives in washington dc and seen the document that he signed in oct 2003 that recalled a COMPLETE withdrawal by ALL militay personal by 1965. two days later after the assassination.LBJ signed a document that REVERSED his policy and esculated the war with the gulf of tonkin incident that both the commander of that ship and robert mcnamara have come forward and said no vietnmanese EVER did fire on them.it was lie contrived by johnson and the government to get the war started.
no inidication my ass.

hate to break your hear but he WAS one of the greatest in our time.NOT EVIL AND CORRUPT LIKE YOUR BASTARD HERO REAGAN. to spekk this out to you dummies stlye.he HE TRIED TO GET RID OF THE CIA,I TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL ON THAT EARLIER AND YOU IGNORED THE POST.bastard reagan reversed carters policy of trying to clean up the CIA when he got in and let it run rampart again and you idiots call that bastard a hero.

the TRURH is we KNOW he was going to pull out of vietnam.i posted this on my jfk thread as well.not that you will read it but i can only hope to be wrong that you wont be afraid and WILL read it this time.

you wont though since you woont even answer a simple question i have asked you trolls a 100 times here though with no reply to it

LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam? Really? You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?

He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progs will never get over Reagan freeing Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism.

 

[Unkotare]

Also, no one has a right to a dime of his Daddy's money or to any benefit from Daddy's connections. If we have to do it on our own, so must the spoiled-rotten spawn of the rich. Or they must die.

You're not just an idiotic, far-left loon, you're a full-blown psycho.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

When did you "take me to school" that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam? I well aware that liberally leaning historians have tried to make that contention but I've never seen anything that shows Kennedy doing any such thing. It's amusing how so many now believe that they know what Kennedy's thoughts were on Vietnam. This attempt to "rehabilitate" part of the Kennedy legacy is understandable of course. Here he is this liberal "icon" and yet he was one of the primary drivers of the escalation of the Vietnam War. Liberals HATE that! It doesn't fit with the myth of JFK. The liberal myth that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated that day in Dallas that he would unquestionably been one of the great Presidents of our nation. The truth is...we don't know how Kennedy would have fared going forward. We don't know if he would have pulled out of Vietnam. There is no indication that he was leaning that way. I'm sorry, but there simply isn't.

post #283 on this page is where i took you to school.you ran away from it.

thats because YOU have neber gone to the archives in washington dc and seen the document that he signed in oct 2003 that recalled a COMPLETE withdrawal by ALL militay personal by 1965. two days later after the assassination.LBJ signed a document that REVERSED his policy and esculated the war with the gulf of tonkin incident that both the commander of that ship and robert mcnamara have come forward and said no vietnmanese EVER did fire on them.it was lie contrived by johnson and the government to get the war started.
no inidication my ass.

hate to break your hear but he WAS one of the greatest in our time.NOT EVIL AND CORRUPT LIKE YOUR BASTARD HERO REAGAN. to spekk this out to you dummies stlye.he HE TRIED TO GET RID OF THE CIA,I TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL ON THAT EARLIER AND YOU IGNORED THE POST.bastard reagan reversed carters policy of trying to clean up the CIA when he got in and let it run rampart again and you idiots call that bastard a hero.

the TRUTH is we KNOW he was going to pull out of vietnam.i posted this on my jfk thread as well.not that you will read it but i can only hope to be wrong that you wont be afraid and WILL read it this time.

you wont though since you wont even answer a simple question i have asked you trolls a 100 times here though with no reply to it

LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam? Really? You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?

there you are showing your arrogance to avoid the fact you have been proven wrong. you reaganuts as usual,prove how delusional you are,better get off that crack you been smoking.your seeing things because of that.The date is OCTOBER "1963" RETARD,not 2003.Nice game of dodgeball.

since your so stupid and ALWAYS dodge facts,he wasnt killed till nov 22nd 1963.

Its not my fault your too scared of the truth to go down to washington dc and look at the document. if you werent so dense,you would know the ARRB -the assassination records review board that clinton signed reluctanty in 96 to uncover documents from the eisenhower,kennedy and nixon administrations,they discovered documents from AGAIN "OCTOBER 1963." where he signed that document.

again as always,you show what a coward you are because you WONT answer a simple question i have asked you trolls over a 100 times,nor will you address the facts i displayed that he was going to pull out of vietnam,


up till 1996,reseachers and historians had their suspecions but they never could prove it to be true till 1996 when the ARRB discovered the document in the national archives.

He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.[/QUOTE]

the reaganut trolls for sure have reading comprehension problems.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

oh and i also love it oldstly how you ran off when cornered with facts that the CIA controls the media. something else i did not post earlier on that is even a former deputy director of the CIA wrote a book about it called THE CIA AND THE CULT OF THE INTELLIGENCE CONFESSING they have CIA PLANTS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.i voctor marchetti was the guy.guess he is a tin foil hatter though according to you though.

I don't make a habit of "running off", 9/11...especially in the face of silly theories such as yours. I do however trundle off to work on a regular basis...you should try that yourself!

when I say run off,I am not referring to going back to work after a post AND COMING BACK LATER.

I am referring to the FACT that everyone of you reaganuts run off when you are cornered with facts you cant refute.

you never come back and address AT least HALF of them,you play dodgeball with them and wont even answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION i have asked you trolls over a 100 times to answer but you refuse to and wont even ask me what the question is that you overlooked.

I PROVED JFK signed that document in OCT 63,and that LBJ reversed it two days later after his assassination and you blantaly ignored it

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Why do conservatives pick the Gipper, of all Repub President's in the 20th century to choose from, to idolize

Because they have been brainwashed and conditioned by the CIA controlled media and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh is why.

....

I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

9/11's view that John F. Kennedy was a liberal "saint" is rather amusing. Kennedy did a LOT of saber rattling during his short stint as President. Bay of Pigs...Berlin airlift..."advisers" to Vietnam...a naval embargo of Cuba? The "man" was nothing like the "myth" that liberals have constructed since his death.

your worshipping of that evil bastard reagan and evading facts how evil and corrupt he was refusing to address them is whats amusing.

your such a troll you ignore FACTS that the CIA lied to him from the very beginning and all they way through the whole bay of pigs invasion when it was going on that because of their lies,afterwards,he dired dulles and bissel for their blatant lies to him knowing it was going to be a disaster. if you had a brain,you would know the plan they presented to kenendy on the bay of pigs was VASTLY different than the one they presented to eisenhower and the reason they altered when they presented it to kennedy was cause it was designed to suceed under their buddy Nixon whom ran covert wars for the CIA as vp under eisenhower.why do you think nixon in his white house tapes kept referring to that hunt scab in the bay of pigs invasion when that had nothing to do with watergate?

it was because he really meant the kenendy assassination thing since hunt was involved in the bay of pigs invasion.oh and hunt after lying for years about being in dallas,even CONFESSED later on in a tape recoreder to his son on his deathbed he in fact WAS in dealy plaza as an operation to kill kennedy.i posted the video before,but liek the trolls you all are,you ignored it.

oh and even a couple of nixons white house aides wrote a book saying thats what nixon was referring to was the kenendy assassination.guess they are tin foil hatters though?

allen dulles who kenendy fired after the bay of pigs invasion was appoinented on the warren commission by Lyndon johnson who got to handpick them all.no bias of an investigation there. johnson wasnt even investigated and should have been a prime suspect since he had more to gain by the assassiantion that anybody.

oh and you cripple your arguments with your OWN words and help me win my case against you trolls everytime with your own words.

the fact kennedy only sent in ADVISORS and NEVER combat troops.even PBS has acknowledged that fact. johnson reversed kennedys policy on the gulf of tonkin incident.

oh and remember where i said even the commander of that ship and mcnamara have come forward and confessed that johnson lied,that the vietcong never fired on them? playing dodgeball as always.

only an idiot would deny that when Dulles got the phone call from Johnson to be on the warren commission,that he wasnt out celebrating that night knowing he got the last laugh on kennedy able to rewrite history like he did.

no biased investigation by the warren commssion there with THAT appointment.


OH and I ALSO noticed how you EVADED the facts in this link here in post #323 on this page below with overwhelming proof that the CIA has plants in the media.you might want to watch that video in this link here on page

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-22.html
where congress talks about it in that video on that link and not ignore what some very prominent people in government have said about them as well in that link.

 

[Unkotare]

Because they have been brainwashed and conditioned by the CIA controlled media and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh is why.

....

I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.

Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously, you loon?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

....

I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.

Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously, you loon?

not by trolls like you frady cat deniars who have proven in spades you guys are cowards and cant debate.

thanks for proving you dont know how to debate either,you reaganuts would be laughed out of a courtroom in a minute and lose your case right there resfusing to answer a simple question.great rebutall.


thanks for proving what a coward you are as well.wont even aaks what the question is i have asked over a hundred times.you have been thrown out of the court by the judge on refusal to answer the question.

 

[Camp]

....

I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.

Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously, you loon?

He understands the use of disinformation and the workings of the CIA better than anyone I've seen posting here. You may disagree with his conclusions and question some of his sources and links as being biased, but he is basing his analysis on factual data or data that is deserving of further study.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.

Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously, you loon?

He understands the use of disinformation and the workings of the CIA better than anyone I've seen posting here. You may disagree with his conclusions and question some of his sources and links as being biased, but he is basing his analysis on factual data or data that is deserving of further study.

somehow even a FORMER deputy director writing a book about it called THE CIA AND THE CULT OF THE INTELLIGENCE "CONFESSING" in his book,that the CIA has agents in the LAMESTREAM media and workplaces,somehow THATS not good enough for them.

thats why they ignore the majority of everything i post not acknowledging it.

I very rarely ever come across someone like you on this board that has an understanding about the true nature of the CIA.

 

[Oldstyle]

post #283 on this page is where i took you to school.you ran away from it.

thats because YOU have neber gone to the archives in washington dc and seen the document that he signed in oct 2003 that recalled a COMPLETE withdrawal by ALL militay personal by 1965. two days later after the assassination.LBJ signed a document that REVERSED his policy and esculated the war with the gulf of tonkin incident that both the commander of that ship and robert mcnamara have come forward and said no vietnmanese EVER did fire on them.it was lie contrived by johnson and the government to get the war started.
no inidication my ass.

hate to break your hear but he WAS one of the greatest in our time.NOT EVIL AND CORRUPT LIKE YOUR BASTARD HERO REAGAN. to spekk this out to you dummies stlye.he HE TRIED TO GET RID OF THE CIA,I TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL ON THAT EARLIER AND YOU IGNORED THE POST.bastard reagan reversed carters policy of trying to clean up the CIA when he got in and let it run rampart again and you idiots call that bastard a hero.

the TRURH is we KNOW he was going to pull out of vietnam.i posted this on my jfk thread as well.not that you will read it but i can only hope to be wrong that you wont be afraid and WILL read it this time.

you wont though since you woont even answer a simple question i have asked you trolls a 100 times here though with no reply to it

LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam? Really? You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?

He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.

That might be what, Sparky WANTED to say, Camp but it isn't what he posted. You can always spot the people who get their info from conspiracy sites on the internet because when they aren't "cut and pasting", they are all but incomprehensible.

There is no proof that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam. Quite the opposite actually. The following is from an interview that Bobby Kennedy did back in 1964 regarding that very subject.



Third Oral History Interview with
ROBERT F. KENNEDY

April 30, 1964
New York, New York

By John Bartlow Martin
For the John F. Kennedy Library

[BEGIN TAPE V, REEL 1]

[snipping earlier portion of interview]

Martin:
"All right. Now, Vietnam began in the first--on the 3rd of January started appearing rather prominently in the papers and, of course, still is, and was all through '63. Do you want to talk about it now? Do you want to wait till we come and pick up the coup later? In, on, in January, the Vietnamese killed three Americans and shot down five helicopters.

Kennedy:
Viet Cong, you mean.

Martin:
That's right. That's what I mean, I'm sorry, Viet Cong. A little later Mansfield said that we were, this thing was turning into an American war and wasn't justified by our national interest; we hadn't any business going in so deep, but we kept going in deeper. The president sent Maxwell Taylor and McNamara out there. And then, and Lodge, he appointed Lodge as the ambassador--and you remember the hassle between the CIA and Lodge. The president brought the CIA fellow back, and, in the end, there was the coup against the Diem brothers. Do you want to discuss the whole thing now? You must have been in on a good deal of this.

Kennedy:
Yes. Well, yeah, what do you want to start with?

Martin:
All right. At the beginning we seemed to have our lines crossed. I mean, the majority leader in the Senate, Mansfield, was saying this was not an American war, and he didn't think it was--that our--it should be--not, not--should not be an American war. He didn't think our heavy commitment there was justified. How'd you feel about it; how'd the president feel about it; and at what point did we get our lines straightened out?

Kennedy:
Well, I don't think that . . .

Martin:
Did I make myself clear?

Kennedy:
No, I don't think that fact, Senator Mansfield or somebody in the Senate takes a position, necessarily means .. .

Martin:
Well, he was majority leader.

Kennedy:
Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.

Martin:
What was the overwhelming reason?

Kennedy:
Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

Martin:
What if it did?

Kennedy:
Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

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.

Martin:
It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .

Kennedy:
Yes.

Martin:
. . . and couldn't lose it.

Kennedy:
Yes.

Martin:
And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy:
Well, we'd face that when we came to it.

Martin:
Mm hm. Or go with air strikes, or--direct from carriers, I mean, something like that?

Kennedy:
But without. . . . It didn't have to be faced at that time. In the first place, we were winning the war in 1962 and 1963, up until May or so of 1963. The situation was getting progressively better. And then I . . .

Martin:
But then it got progre-- started going downhill, didn't it?

Kennedy:
Yes, and then we had all the problems with the Buddhists and the . . .

Martin:
Yeah.

Kennedy:
And, uh . . .

Martin:
Why did they go down, why did they get bad, Bob?

Kennedy:
Well, I just think he was just, Diem wouldn't make even the slightest concessions. He was difficult to reason with, well, with the. . . . And then it was built up tremendously in an adverse fashion here in the United States and that was played back in Vietnam, and . . . . And I think just the people themselves became concerned about it. And so, it began to, the situation began to deteriorate in the spring of 1962, uh, spring of 1963. I think David Halberstam, from the New York Times' articles, had a strong effect on molding public opinion: the fact that the situation was unsatisfactory. Our problem was that thinking of Halberstam sort of as the Ma-- what Matthews [unidentified] did in Cuba, that Batista [Fulgencio R. Batista] was not very satisfactory, but the important thing was to try to get somebody who could replace him and somebody who could keep, continue the war and keep the country united, and that was far more difficult. So that was what was of great concern to all of us during this period of time. Nobody liked Diem particularly, but how to get rid of him and get somebody that would continue the war, not split the country in two, and therefore lose not only the war but the country. That was the great problem."

That's Bobby Kennedy...the closest person to John F. Kennedy in his Administration saying quite clearly that they didn't consider pulling out.

 

[gipper]

LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam? Really? You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?

He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.

That might be what, Sparky WANTED to say, Camp but it isn't what he posted. You can always spot the people who get their info from conspiracy sites on the internet because when they aren't "cut and pasting", they are all but incomprehensible.

There is no proof that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam. Quite the opposite actually. The following is from an interview that Bobby Kennedy did back in 1964 regarding that very subject.



Third Oral History Interview with
ROBERT F. KENNEDY

April 30, 1964
New York, New York

By John Bartlow Martin
For the John F. Kennedy Library

[BEGIN TAPE V, REEL 1]

[snipping earlier portion of interview]

Martin:
"All right. Now, Vietnam began in the first--on the 3rd of January started appearing rather prominently in the papers and, of course, still is, and was all through '63. Do you want to talk about it now? Do you want to wait till we come and pick up the coup later? In, on, in January, the Vietnamese killed three Americans and shot down five helicopters.

Kennedy:
Viet Cong, you mean.

Martin:
That's right. That's what I mean, I'm sorry, Viet Cong. A little later Mansfield said that we were, this thing was turning into an American war and wasn't justified by our national interest; we hadn't any business going in so deep, but we kept going in deeper. The president sent Maxwell Taylor and McNamara out there. And then, and Lodge, he appointed Lodge as the ambassador--and you remember the hassle between the CIA and Lodge. The president brought the CIA fellow back, and, in the end, there was the coup against the Diem brothers. Do you want to discuss the whole thing now? You must have been in on a good deal of this.

Kennedy:
Yes. Well, yeah, what do you want to start with?

Martin:
All right. At the beginning we seemed to have our lines crossed. I mean, the majority leader in the Senate, Mansfield, was saying this was not an American war, and he didn't think it was--that our--it should be--not, not--should not be an American war. He didn't think our heavy commitment there was justified. How'd you feel about it; how'd the president feel about it; and at what point did we get our lines straightened out?

Kennedy:
Well, I don't think that . . .

Martin:
Did I make myself clear?

Kennedy:
No, I don't think that fact, Senator Mansfield or somebody in the Senate takes a position, necessarily means .. .

Martin:
Well, he was majority leader.

Kennedy:
Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.

Martin:
What was the overwhelming reason?

Kennedy:
Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

Martin:
What if it did?

Kennedy:
Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

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.

Martin:
It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .

Kennedy:
Yes.

Martin:
. . . and couldn't lose it.

Kennedy:
Yes.

Martin:
And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy:
Well, we'd face that when we came to it.

Martin:
Mm hm. Or go with air strikes, or--direct from carriers, I mean, something like that?

Kennedy:
But without. . . . It didn't have to be faced at that time. In the first place, we were winning the war in 1962 and 1963, up until May or so of 1963. The situation was getting progressively better. And then I . . .

Martin:
But then it got progre-- started going downhill, didn't it?

Kennedy:
Yes, and then we had all the problems with the Buddhists and the . . .

Martin:
Yeah.

Kennedy:
And, uh . . .

Martin:
Why did they go down, why did they get bad, Bob?

Kennedy:
Well, I just think he was just, Diem wouldn't make even the slightest concessions. He was difficult to reason with, well, with the. . . . And then it was built up tremendously in an adverse fashion here in the United States and that was played back in Vietnam, and . . . . And I think just the people themselves became concerned about it. And so, it began to, the situation began to deteriorate in the spring of 1962, uh, spring of 1963. I think David Halberstam, from the New York Times' articles, had a strong effect on molding public opinion: the fact that the situation was unsatisfactory. Our problem was that thinking of Halberstam sort of as the Ma-- what Matthews [unidentified] did in Cuba, that Batista [Fulgencio R. Batista] was not very satisfactory, but the important thing was to try to get somebody who could replace him and somebody who could keep, continue the war and keep the country united, and that was far more difficult. So that was what was of great concern to all of us during this period of time. Nobody liked Diem particularly, but how to get rid of him and get somebody that would continue the war, not split the country in two, and therefore lose not only the war but the country. That was the great problem."

That's Bobby Kennedy...the closest person to John F. Kennedy in his Administration saying quite clearly that they didn't consider pulling out.

There are conflicting opinions on this issue of JFK's intentions in Vietnam. While RFK makes it clear he would have escalated the war, others say he would not have.

Yet, Galbraith notes, that a powerful counterargument came from unexpected source. Late in life, Robert McHamara, Secretary of Defense for JFK and LBJ, and a man reviled by the anti-war movement in the 1960s for his support of the war, said that he thought JFK would not have escalated the war as LBJ did in 1964. McNamara’s statements lent credence to the arguments of historians, John Newman (“JFK and Vietnam”) and Howard Jones (“Death of a Generation”) who found that JFK had been quietly laying the groundwork for withdrawal without battlefield victory for much of 1963.

That interpretation gained more support in 1998 when the Assassination Records Review Board released the records of the May 1963 SecDef conference in which a phased withdrawal from Vietnam was put on the books as a policy option, something that was not known at the time and remained as a state secret for 35 years. When JFK’s national security advisers met in Honululu on Nov. 20, 1963, their briefing books reiterated the plans for withdrawal without victory.

The debate endures because JFK expressed support for both his dovish policy option (withdrawal without victory) and his hawkish option (escalation until victory). But overall, Galbraith notes that on a series of foreign policy decisions in his first two years and half years in office, JFK rejected the recommendation of his hawkish advisers. He sees JFK’s unfinished Vietnam policy in 1963 as

“part of a larger strategy, of a sequence that included the Laos and Berlin settlements in 1961, the non-invasion of Cuba in 1962, the Test Ban Treaty in 1963. Kennedy subordinated the timing of these events to politics: he was quite prepared to leave soldiers in harm’s way until after his own reelection. His larger goal after that was to settle the Cold War, without either victory or defeat—a strategic vision laid out in JFK’s commencement speech at American University on June 10, 1963.”

ANOTHER VIEW

JFK as hawk: “Going to Withdraw from Vietnam?”

Two key documents:

Withdrawal from Vietnam (Oct. 11, 1963). JFK signs NSAM 263, an order to withdraw 1,000 troops out of roughly 16,000 Americans stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963, with the complete withdrawal by the end of 1965.

Escalation in Vietnam (Nov. 26, 1963): Signed by President Lyndon Johnson four days after JFK’s death, NSAM 273 succeeded NSAM 263 and ordered the planning of increased activity in Vietnam.
JFKfacts » Was JFK going to pull out of Vietnam?

 

[Oldstyle]

If you read up on the mindset of the people in charge back then...the "withdraw" that was being discussed was taking place at a time when it appeared that the fight against the North Vietnamese was being won. The proposals to withdraw troops that people like 9/11 mistakenly view as a Kennedy plan to abandon Vietnam were being made in a scenario where we would be pulling out having successfully halted the spread of communism to South Vietnam...not a scenario where we would be pulling out having lost to the communists. Kennedy was always quite clear that he was not willing to allow South Vietnam to fall.

 

[Oldstyle]

Quite frankly, Gipper...I view this whole notion of what JFK "would" have done to be wishful thinking on the part of those that revere the JFK legacy and wish to somehow scrub the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam from that legacy. There really is nothing there to show that Kennedy was ever seriously intending to withdraw troops once it became clear that the war was not going as well as it had originally been perceived.

 

[gipper]

Quite frankly, Gipper...I view this whole notion of what JFK "would" have done to be wishful thinking on the part of those that revere the JFK legacy and wish to somehow scrub the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam from that legacy. There really is nothing there to show that Kennedy was ever seriously intending to withdraw troops once it became clear that the war was not going as well as it had originally been perceived.

I agree that his intentions are not exactly clear, but that does not mean he would have escalated as the disgusting fool LBJ did. While I agree that many on the Left want to foolishly believe JFK some kind of liberal saint, I do not think we should conclude from this, that he would have escalated.

After all, he had sought detente with the USSR and an end to the Cold War, had refused to escalate the Bay of Pigs, resolved the Cuban Missile crisis peacefully over the objections of many in the military, and essentially had very poor relations with the warfare state that encompassed the CIA and the Joint Chiefs. He fired the scumbag Dulles, who had considerable power within the warfare state and who made no effort to disguise his disgust and hatred of JFK.

It is obvious the warfare state wanted confrontation with the USSR and opposed JFK's efforts at conciliation. They also wanted to escalate in Vietnam and feared JFK would not go along with them, but they knew LBJ would do as he was told.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam? Really? You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?

He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.

That might be what, Sparky WANTED to say, Camp but it isn't what he posted. You can always spot the people who get their info from conspiracy sites on the internet because when they aren't "cut and pasting", they are all but incomprehensible.

There is no proof that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam. Quite the opposite actually. The following is from an interview that Bobby Kennedy did back in 1964 regarding that very subject.



Third Oral History Interview with
ROBERT F. KENNEDY

April 30, 1964
New York, New York

By John Bartlow Martin
For the John F. Kennedy Library

[BEGIN TAPE V, REEL 1]

[snipping earlier portion of interview]

Martin:
"All right. Now, Vietnam began in the first--on the 3rd of January started appearing rather prominently in the papers and, of course, still is, and was all through '63. Do you want to talk about it now? Do you want to wait till we come and pick up the coup later? In, on, in January, the Vietnamese killed three Americans and shot down five helicopters.

Kennedy:
Viet Cong, you mean.

Martin:
That's right. That's what I mean, I'm sorry, Viet Cong. A little later Mansfield said that we were, this thing was turning into an American war and wasn't justified by our national interest; we hadn't any business going in so deep, but we kept going in deeper. The president sent Maxwell Taylor and McNamara out there. And then, and Lodge, he appointed Lodge as the ambassador--and you remember the hassle between the CIA and Lodge. The president brought the CIA fellow back, and, in the end, there was the coup against the Diem brothers. Do you want to discuss the whole thing now? You must have been in on a good deal of this.

Kennedy:
Yes. Well, yeah, what do you want to start with?

Martin:
All right. At the beginning we seemed to have our lines crossed. I mean, the majority leader in the Senate, Mansfield, was saying this was not an American war, and he didn't think it was--that our--it should be--not, not--should not be an American war. He didn't think our heavy commitment there was justified. How'd you feel about it; how'd the president feel about it; and at what point did we get our lines straightened out?

Kennedy:
Well, I don't think that . . .

Martin:
Did I make myself clear?

Kennedy:
No, I don't think that fact, Senator Mansfield or somebody in the Senate takes a position, necessarily means .. .

Martin:
Well, he was majority leader.

Kennedy:
Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.

Martin:
What was the overwhelming reason?

Kennedy:
Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

Martin:
What if it did?

Kennedy:
Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

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.

Martin:
It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .

Kennedy:
Yes.

Martin:
. . . and couldn't lose it.

Kennedy:
Yes.

Martin:
And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy:
Well, we'd face that when we came to it.

Martin:
Mm hm. Or go with air strikes, or--direct from carriers, I mean, something like that?

Kennedy:
But without. . . . It didn't have to be faced at that time. In the first place, we were winning the war in 1962 and 1963, up until May or so of 1963. The situation was getting progressively better. And then I . . .

Martin:
But then it got progre-- started going downhill, didn't it?

Kennedy:
Yes, and then we had all the problems with the Buddhists and the . . .

Martin:
Yeah.

Kennedy:
And, uh . . .

Martin:
Why did they go down, why did they get bad, Bob?

Kennedy:
Well, I just think he was just, Diem wouldn't make even the slightest concessions. He was difficult to reason with, well, with the. . . . And then it was built up tremendously in an adverse fashion here in the United States and that was played back in Vietnam, and . . . . And I think just the people themselves became concerned about it. And so, it began to, the situation began to deteriorate in the spring of 1962, uh, spring of 1963. I think David Halberstam, from the New York Times' articles, had a strong effect on molding public opinion: the fact that the situation was unsatisfactory. Our problem was that thinking of Halberstam sort of as the Ma-- what Matthews [unidentified] did in Cuba, that Batista [Fulgencio R. Batista] was not very satisfactory, but the important thing was to try to get somebody who could replace him and somebody who could keep, continue the war and keep the country united, and that was far more difficult. So that was what was of great concern to all of us during this period of time. Nobody liked Diem particularly, but how to get rid of him and get somebody that would continue the war, not split the country in two, and therefore lose not only the war but the country. That was the great problem."

That's Bobby Kennedy...the closest person to John F. Kennedy in his Administration saying quite clearly that they didn't consider pulling out.

and thats YOU playing dodgeball again as always ignoring the FACT as always that he signed document # 263 two months before his assassination which called for a complete withdrawal from vietnam by 1965. That information proves nothing whatsoever that he was going to remain in vietnam."MY" information i have posted throughout the whole thread however proves he WAS going to pull out of vietnam.

just because Bobby SAID there was never any intention by Jfk to ever pull out, doesnt mean Bobby was being truthful.what Bobby said and JFK really DID were two different things.

its well known that he had to look like he had a strong anti communist stance against the communists in vietnam saying we need to fight communism and remain in vietnam but what he was ACTUALLY doing behind the scenes shows he was doing just the opposite.

Bobby when he made that statement was also obviously not aware of the document he signed in oct 1963 in hawaii that called for a complete withdrawel of vietnam by 1965.

Oh and its funny that like you always do in your discussions,you only helped prove my case FOR ME that he was going to pull out of vietnam completely by 1965 mentioning the names of senator mansfield and mcarthur.

You see,unlike you,I am not afraid of the truth and have done a lot of research on this meeting many scholars over the years that have reseached this night and day devoting hunderds of hours to it and they have the documents and proof that he was going to pull out of vietnam/I could refer you to a book that documents all this stuff I have said but as we both know,you wont read it.you wont read that book that exposes the myth of reagan so you wont read this one either.,

again unlike you,they have been to the national archives and seen the documents.None of your ramblings shoots down his document # 263 he signed that called for a compete withdrawl of vietnam by 1965.:

you should start a comedy club.

all you did was help prove my case for me because if you had done any research than only seeing what you WANT to see,you would know that after consulting with senator mansfield and after meeting with mcarthur in the middle of 1963,after having discussiosns with Mcarthur,Mac even told JFK he thought vietnam was an unwinnable war and we should pull out and he told his 2 closest aides dave powers and kenny o donnel after hearing it from Mac,that he had no doubts anymore,telling them after the election when he got releected he was going to pull out of vietnam.

He had to wait till after the election to do it though because he did not want to look like he was soft on communism to the american people.I said that once before at least,and you blatantly ignored it.

thanks for the post,you really should quit while your ahead cause all you have been doing since coming on here,is helping me prove you wrong everytime.

oh and just for the record,I am against posting links because yeah just because the NET says it doesnt mean its true but you reaganuts always how your hypocrisy by posting propaganda with LINKS as well that are pure b.s and then cowardly run off with your tail between your legs anytime challenged to refute facts in links.

oh and since you wont address those facts that i layed out in that post of high ranking top officials in government saying the CIA is a corrupt organization,including people like Harry truman and Jfk himself and wont watch the video where congress had a hearing about this,then nice to see you FINALLY admitting you are cluless,that i am right and your wrong.

and thanks as always showing your a coward and wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked throughout this entire thread at least a hundred time.you do that in a court,the judge throws you out and laughs at you.

oh and one more thing.i only post links cause you hypocrite reaganuts do the same thing.I already said you need to read that books that dante mentioned at the beginning of this post that exposes the myth of reagan,his book quotes REAL sources back then from MAINSTREAM newspapers from the 80's where for instance,polls taken back then by mainstream media sources shoed through most his two terms,he was very unpopular with the people and yet,you worship that b.s propaganda link crusader retard posted saying he was very popular defending it and then say "i" post some links that are propaganda.

you have been exposed as the hypocritw you are who is afraid of the truth and in denial.congrats on your hypocrisy.. Im done with you.have fun talking to yourself.

 

[Jroc]

Who let this thread get drailed by thte conspiracy nutjobs?...off topic, wrong room

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Quite frankly, Gipper...I view this whole notion of what JFK "would" have done to be wishful thinking on the part of those that revere the JFK legacy and wish to somehow scrub the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam from that legacy. There really is nothing there to show that Kennedy was ever seriously intending to withdraw troops once it became clear that the war was not going as well as it had originally been perceived.

I agree that his intentions are not exactly clear, but that does not mean he would have escalated as the disgusting fool LBJ did. While I agree that many on the Left want to foolishly believe JFK some kind of liberal saint, I do not think we should conclude from this, that he would have escalated.

After all, he had sought detente with the USSR and an end to the Cold War, had refused to escalate the Bay of Pigs, resolved the Cuban Missile crisis peacefully over the objections of many in the military, and essentially had very poor relations with the warfare state that encompassed the CIA and the Joint Chiefs. He fired the scumbag Dulles, who had considerable power within the warfare state and who made no effort to disguise his disgust and hatred of JFK.

It is obvious the warfare state wanted confrontation with the USSR and opposed JFK's efforts at conciliation. They also wanted to escalate in Vietnam and feared JFK would not go along with them, but they knew LBJ would do as he was told.

actually its QUITE clear that he was definetely beyond a doubt going to pull out of the vietnam war completely by 1965.

You know Im sure as well as i do,that like I got done saying,what Jfk and RFK told reporters and what he ACTUALLY did in regards to vietnam,are two different entire things.

Bobby said Jfk was never considered pulling out but he either obviously did not know about the document he signed or he was just telling the american people what they wanted to hear that he was remaining strong against communism and committed to a war there when he really wasnt.

Documents dont lie and and you already know about documents #263 he signed that called for a complete withdrawal by the end of 1965 im sure.

the reaganuts though keep acting like i never posted that fact playing dodgeball with it. evading that fact

yeah he was no saint by any means,like all of us he had his faults but unlike every president since him,there is nothing on the record that proves he was evil and corrupt like there is with reagan.thats what the reaganuts always ignore.

Yeah they knew beyond a doubt that LBJ WOULD do what he was told,to esculate the war because as Im surre you already know,LBJ signed document # 273 two days later that REVERSED jfks policy of pulling out since it called for a return to covert wars for the CIA to run with his phony gulf of tonkin incident him and the govwernment staged.

also after he signed that document,it was no secret he was going to pull out of vietna.there were headlines printed all over the front pages of the pentagons military paper STARS AND STRIPES headlines that read KENNEDY CALLS FOR A COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF VIETNAM BY 1965.thats no theory,thats a FACT,yet we have people here ignoring these facts to arrogant to admit they have been proven wrong that kennedy wasnt goting to pull out of vietnam.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Who let this thread get drailed by thte conspiracy nutjobs?...off topic, wrong room

too predicatable as always.,when the paid zionist shill is cornered by pesky facts and evidence he cant refute,he evades them running off like the chikenshit coward he is.