Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Ultra-Liberal CTers Are Outraged Over New Book on JFK and Vietnam  (Read 7416 times)

Online Mark A. Oblazney

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
When you serve at the pleasure of the President, you have to accept a lot of things. All of the Cabinet officials can be fired without cause. I find it interesting that the only senior official the President can't fire is the Veep. He's stuck with him no matter what.

JFK appointed a number of Republicans to key positions including Cabinet secretaries Robert McNamara (Defense) and C. Douglas Dillon (Treasury).

AI had just told me that JFK had appointed no Republicans to Cabinet positions which further erodes my confidence in AI.

Nixon also made several cross-party appointments including JFK's brother-in-law Sargent Shriver as ambassador to France, John Connally as Treasury Secretary, and perhaps my favorite Democrat of all time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan as Ambassador to India and later to the UN.

one fine day, there shall be ‘ETAI’, and all shall be known, unless you’re with the Greys, who are with the chinese if you pleez.  even aliens make mistakes, god made them, too!

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
    • JFK Assassination Website
I know one of the things that has some liberals upset is Cheevers' documentation of the fact that it was not JFK’s idea to announce a 1,000-man troop withdrawal, and that he didn’t like the idea but was talked into it by McNamara:

McNamara and Taylor also encouraged Kennedy to publicly state that he’d pull a thousand U.S. advisers out of South Vietnam by the end of the year, and that “the bulk of U.S. personnel” could probably be withdrawn by 1965. Other White House counselors thought such a declaration was imprudent. What if the war went badly, especially in light of South Vietnam’s political troubles, and the advisers had to stay longer? What if more were needed to help battle the VC?

Kennedy himself was reluctant, saying the proposed statement was “overly optimistic” and didn’t have much value. McNamara, however, insisted it would show congressional critics that the administration had a plan for reducing American combat casualties. Kennedy ultimately agreed to issue a press release along the lines his defense secretary wanted.

But the president’s instincts were right; he was quickly attacked in the press. The Washington Post, for example, lambasted the prediction of a 1965 pullout as “groundless prophecy” and an affront to the “maturity and intelligence” of the American public. (pp. 373-374)


The statement said that "the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965" and that "by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn." Kennedy thought this was "overly optimistic." However, he eventually succumbed to McNamara's pressure and agreed to the press release.