JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 01, 2026, 12:33:53 PM
-
Investigative journalist Jack Cheevers' new book Kennedy's Coup: A White House Plot, a Saigon Murder, and America's Descent into Vietnam has many ultra-liberal JFKA conspiracy theorists in an uproar.
This is a bit ironic because Cheevers' book is is not exactly a rock-ribbed conservative defense of the war effort. His book repeats some of the standard liberal claims about the Vietnam War (that the South Vietnamese army was the perpetrator of the May 8 "massacre," that South Vietnamese Buddhists were treated unfairly, etc.).
But, Cheevers also presents a balanced and somewhat-favorable picture of South Vietnam's president, Ngo Dinh Diem, of U.S. Ambassador Fred Nolting, and of General Paul Harkins, the first MACV commander, whereas most leftist JFKA CTers demonize Diem, Nolting, and Harkins. In addition, Cheevers tells the truth about the savage, barbaric tactics of the Viet Cong, whereas many far-left JFKA CTers actually portray the Viet Cong as the good guys.
However, Cheevers' biggest sin in the eyes of many ultra-liberals is that he (entirely correctly) argues that JFK's decision to green-light the coup against Ngo Dinh Diem was not only a failure of leadership but an enormous disaster for the war effort. Cheevers also argues that the disastrous coup led to greater U.S. involvement after the assassination.
When a book on JFK and the Vietnam War receives praise from all across the spectrum, from National Review to H. R. McMaster to Max Boot to Christopher Goscha, as Cheevers' book has received, you know it must be a credible work of scholarship.
But, not to the ultra-liberal camp of the JFKA research community. To them, the book is a "hatchet job" (Chad Nagle).
-
McMasters..... Ultra-Liberal?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5118.msg183153.html#msg183153
....
https://time.com/archive/6841111/investigations-the-inquest-begins-getting-closer-to-nixon/
//This automatic response to any White House request was also demonstrated by the State Department. In Au gust 1971 it cooperated with Hunt after receiving a memo from the White House and two calls from David Young, an Ehrlichman assistant on detached service from Henry Kissinger’s Nation al Security Council staff. Young telephoned William B. Macomber Jr., then a Deputy Under Secretary of State. Macomber granted Hunt full access to the most secret “back -channel” communications (meaning only the addressee and sender should see them) between the State Department and its embassy in Saigon for a period in 1963. Hunt copied 240 of these classified cables.
According to sworn testimony by Hunt, he then examined the cables to determine whether there was any indication, as he hoped, that President John Kennedy had ordered the assassination of South Viet Nam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem. Hunt said that this study was supervised by Charles Colson, then special counsel to Nixon. Hunt claimed that he showed Colson some cables that could conceivably have been interpreted as implied orders from the Kennedy Administration to “pull the trigger against Diem’s head.” According to Hunt, Colson declared: “Well, this isn’t good enough. Do you think that you could improve on them?” Hunt said he would need technical help to fabricate something more conclusive, but Colson replied: “This is too hot. See what you can do on your own.”
To draft a cable that sounded authentic, Hunt said that he then used a White House Xerox machine, a razor blade and a typewriter. Because it lacked the proper type face, however, he knew it would not stand careful scrutiny. He and Colson, Hunt testified, thereupon tried to convince a LIFE correspondent, William Lambert, that the cable was genuine. Lambert was impressed at first but later became doubtful and never wrote about it....
.....
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/09/25/archives/hunt-says-he-fabricated-cables-on-diem-to-link-kennedy-to-killing.html
Hunt Says He Fabricated Cables on Diem to Link Kennedy to Killing of a ...
Sep 25, 1973 E H Hunt Jr testifies before Sen Watergate com on his fabrication, on orders of C W Colson, of State Dept cables to show link between Pres Kennedy and assassination of S Vietnam Pres Diem; also ...
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,907269-8,00.html
May 21, 1973
INVESTIGATIONS: The Inquest Begins: Getting Closer to Nixon
Young telephoned William B. Macomber Jr., then a Deputy Under Secretary of State. Macomber granted Hunt full access to the most secret "back -channel" communications (meaning only the addressee and sender should see them) between the State Department and its embassy in Saigon for a period in 1963.
Miss Alexandra Mills Is Bride of TJ Devine
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/04/15/archives/miss-alexandra-mills-is-bride-of-t-j-devine.html
- New York Times - Apr 15, 1973
HOBE SOUND, Fla., April 14—Miss Alexandra Mills, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Wynne Mills of Locust Valley, L. I., and Hobe Sound, was married here this afternoon to Thomas J. Devine, son of....
William B. Macomber Jr., United States. Ambassador to Turkey, was best man. Mrs. Devine attended the Green
Thomas Devine was a close friend of GHW Bush. Devine's MIT Univ., Sigma Chi fraternity house mate, 16 students resided together,
beginning in summer, 1944, was Gary Coit, CIA "minder" of Priscilla Johnson.
Gary Coit's CIA report of interview of Priscilla Johnson.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/95706#relPageId=1&search=coit
104-10135-10088: PARTIAL CONTACT REPORT ON MEETING WITH PRISCILLA JOHNSON, 30-31 JAN 2/4/64 report 17457 by Gary Coit, SR/CA: Coit interviewed Priscilla Johnson about a Soviet student named Aseev at Harvard who had decided to defect to the US.
Students Don Ear Muffs to Shut Out Band Music
Daily Boston Globe – Aug 14, 1947
… rhumba music yesterday asked the Boston Licensing Board to shut down
the Hotel … one of 16 Tech students livings in the adjoining Sigma Chi
fraternity house … Other student were Thomas Devine of Rochester who
told of taking refuge in ..
https://sigmachi.mit.edu/docs/beaver_sigs/1946_bsig_vol1946_no1.pdf
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51200920556_af5e531e76_b.jpg)
As Wubriny-1. Devine met with DeMohrenschildt in NYC just two weeks after DeMohrenschildt claimed he asked Oswald, "Lee, how could you miss?" (Shooting at Edwin Walker) On that same April, 1963 day, Joseph Dryer, Dervine's best friend in Rochester, met seperately in NYC with DeMohrenschildt and Joseph Clemard Charles.
From "Our man in Haiti" by Joan Mellen
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51201612659_75f96e0648_z.jpg)
After I discovered from Devine's 1944 high school yearbook that Dryer's brother Peter had been a member (20 boys) of Devine's K-8 class
before departing for Choate, I wrote to Joan to inquire whether Joseph Dryer had mentioned Devine.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51426119877_2a56efe224_z.jpg)
What else do you have?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51201544999_9855ff6736_c.jpg)
A.U.V. secret society house at Phillips Andover, pictured above, is described below as a "small cottage"!
Hooker's mother married DeMohrenschildt's brother, Dimitri, in 1936, DeMohrenschildt was married in a ceremony
in their home in 1943. George DeMohrenschildt and Hooker formed an oil exploration company in 1950.
Hooker was member of the DeMohrenschildt - Sharples 1951 wedding party, The Philip Sharples Palm Beach home on the end of a cul-de-sac
was two lots away from the architect who designed it, MS Wyeth, Sr., residing at 152 Woodbridge.
MS Wyeth Jr. was book editor for 14 years of the long awaited, Marina and Lee. Wyeth Jr.'s wedding party included Hawley Ward, a prep school classmate.
Hawley Ward, prior to meeting Wyeth, Jr., was a classmate of Thomas Devine for eight years in a class of 20 boys!
https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/L1NY-NL5/edward-gordon-hooker-1923-1967
Edward Gordon Hooker (1923-1967) - FamilySearch.org
Brief Life History of Edward Gordon Edward Gordon Hooker was born in 1923. Edward entered prep school at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. There, he shared a small cottage with George H. W. "Poppy" Bush. Bush and Hooker became inseparable. They worked together on Pot Pourri, the student yearbook, whose photos show a handsome young Poppy Bush and an even more handsome
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3098.msg116059.html#msg116059
Have I at least overcome "the propinquity" discounting? I opened this thread in an deliberately uncomplicated way.
1. Three names, George Bush, Tom Devine, Priscilla Johnson Macmillan
2. Tom Devine's wedding announcement, followed by a 1955 article on the back ground of Devine's "best man," William B. Macomber, Jr.
3. The 1940 roster of the house mates of A.U.V., a Phillips Andover secret society, highlighting three names,
George Bush, William B. Macomber, Jr., Edward Gordon Hooker (step-nephew and later business partner of George DeMohrenschildt.)
4. Out of this simple, three step introduction, DeMohrenschildt somehow became an "unknown" to Tom Devine and to his close Rochester friend, Joseph F. Dryer, Jr., and those two friends, even to each other, except for their good luck of holding separate meetings with DeMohrenschildt literally hours apart in NYC on or about April 25, 1963, two weeks after DeMohrenschildt was aware Lee Harvey Oswald had shot a rifle at Edwin Walker through a window in the latter's Dallas home! To top it off, Tom Devine's M.I.T. frat house mate, Garry Coit, is assigned to handle Priscilla Johnson MacMillan.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=52102#relPageId=7&search=nattily
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51432334524_0b1b258361_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51197490078_69a2223cac_b.jpg)
"Bemis" was "fingered" by Billy Joe Lord in his 1977 letter to President Carter. The FBI claimed it could not locate him.
As Lord described, Bemis owned a "string of hotels" and was active in Virginia politics. We know now that Gerry Bemiss
matched Lord's description, was Bush's close friend since childhood, and was a first cousing of Henry Hurt's wife!
See: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2735.msg112146.html#msg112146
-
MTG--
Verily, I posted a couple times at EF-JFKA how JFK authorized the anti-Diem coup, despite being told it would likely result in the Diems' assassinations, and the complete lack of Kennedy Administration efforts to extract the Diems. Indeed, CIA inquiries about extracting the Diems were ignored---Lodge appeared to not want a government-in-exile situation, preferring the Diems dead.
There is a recorded conversation between Ambassador Lodge and JFK, in which Lodge lays this out, and many other warnings.
JFK responds, in part, by calling Madame Nhu a "bitch" and a lesbian (she appears to have been heterosexual).
There were different standards at play in 1963, and JFK tried to have Castro assassinated several times, and more-or-less authorized the Diems' assassinations. That is part of the historical record.
People forget that JFK was deeply instrumental to the founding of South Vietnam, and he committed 16,000 military personnel to SV to help it survive against communist terrorism---and JFK himself called it terrorism. Cardinal Spellman was an influential figure as well, and close to the Kennedy family.
JFK may have wanted to modestly reduce US presence in SV in late 1963, but he was not going to abandon SV.
President LBJ wondered out aloud if the Diems or Castro assassinations or attempts led to blowback.
-
MTG--
Verily, I posted a couple times at EF-JFKA how JFK authorized the anti-Diem coup, despite being told it would likely result in the Diems' assassinations, and the complete lack of Kennedy Administration efforts to extract the Diems. Indeed, CIA inquiries about extracting the Diems were ignored---Lodge appeared to not want a government-in-exile situation, preferring the Diems dead.
There is a recorded conversation between Ambassador Lodge and JFK, in which Lodge lays this out, and many other warnings.
JFK responds, in part, by calling Madame Nhu a "bitch" and a lesbian (she appears to have been heterosexual).
There were different standards at play in 1963, and JFK tried to have Castro assassinated several times, and more-or-less authorized the Diems' assassinations. That is part of the historical record.
People forget that JFK was deeply instrumental to the founding of South Vietnam, and he committed 16,000 military personnel to SV to help it survive against communist terrorism---and JFK himself called it terrorism. Cardinal Spellman was an influential figure as well, and close to the Kennedy family.
JFK may have wanted to modestly reduce US presence in SV in late 1963, but he was not going to abandon SV.
President LBJ wondered out aloud if the Diems or Castro assassinations or attempts led to blowback.
All any reasonable reader has to do is to compare cites supporting what you've posted to accompany your arguments to
the quality of my supporting cites and....Oh! You haven't included any in your post. Nevermind.
https://aarclibrary.org/2017/09/27/jfk-had-ordered-full-withdrawal-from-vietnam-solid-evidence/
"JFK Had Ordered Full Withdrawal from Vietnam: Solid Evidence
PBS Vietnam Series: Glossing over JFK’s Exit Strategy
The second program alludes almost in passing to a withdrawal plan in 1962, conditioned on a then-optimistic assessment of how the war was going. But it also reports Kennedy's qualms, expressed to a friend, as "We don't have a prayer of staying in Vietnam. Those people hate us. They are going to throw..."
-
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31350-interesting-lodge-kennedy-artifact-and-lodgekennedy-conversation/#comment-566934
-
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31505-krulak-said-no-effort-made-to-extract-diems-from-sv/#comment-572174
-
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31468-cardinal-spellman-and-jfks-vietnam-war/page/6/#comment-571501
-
AI version:
Historian Ken Hughes from the Miller Center has used newly unclassified historical evidence and secret White House recordings to reveal President John F. Kennedy's direct, hidden role in the 1963 coup against South Vietnamese President Ngô Đình Diệm.Key
Research Findings
The Green Light: Newly examined audio recordings show that JFK gave U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. a functional "green light" to move forward with replacing Diệm, challenging the long-held myth that Lodge acted entirely on his own.
Outcome: The tapes and documentation indicate that while the Kennedy administration did not explicitly order an execution, Washington officials and JFK were well aware that a military coup could result in the assassination of Diệm and his brother.
Political Motives: Hughes's research highlights that Kennedy’s primary objective in backing a change in leadership was to secure a stable pro-American government and avoid losing Vietnam ahead of the 1964 presidential election.
-
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31468-cardinal-spellman-and-jfks-vietnam-war/page/6/#comment-571501
There is actually nothing new in Cheevers' "revelations". This book, in 2013, presented a day by day account of that critical leadup.
Right wing extremists never quit In this thread, Trump and his sycophant supporters (Rubio ?) are posting crocodile tears for Diem and his brother.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/JFK_s_Last_Hundred_Days/ixNDi6w2FnIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ON+TUESDAY,+HE+SUGGESTED+ASKING+LODGE+AND+GENERAL+HARKINS,+THE+COMMANDER&pg=RA1-PA42&printsec=frontcover
JFK's Last Hundred Days: The Transformation of a Man and the ...
Thurston Clarke · 2013
",,,On Tuesday (Aug. 27, 1963) , he suggested asking Lodge and General Harkins , the commander of the U.S. military assistance program ..."
And yes, JFK is quoted asking Lodge if he thinks Madam Nhu is a lesbian.
-
McMasters..... Ultra-Liberal?
Huh? No, I didn't say McMaster is an ultra-liberal. I'm not sure how you got that from my OP. McMaster has praised the book, as I mention in the OP.
The claim that Kennedy ordered a full withdrawal, not to mention the claim that he planned to unconditionally withdraw after the election, has been debunked every which way and is rejected by the vast majority of scholars all across the spectrum. Even most liberal historians reject the claim.
This is a prime example of the refusal of ultra-liberal JFKA researchers to listen to fact and reason.
I devote an entire chapter in A Comforting Lie to debunking the JFK-full-withdrawl myth. The far-left assertion that JFK planned on unconditionally withdrawing from Vietnam, i.e., even if it meant losing the war and allowing North Vietnam to conquer South Vietnam, is even more inexcusable and erroneous.
Dr. Marc Selverstone's 2022 book The Kennedy Withdrawal proves, among other things, that the JFK White House tapes do not contain one syllable from JFK or RFK to the effect that JFK had any intention of pulling out of Vietnam after the election. In fact, RFK specifically rejected this claim in his April 1964 oral history interview.
-
Huh? No, I didn't say McMaster is an ultra-liberal. I'm not sure how you got that from my OP. McMaster has praised the book, as I mention in the OP.
The claim that Kennedy ordered a full withdrawal, not to mention the claim that he planned to unconditionally withdraw after the election, has been debunked every which way and is rejected by the vast majority of scholars all across the spectrum. Even most liberal historians reject the claim.
This is a prime example of the refusal of ultra-liberal JFKA researchers to listen to fact and reason.
I devote an entire chapter in A Comforting Lie to debunking the JFK-full-withdrawl myth. The far-left assertion that JFK planned on unconditionally withdrawing from Vietnam, i.e., even if it meant losing the war and allowing North Vietnam to conquer South Vietnam, is even more inexcusable and erroneous.
Dr. Marc Selverstone's 2022 book The Kennedy Withdrawal proves, among other things, that the JFK White House tapes do not contain one syllable from JFK or RFK to the effect that JFK had any intention of pulling out of Vietnam after the election. In fact, RFK specifically rejected this claim in his April 1964 oral history interview.
Your opinions fly in the face of the actual historical record.
Withdrawal was the policy on the day JFK died.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d167
....And,
https://www.amazon.com/Virtual-JFK-Vietnam-Kennedy-Lived/dp/0742557006
Virtual JFK: Vietnam If Kennedy Had Lived
Tackling head-on the most controversial and debated "what if" in U.S. foreign policy, this provocative work explores what President John F. Kennedy would have done in Vietnam had he not been assassinated in 1963. Drawing on a wealth of recently declassified documents, frank oral testimony of White House officials from both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and the analysis of top historians, this book presents compelling evidence that JFK was ready to end U.S. involvement well before the conflict escalated. With vivid immediacy, readers will feel they are in the president's war room as the debates raged that forever changed the course of American history—and continue to affect us profoundly as the shadows of Vietnam stretch into Iraq.
-
Your opinions fly in the face of the actual historical record.
No, they do not. Yours do. That's why even most liberal historians don't buy the claim that JFK intended to withdraw from Vietnam, even without victory, after the election. I don't think you grasp, or perhaps just don't care, that you are in a very tiny minority on this issue. Only a handful of scholars endorse the unconditional-withdrawal myth.
Again, since you ignored this fact the first time, let me repeat the fact that Dr. Marc Selverstone's 2022 book The Kennedy Withdrawal proves, among other things, that the JFK White House tapes do not contain one syllable from JFK or RFK to the effect that JFK had any intention of pulling out of Vietnam after the election, conditionally or unconditionally. In fact, RFK specifically rejected this claim in his April 1964 oral history interview. He was asked if JFK had planned on withdrawing from Vietnam, and he immediately said no, he had not. This was RFK, who knew JFK better than anyone.
In both of the speeches that JFK wrote for delivery on 11/22/63, he spoke of the importance of the war effort in Vietnam and expressed his support for it.
Every background document for NSAM 263 makes it clear that the withdrawal plan mentioned therein was not only gradual and phased but that it entirely depended on the situation on the ground, and that the ultimate goal was still victory. Even if the progress of the war effort had allowed the withdrawal to occur according to the conditional schedule, the documents state that a reserve force would still remain and that the U.S. would continue to aid South Vietnam. This is all in black and white in the background docs for NSAM 263.
But you and a few other ultra-leftists have transformed JFK's conditional, gradual, residual-force, continued-U.S.-aid withdrawal plan into a mythical plan to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam after the election, even if it resulted in the collapse of South Vietnam.
Withdrawal was the policy on the day JFK died.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d167
You must be kidding. You're repeating claims that have been debunked every which way, even by radical leftist scholar Noam Chomsky. In fact, let's read Chomsky's demolition of James Galbraith's article "Exit Strategy," which repeats the same arguments you're making:
Having worked through the relevant documentation that James Galbraith cites, I was curious to see how he could reach his conclusions in his article “Exit Strategy” (October/November 2003), at variance with the mainstream of scholarship and other commentary, as he notes. The basic method turns out to be simple: deletion.
As for others, the centerpiece of Galbraith’s discussion of the withdrawal plans is NSAM 263, in which JFK gave qualified approval to the recommendations of Robert McNamara and Maxwell Taylor, who were greatly encouraged by the military prospects in South Vietnam and were “convinced that the Viet Cong insurgency” could be sharply reduced in a year and that the U.S.–run war effort should be “completed by the end of 1965.” They therefore advised “An increase in the military tempo” of the war throughout South Vietnam and withdrawal of some troops in 1963 and all troops in 1965—if this could be done “without impairment of the war effort” and with assurance that “the insurgency has been suppressed” or at least sufficiently weakened so that the U.S. client regime (GVN) is “capable of suppressing it” (my italics; the crucial condition throughout).
Once again they stressed that the “overriding objective” is victory, a matter “vital to United States security.” JFK approved their recommendations, while distancing himself from the withdrawal proposal and approving instructions to Ambassador Lodge in Saigon stressing “our fundamental objective of victory” and directing him to press for “GVN action to increase effectiveness of its military effort” so as to ensure the military victory on which withdrawal was explicitly conditioned. The president, Lodge was informed, affirmed “his basic statement that what furthers the war effort we support, and what interferes with the war effort we oppose,” the condition underlying NSAM 263, as consistently throughout the period and beyond.
JFK and his advisers were concerned with the “crisis of confidence among Vietnamese people which is eroding popular support for GVN that is vital for victory,” and the “crisis of confidence on the part of the American public and Government,” who also do not see how “our actions are related to our fundamental objective of victory”—JFK’s invariant condition. JFK (and his advisers) recognized that the war was unpopular at home, but regarded such lack of support—as well as GVN initiatives toward political settlement—not as an opportunity for withdrawal, but rather as a problem to be overcome, because it posed a threat to the military victory to which they were committed. The significance of these facts for the thesis under discussion is obvious.
Virtually all of this was deleted from Galbraith’s account of NSAM 263, and the tidbits that remain he clearly misinterprets. Thus he does quote the qualification that troops can be withdrawn only “when they are no longer needed,” but fails to recognize that this is simply another reiteration of the unwavering commitment to military victory.
By this method, Galbraith is able to draw the conclusions rejected by virtually everyone he cites, who use the same documentary record (in all relevant cases) but without crucial omissions and misreadings. His treatment of his own prime example is typical, as interested readers can readily discover. (https://chomsky.info/200312__/)
-
The myth that JFK was killed because he was going to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam after the election has done considerable harm to the case for conspiracy among academics and journalists. Yes, many academics and journalists reject the lone-gunman theory, but many more would likely do so if many leading pro-JFKA-conspiracy researchers did not push the unconditional-withdrawal myth.
Some WC critics also peddle the bizarre 9/11 Truther claims. This action has done just as much damage to the case for conspiracy as the unconditional-withdrawal myth, if not more so.
To make matters worse, some WC critics, in addition to peddling the 9/11 Truther craziness and the unconditional-withdrawal myth, also praise and cite L. Fletcher Prouty as a reliable source and parrot his revolting slander that Edward Lansdale was a key player in the assassination plot and that Lansdale plotted against JFK because he was furious with his Vietnam policies.
-
The timetable for the phased withdrawal of most (but not all) troops, that 1965 date in particular, was simply pie-in-the-sky, a fantasy, a made up number. It was added for political purposes: either to pressure Diem and/or to appease those members of Congress and the public who were worried about a quagmire, who wanted an endgame. There was no way for the White House to predict something as complex as the future of Vietnam. And the withdrawal was contingent on events on the ground anyway: the plan says the US would withdraw as the South Vietnamese were able to take on the "essential functions" [however defined] that were being done by US personnel. Two things were going to happen; not just one.
Back to the 1965 date: where did it come from? This is from the Reeves' book on JFK's presidency, "Profile of Power." Remember, the McNamara/Taylor Report was the basis for the announced policy that JFK called for.
"McNamara, Taylor, and [a State Department official in Saigon] William Sullivan began working on the final wording of the report even before they left Saigon. They worked on separate sections, then exchanged rough drafts. When Sullivan saw Taylor’s draft on U.S. troop strength on the flight back, he jumped up to look for McNamara.
“I can’t buy this. This is totally unrealistic,” Sullivan told the Secretary. McNamara and Taylor had put in a timetable: The United States would begin withdrawing troops before the end of 1963, have all troops out of the northern regions of South Vietnam by the end of 1964, and have everybody home before the end of 1965. “We’re not going to get troops out in ’65. We mustn’t submit anything as phony as this to the President.” “You’re right,” McNamara said. He talked to Taylor and they took out specific numbers and dates. But Taylor said he still thought the timetable was a good idea and a good way of putting visible pressure on Diem to shape up or else. “Goddammit,” Taylor said. “We’ve got to make these people put their noses to the wheel—or the grindstone or whatever. If we don’t give them some indication that we’re going to get out sometime, they’re just going to be leaning on us forever. So that’s why I had it in there.” “I understand that,” Sullivan said. “But it’s not honest. If it becomes public, people will know it’s a fraud.”
It was a projection and not a hard date; and done for political reasons. Maybe JFK *was* going to withdraw in 1965; but nobody knew what he was going to do at that time, in late 1963. And nobody included JFK.
The one critical person who did want the timetable inserted, after initially opposing it, was JFK. He was persuaded by McNamara; although it's an open question whether that was needed. JFK was running for re-election and he knew he needed the timetable to persuade Congress, e.g., Fulbright, and the skeptical public. Once Diem was overthrown and the whole situation in South Vietnam thrown into the air, the timetable was revealed to anyone who believed it as meaningless. Well, revealed to everyone who isn't a conspiracist who think JFK was killed because he was going to abandon - not leave, abandon - South Vietnam.
-
Much agreed.
-
Much agreed.
Beyond that, I strongly suspect even if JFK had reduced the number of boots on the ground sometime after 1964, he still had other means to help SV, such as naval blockades, air wars, war materiel, money assistance, signals and other intel, diplomatic pressure and so on.
JFK was instrumental to the founding of SV (more so than any other American), and believed deeply in thwarting communism. He wasn't just going waltz away from SV.
James Douglass' book is just fantasy.
The ideology writes the agenda, and the agenda writes the narrative.
-
I posted a couple times at EF-JFKA how JFK authorized the anti-Diem coup, despite being told it would likely result in the Diems' assassinations, and the complete lack of Kennedy Administration efforts to extract the Diems. Indeed, CIA inquiries about extracting the Diems were ignored---Lodge appeared to not want a government-in-exile situation, preferring the Diems dead.
There is a recorded conversation between Ambassador Lodge and JFK, in which Lodge lays this out, and many other warnings.
JFK responds, in part, by calling Madame Nhu a "bitch" and a lesbian (she appears to have been heterosexual).
The tapes and documentation indicate that while the Kennedy administration did not explicitly order an execution, Washington officials and JFK were well aware that a military coup could result in the assassination of Diệm and his brother.
There were different standards at play in 1963, and JFK tried to have Castro assassinated several times, and authorized the Diems' assassinations. That is part of the historical record.
People forget that JFK was deeply instrumental to the founding of South Vietnam, and he committed 16,000 military personnel to SV to help it survive against communist terrorism---and JFK himself called it terrorism. Cardinal Spellman was an influential figure as well, and close to the Kennedy family.
JFK may have wanted to modestly reduce US presence in SV in late 1963, but he was not going to abandon SV.
To be fair, the record shows that JFK did not want Diem killed, and that he was stunned and dismayed when he learned of Diem's murder.
JFK's authorization of the coup was one of the worst mistakes of his presidency and proved to be disastrous for the war effort, which had been going well from mid-1962 until the day the coup was launched (as we know from released North Vietnamese sources). The North Vietnamese could not believe that the Americans had been so foolish as to allow Diem to be overthrown. The Communists rightly viewed Diem's removal as a huge gift to the Communist cause in South Vietnam.
As bad as JFK's decision to authorize the anti-Diem coup was, his decision to approve Averell Harriman's ridiculous, fatally flawed "neutrality" deal for a coalition government in Laos in 1962 was arguably even worse. Eisenhower correctly warned JFK that Laos was the most crucial battleground in Southeast Asia. Eisenhower even told JFK he should deploy U.S. troops to secure Laos, since Laos was the key gateway for Communist supplies going into South Vietnam.
The North Vietnamese ignored Harriman's deal from the get-go and never withdrew their troops from Laos, just as Ambassador Nolting and General Harkins warned Harriman would happen. Thanks to Harriman's pathetic deal, the North Vietnamese were able to expand the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos, enabling them to increase the flow of supplies to the Viet Cong in South Vietnam (and later to North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam). In fact, U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam began referring to the Ho Chi Minh Trail as the Averell Harriman Memorial Highway.
-
A good summary snippet (granted it covers a lot of ground) about Maxwell Taylor, JFK and Vietnam (taken from Maxwell Taylor’s Cold War: From Berlin to Vietnam by Ingo Trauschweizer)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13706357485/Keyy5pcy0goi67v/taylor on jfk.jpg)
I don't see how JFK could campaign on defending South Vietnam, make public and campaign speeches about the importance for US security that the South not fall, endorse the overthrow of Diem which, among other things, deepened US moral commitment to Saigon and then after the election turn around and repudiate what he said and walk away from the conflict. How could that be do-able? Moreover as we know once the South fell all of the region then followed. JFK told Cronkite right before the assassination that he believed in the "domino theory." So Saigon falls, Laos falls, Cambodia falls. JFK said all of that was going to happen. And he allows it? JFK responds, as Taylor says, as a "voluntary loser"?
-
You should read some of Ken Hughes work on the Diem assassinations. Or mine.
Nobody in the JFK Administration made any effort to extract the Diems from SV, in fact some CIA'ers said State Dep't wanted the Diems dead; they did not want a government in exile.
The CIA man attached to Diem said he asked for an airplane to get the Diems out, and was refused, despite the US operating the airbase at Danang.
1963 was a different time and place. JFK was also trying to assassinate Castro.
-
One of the miracles of the internet, is that you can do your own primary research, and reasonably draw your own deductions.
Listen to this recording between Victor Krulak and Harrison Livingston, author of High Treason: The Assassination of JFK and the Case for Conspiracy. Judging from context, this conversation took place in 1999 or 2000.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hEaZa6oRjS4tupU5898auNPXrn7y2s4M/view
Local hero Michael Griffith has posted the above recording of Krulak, major general in the US Marine Corps, a prominent and key figure in the Kennedy Administration's deepening involvement in SV.
Krulak is regarded as non-CIA.
(Another local hero, Robert Morrow, has said Krulak has identified Ed Lansdale as being in DP 11/22, based on the "tramps" photo, which purportedly shows the back of Lansdale's head. This issue is somewhat addressed in the above recording, but is not the topic of this thread.)
Background on the Diem brothers: Ngô Đình Diệm was the final prime minister of the State of Vietnam (1954–1955) and later the first president of South Vietnam from 1955 until his capture and assassination during the Kennedy Administration-backed Nov. 2 Big Minh coup d'état.
Ngô Đình Nhu was President Diem's brother, regarded as a power behind the throne, also butchered and assassinated that day with Diem. Nhu was married to Madame Nhu, aka "The Dragon Lady," who is worth a whole thread of her own.
Various narratives have emerged over the years of President Kennedy's pre-knowledge of the pending coup (one of the worst-kept secrets in coup history). Kennedy himself voiced concern for the safety of the Diems (and he was repeatedly warned the coup would likely be fatal to the Diems), but he voiced also resignation to their fates, and the Kennedy Administration public face and policy was to take no role in the coup or its mechanics (although Lucien Conien, a CIA'er working directly for Ambassador Lodge, provided $65,000 to Big Minh just before the coup).
In my research of documents, I can find no firm statement from JFK that the Diems must be extracted first, if a coup is to be supported, or merely abided by Washington (meaning de facto support of the coup, given US involvement in SV).
It is fair to say Ambassador Lodge supported the coup, and perhaps even instigated it, and was no mere Ambassador, but was acting more like a pro consul in ancient Rome---calling the shots on a Roman-controlled territory).
In the above recording, Krulak said he was unaware of any plans or planes to extricate the Diems from SV, before or during the Big Minh coup.
"I am reflecting back on the period of time it became evident the Diems were not going to make it," said Krulak. "But I don't recall any plan to fly them out."
Krulak said he doubted a story that the Diems had been driven the Saigon airport, put on a plane, but refused to leave.
Krulak said he was Fletcher Prouty superior, and regards Prouty highly.
Krulak also said Lansdale was "mysterious."
The possibility of a blowback from the Diem assassinations leading to the JFKA remains an interesting and plausible explanation for 11/22.
Those taking umbrage at the Diem assassinations might have drawn their own conclusions as to who was ultimately responsible.
Madame Nhu, on Nov. 2 in the US while her husband and brother-in-law were assassinated, all but vowed revenge.
Less than three weeks after the Diems were murdered, JFK was assassinated.
Fascinating side note: Evidently Madame Nhu was in Texas in late-October. early November 1963. She wowed them at UT-Austin, and attended a party hosted by Houston oil millionaires, according to the Nov. 1 issue of the Texas Observer, a liberal publication.
Screen-Shot-2568-06-04-at-08-23-23.png
https://issues.texasobserver.org/pdf/ustxtxb_obs_1963_11_01_issue.pdf
Anyone who doubts the resolve of Madame Nhu might want to consider this:
"To win support for Diệm, Madame Nhu hit upon the idea of enlisting support from the million or so refugees from North Vietnam, many of them Catholics who fled to the south after the Geneva accords had partitioned Vietnam, organizing them for a massive pro-Diệm demonstration on 21 September 1954.[25] The rally in Saigon led to a confrontation on the streets between Madame Nhu and Bình Xuyên gunmen, with Madame Nhu daring the thugs to kill her right then and there, which caused them to demur, and the rally went on.[26]"
-
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/intelligence-vietnam/2025-05-22/house-divided-washington-langley-saigon-and-plot
-
The dog that didn't bark: John Prados (link below) on the White House national security meetings discussing the coup. And what wasn't discussed.
"Records of the Kennedy national security meetings, both here and in our larger collection, show that none of JFK's conversations about a coup in Saigon featured consideration of what might physically happen to Ngo Dinh Diem or Ngo Dinh Nhu. The audio record of the October 29th meeting which we cite below also reveals no discussion of this issue. That meeting, the last held at the White House to consider a coup before this actually took place, would have been the key moment for such a conversation. The conclusion of the Church Committee agrees that Washington gave no consideration to killing Diem. The weight of evidence therefore supports the view that President Kennedy did not conspire in the death of Diem. However, there is also the exceedingly strange transcript of Diem's final phone conversation with Ambassador Lodge on the afternoon of the coup, which carries the distinct impression that Diem is being abandoned by the U.S. Whether this represents Lodge's contribution, or JFK's wishes, is not apparent from the evidence available today."
The WH may not have actively wanted Diem and Nhu dead; but they - particularly Lodge (a truly bad guy in this awful matter) who was there on the ground - didn't do anything to prevent it.
On and on and on and on. All of these primary sources showing that JFK wasn't going to simply leave Vietanm, that he was actively involved in supporting the coup (as Colin Powell said in another context, "If you break it you own it"), that he believed that a loss of the South would harm US security, all of this repeatedly ignored by the conspiracists, by those who think JFK was killed because he was going to withdraw. The evidence simply doesn't support that claim.
"JFK and the Diem Coup": https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/
-
SMG-
Verily.
It's funny...the same JFKA researchers who suspect very last contrivance and purposeful foul play in the JFKA...then suddenly say about the Diem assassinations--"Oh no, the Kennedy Administration had nothing to do with that!"
Some JFKA buffs guys believe Dulles, or Harvey, or maybe Lansdale, authored the JFKA, based on suspicions...but when JFK is briefed by Amb. Lodge (in a recorded interview) that the coup against the Diems could well be lethal to Diems, and JFK OK's the coup anyway...and never organizes a way for the Diems to leave....they still sanctify JFK.
I am actually a JFK fan. But what is, is. JFK tried to have Castro assassinated too.
Back then that was statecraft.
-
SMG-
Verily.
It's funny...the same JFKA researchers who suspect very last contrivance and purposeful foul play in the JFKA...then suddenly say about the Diem assassinations--"Oh no, the Kennedy Administration had nothing to do with that!"
Some JFKA buffs guys believe Dulles, or Harvey, or maybe Lansdale, authored the JFKA, based on suspicions...but when JFK is briefed by Amb. Lodge (in a recorded interview) that the coup against the Diems could well be lethal to Diems, and JFK OK's the coup anyway...and never organizes a way for the Diems to leave....they still sanctify JFK.
I am actually a JFK fan. But what is, is. JFK tried to have Castro assassinated too.
Back then that was statecraft.
The conspiracy Left thinks that JFK was one of them, that he was an anti- anti-Communist and not an anti-Communist. Sorry, no. They think the Cold War was essentially a lie, that Moscow wasn't a threat or much of one, that the supposed danger was a myth used for power and money and that it was the policies of the US that caused the conflict. The anti-communists were a bigger threat than the communists were. Sorry again, no. This is the Douglas view of Kennedy, of how JFK saw the conflict. JFK would laugh at all of that, this characterization of him. And they think because of this, because JFK was opposed to the containment policies, that he was leaving Vietnam, that he was going to normalize relations with Castro (as you said: he wanted Fidel dead), that he was killed. Not sorry, you're saying nutty things.
Someone took a rifle, went unnoticed into the Texas School Book Depository Building, went up, unnoticed, to the sixth floor, assembled, unnoticed, a nest, waited unnoticed (except by people watching the motorcade), then shot the President. He then left unnoticed. If someone doesn't think that was Oswald, that a complete stranger did all of that, then God bless their little brains. Was there another shooter? Okay, possibly. Oswald had help? Okay, again possibly but where and how? Maybe there was more. I think at this point we'll never know. But the idea that Oswald was completely innocent, that he was simply having lunch, that, among other things, his bag contained curtain rods (really, curtain rods?), that he just took off work to see a movie (and wasn't interested at all in the assassination), that he was setup is, again, nutty. Worse than nutty - nutty things can be true - just wrong.
-
SMG--
Yes, I suspect LHO was central to the JFKA, and he had help.
Maybe from G2, DGI.
Possibly Alpha 66, or G2-DGI plants or double agents inside Alpha 66.
My guess is the JFKAC never got above the lower rung, or even just hangers-on of intel agencies, and included perhaps three people, including LHO.
I can't prove my theory, so it is a theory.
-
SMG--
Yes, I suspect LHO was central to the JFKA, and he had help.
Maybe from G2, DGI.
Possibly Alpha 66, or G2-DGI plants or double agents inside Alpha 66.
My guess is the JFKAC never got above the lower rung, or even just hangers-on of intel agencies, and included perhaps three people, including LHO.
I can't prove my theory, so it is a theory.
There's that and that it never happened.
-
McMasters..... Ultra-Liberal?
.....
Thomas Devine was a close friend of GHW Bush. Devine's MIT Univ., Sigma Chi fraternity house mate, 16 students resided together,
beginning in summer, 1944, was Gary Coit, CIA "minder" of Priscilla Johnson.
Gary Coit's CIA report of interview of Priscilla Johnson.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/95706#relPageId=1&search=coit
104-10135-10088: PARTIAL CONTACT REPORT ON MEETING WITH PRISCILLA JOHNSON, 30-31 JAN 2/4/64 report 17457 by Gary Coit, SR/CA: Coit interviewed Priscilla Johnson about a Soviet student named Aseev at Harvard who had decided to defect to the US.
https://sigmachi.mit.edu/docs/beaver_sigs/1946_bsig_vol1946_no1.pdf
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51200920556_af5e531e76_b.jpg)
As Wubriny-1. Devine met with DeMohrenschildt in NYC just two weeks after DeMohrenschildt claimed he asked Oswald, "Lee, how could you miss?" (Shooting at Edwin Walker) On that same April, 1963 day, Joseph Dryer, Dervine's best friend in Rochester, met seperately in NYC with DeMohrenschildt and Joseph Clemard Charles.
From "Our man in Haiti" by Joan Mellen
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51201612659_75f96e0648_z.jpg)
After I discovered from Devine's 1944 high school yearbook that Dryer's brother Peter had been a member (20 boys) of Devine's K-8 class
before departing for Choate, I wrote to Joan to inquire whether Joseph Dryer had mentioned Devine.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51426119877_2a56efe224_z.jpg)
What else do you have?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51201544999_9855ff6736_c.jpg)
A.U.V. secret society house at Phillips Andover, pictured above, is described below as a "small cottage"!
Hooker's mother married DeMohrenschildt's brother, Dimitri, in 1936, DeMohrenschildt was married in a ceremony
in their home in 1943. George DeMohrenschildt and Hooker formed an oil exploration company in 1950.
Hooker was member of the DeMohrenschildt - Sharples 1951 wedding party, The Philip Sharples Palm Beach home on the end of a cul-de-sac
was two lots away from the architect who designed it, MS Wyeth, Sr., residing at 152 Woodbridge.
MS Wyeth Jr. was book editor for 14 years of the long awaited, Marina and Lee. Wyeth Jr.'s wedding party included Hawley Ward, a prep school classmate.
Hawley Ward, prior to meeting Wyeth, Jr., was a classmate of Thomas Devine for eight years in a class of 20 boys!
"Bemis" was "fingered" by Billy Joe Lord in his 1977 letter to President Carter. The FBI claimed it could not locate him.
As Lord described, Bemis owned a "string of hotels" and was active in Virginia politics. We know now that Gerry Bemiss
matched Lord's description, was Bush's close friend since childhood, and was a first cousing of Henry Hurt's wife!
See: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2735.msg112146.html#msg112146
Thank you for posting+
-
SMG--
Yes, I suspect LHO was central to the JFKA, and he had help.
Maybe from G2, DGI.
Possibly Alpha 66, or G2-DGI plants or double agents inside Alpha 66.
My guess is the JFKAC never got above the lower rung, or even just hangers-on of intel agencies, and included perhaps three people, including LHO.
I can't prove my theory, so it is a theory.
Well, it would be helpful to have evidence of this conspiracy. Saying Oswald may have met with Cuban agents or pro-Castro people months before the assassination, in New Orleans or Mexico City, is not connecting them to his act. Encouraging him to shoot JFK because of the covert war on Cuba, Mongoose et cetera, is not, to me, a conspiracy.
And Oswald's pre-assassination behavior doesn't show any help. In fact, they are the acts of a lone gunman. He visits the FBI headquarters *in person* about 10 days before the assassination and wants to confront the FBI agent (Hosty) supposedly harassing his wife. He leaves a provocative note. The same day he sends a letter to the Soviet Embassy discussing his mysterious visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Marina said that before other life-altering events in his life - the return to the US, the attempt on Walker, the attempted defection in Mexico City - that he showed signs of stress, that he was actually acting abnormally. But before the assassination she saw no signs of stress. He retrieves his rifle the day before. Doesn't get a better one. Leaves his revolver at the rooming house. Doesn't destroy the backyard photos (I'll suggest he did that on purpose: he was leaving his "calling card" so to speak). And on and on.
Are these the acts of someone in a conspiracy? Or even the acts of someone who had decided at that time to shoot JFK? Any conspiracy, any evidence of help from others, is just not there for me.
Anyway, back to Vietnam: JFK was simply not going to leave, give up. Not at that time. And his role in the Diem Coup deepened US responsibility for what followed. It's not the act of someone who plans to pull out, to abandon the cause. It's evidence of someone who still thinks the cause was salvageable. Which was what RFK said the plan was. And what McNamara said it was. And what Rusk said, and Bundy said.
-
Well, it would be helpful to have evidence of this help. Saying Oswald may have met with Cuban agents or pro-Castro people months before the assassination, in New Orleans or Mexico City, is not connecting them to his act. Encouraging him to shoot JFK because of the covert war on Cuba, Mongoose et cetera, not, to me, a conspiracy.
One thing no one has ever even tried to explain is why the Cubans, the Soviets, or anybody else would have had discussions with Oswald about assassinating JFK while Oswald was in Mexico City or New Orleans. Why would they have picked this little nobody with average marksmanship skills to carry out the assassination. Neither they nor Oswald could have known at the time that fate would put JFK within easy rifle range of Oswald in a slow moving open top car. The JFKA was a crime of opportunity and Oswald didn't even know about the opportunity until early that same week. It is preposterous to think anyone would have had serious discussions with Oswald about taking out JFK.
-
SMG--
The JFKA CT is nor proven, but neither is the LNT.
Remember, the first official investigation (WC) said LHO acted alone (and let's admit, under heavy pressure from LBJ), but the second official investigation (HSCA) concluded there was likely was a conspiracy.
And the HSCA had a lot of smart and skeptical guys on it, and they did not buy most CT's (the BYP were fake, LHP never owned the rifle, etc.), and the HSCA left LHO in place as a shooter.
In general, I think the second official investigation got it right. There was a JFKAC.
Others disagree. That is what a forum is for.
-
SMG-
Verily.
It's funny...the same JFKA researchers who suspect very last contrivance and purposeful foul play in the JFKA...then suddenly say about the Diem assassinations--"Oh no, the Kennedy Administration had nothing to do with that!"
Some JFKA buffs guys believe Dulles, or Harvey, or maybe Lansdale, authored the JFKA, based on suspicions...but when JFK is briefed by Amb. Lodge (in a recorded interview) that the coup against the Diems could well be lethal to Diems, and JFK OK's the coup anyway...and never organizes a way for the Diems to leave....they still sanctify JFK.
I am actually a JFK fan. But what is, is. JFK tried to have Castro assassinated too.
Back then that was statecraft.
Like you, I think JFK did a lot of good things, but that he blundered terribly when it came to Diem. It is clear that he hoped and expected that Diem would not be killed, and that he was distraught when he learned of Diem's murder.
But, he never should have authorized the coup in the first place. Many major players, including Nolting, Lansdale, Rostow, Taylor, Wheeler, and Thompson, urged JFK to continue to support Diem, but he made the horrible mistake of listening to Harriman, Hilsman, Mansfield, Forrestal, and Ball instead.
JFK should have fired Harriman and Hilsman as soon as he learned of their unauthorized threatening cable to Diem, especially after Harriman and Hilsman leaked the cable's contents to anti-war journalists. JFK didn't even find out about the cable until it was discussed the following Monday at a White House meeting when McCone and Taylor angrily confronted the State Department group about it.
-
MTG--
The record is fairly damning on JFK and the Diem assassinations.
JFK authorized the coup against the Diems, and the CIA even financed it. (Lucien Conein).
JFK was informed, in recorded conversations, the coup would likely be lethal to the Diems. (Amb. Lodge)
JFK obviously loathed and denigrated the prominent Madame Nhu (Diem's brother's wife). Again this is from recorded conversations.
Yet no one in the entire Kennedy Administration made any effort to extract the Diems, and Conein says his pleas for an aircraft were rebuffed, despite the US operating the huge Danang airbase.
Victor Krulak says he knew of no plans to extract the Diems. There isn't the scintilla of evidence anyone in the Kennedy Administration lifted a finger on behalf of the Diems, and a lot of evidence their assassinations was planned and financed.
At best, JFK was guilty of gross negligence, and to a loyal ally no less.
My layman's assessment is the the US should have worked hard, very hard, to modify Diem's rule, and build as many bridges to the Buddhists as possible.
Having the Diems assassinated did not stabilize SV.
In a nation suffering a wave after wave of communist terror, a strongman was needed. Tough situation.
-
MTG--
The record is fairly damning on JFK and the Diem assassinations.
JFK authorized the coup against the Diems, and the CIA even financed it. (Lucien Conein).
JFK was informed, in recorded conversations, the coup would likely be lethal to the Diems. (Amb. Lodge)
JFK obviously loathed and denigrated the prominent Madame Nhu (Diem's brother's wife). Again this is from recorded conversations.
Yet no one in the entire Kennedy Administration made any effort to extract the Diems, and Conein says his pleas for an aircraft were rebuffed, despite the US operating the huge Danang airbase.
Victor Krulak says he knew of no plans to extract the Diems. There isn't the scintilla of evidence anyone in the Kennedy Administration lifted a finger on behalf of the Diems, and a lot of evidence their assassinations was planned and financed.
At best, JFK was guilty of gross negligence, and to a loyal ally no less.
My layman's assessment is the the US should have worked hard, very hard, to modify Diem's rule, and build as many bridges to the Buddhists as possible.
Having the Diems assassinated did not stabilize SV.
In a nation suffering a wave after wave of communist terror, a strongman was needed. Tough situation.
Yes, I agree. That is a good, accurate summary of the relevant evidence.
The only thing I would add is that the evidence also shows that JFK did not expect Diem to be killed and that he was very distraught when he learned of Diem's murder. Yes, JFK was warned this would happen, but he clearly did not believe it but expected that Diem would be exiled by the coup leaders -- indeed, many of the coup leaders themselves expected that Diem would be sent into exile in a foreign country, and they were furious when they learned of Diem's death.
But, yes, JFK blundered horribly in authorizing the coup and in not ensuring that Diem would be given safe passage to a foreign country. He should not have simply assumed that the coup leaders themselves would arrange for Diem's exile.
-
Let's return to the key point: The conspiracist claim that JFK was killed because he was going to leave Vietnam is simply false. He was not walking away. Period. Not on November 22, 1963. He had supported a coup three weeks before he was assassinated (hint: it was Oswald) and did so because he believed that with a change in the leadership of Vietnam the war could be won, i.e., containment could prevail. A war he thought must be won. So the US aided coup deepened US commitment not lessened it. I repeat what Powell said about Iraq, "If you break it you own it". Moreover, there is nothing in NSAM 263 about simply withdrawing all troops. The plan was a phased withdrawal that could be undertaken as the South Vietnamese took on more of the security questions. Their military would be built up; the US military would be drawn down.
As to the coup: JFK was clearly and correctly worried about the political situation, that Diem and his hardline brother Ngo were turning the people against the US and the communists were taking advantage of it. He was sure that unless the situation changed the Vietnamese people would throw the US out. He told his close friend, the journalist Charlie Bartlett (who had introduced Jackie to him) this in May:
"That evening over a drink, Kennedy brought up Vietnam again with Charlie Bartlett: 'We don’t have a prayer of staying in Vietnam. Those people hate us. They are going to throw our asses out of there at almost any point. But I can’t give up a piece of territory like that to the Communists and then get the American people to reelect me.'
Bartlett later said: "He’s totally out to sea about what to do in Vietnam."
The McNamara-Taylor report and plan seemed to be a plausible policy, something that could both work and they could sell to Congress and the public. The military situation was stable and if the political situation could be fixed - replace Diem and Ngo - there was a way for success. We know how that turned out.
In any case, the really bad guy in this tragedy for me was Lodge. He was arrogant and close minded, the Boston Brahmin elitism, and had too much influence over JFK. Stanley Karnow wrote this (from his "Vietnam: A History"):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13733722778/Keyi8ld7ycu5vyr/karnow.jpg)
-
SMG--
Verily, JFK would not have simply waltzed away from the nation he helped to found.
There is a great deal of plasticity in JFKA CTs, driven by ideology.
For the Vietnam-era lefties, it was Vietnam, imperialism, the MIC.
Now the JFKA CTer's say it was Mossad.
So it goes.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
I find it quite interesting that JFK apparently had a great deal of respect for Henry Cabot Lodge, given that he defeated Lodge to win his Senate seat in 1952 and that Lodge was Nixon's running mate in 1960.
-
Why did JFK pick Lodge? Short answer: Probably because, in part, he was a Republican and could give JFK political cover in case of failure. Although if the policy failed I don't see how JFK could avoid responsibility for it.
From Reeves' book: Kennedy was inclined to send Edmund Gullion, who was finishing a difficult tour as Ambassador to the Congo, as Nolting’s replacement. He was the young consul in Saigon who, twelve years before, had told Congressman Kennedy that the United States would be driven out of Vietnam if U.S. troops moved in after the French colonial army was defeated. But Rusk was opposed to Gullion and Kennedy decided to let him have his way. Besides, he already had another idea. At a ceremony at the Pentagon, he had run into Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the man he had defeated for the Senate in 1952. Lodge, the Republican nominee for Vice President in 1960, was a major general in the Army Reserve and had been doing his annual month of active duty. They had talked for a couple of minutes about Vietnam, and Kennedy remembered that when the first American combat troops had been sent there in 1961, Lodge had said he would be willing to serve as ambassador.
A couple of days later [i.e., June 15/16], the President asked Secretary of State Rusk to ask Lodge, unofficially, if he was still interested and available for the Saigon posting. Lodge said he was and Kennedy invited him to the White House. “Cabot,” he said, “I am beginning to spend more of my time on Vietnam than anything else. The Diem government seems to be in a terminal phase. . . . I’d like to persuade you to go out there as Ambassador and as my personal representative.” He would be reporting to the President rather than to Rusk. Once again, as with Lucius Clay in Berlin, Kennedy wanted a Republican in place to share the responsibility for whatever was going to happen next. That, the President told Lodge, might well be the overthrow of Diem and his family—probably in a coup by his own generals. With the Americans looking on, approvingly.
Appointing Lodge is one thing; deferring to him so much is another. Note, he would be reporting to JFK rather than Rusk! How did Rusk accept that?
-
Appointing Lodge is one thing; deferring to him so much is another. Note, he would be reporting to JFK rather than Rusk! How did Rusk accept that?
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.
-
In the final speech of his life to the Ft. Worth Chamber of Commerce, he mentioned Vietnam four times. Key quote: "Without the United States, South Vietnam would collapse overnight." Doesn't sound like a man who was about to pick up stakes and vamoose.
-
In the final speech of his life to the Ft. Worth Chamber of Commerce, he mentioned Vietnam four times. Key quote: "Without the United States, South Vietnam would collapse overnight." Doesn't sound like a man who was about to pick up stakes and vamoose.
Right, but you know the response: JFK was just saying that until he got re-elected, he was appeasing the "national security war state." Once he was re-elected the "real" JFK would emerge and expose all of this war hysteria and end the Cold War. And it was for that that he had to be killed. How did they know this? That this real JFK was going to do all of that? Something that RFK and McNamara and Rusk and Bundy didn't know? Don't ask, what are you a CIA apologist?, just go with it.
The conspiracy crowd has created an alternate universe. It's the only way their conspiracy can work. Two Oswalds, fake this and fake that, witnesses being killed, coverups for decades, a compliant media, and here, in effect, two different JFKs.
Yes, conspiracies happen; governments engage in them and then lie. But sometimes they don't happen and sometimes the government isn't lying. You need to be able to tell the difference.
-
Right, but you know the response: JFK was just saying that until he got re-elected, he was appeasing the "national security war state." Once he was re-elected the "real" JFK would emerge and expose all of this war hysteria and end the Cold War. And it was for that that he had to be killed. How did they know this? That this real JFK was going to do all of that? Something that RFK and McNamara and Rusk and Bundy didn't know? Don't ask, what are you a CIA apologist?, just go with it.
The conspiracy crowd has created an alternate universe. It's the only way their conspiracy can work. Two Oswalds, fake this and fake that, witnesses being killed, coverups for decades, a compliant media, and here, in effect, two different JFKs.
Yes, conspiracies happen; governments engage in them and then lie. But sometimes they don't happen and sometimes the government isn't lying. You need to be able to tell the difference.
The CT revisionists would have us believe JFK was as liberal as his brother Teddy. Neither JFK nor RFK were leftists. Although JFK's views morphed over his years in public office, he was never a favorite of the left wing of the Democrat Party which is why they fought so hard to deny him the nomination in 1960. If I were to put a label on JFK as President, centrist would be the best fit.
-
SMG--
I largely agree.
Lodge was not only appointed Ambassador, but in real life became the equivalent of a regional Roman pro-counsel.
People like CIA'er Lucien Conein were taking orders from Lodge. Today some ambassadors are nearly glad-handers, but it was Lodge who decided to have the Diems removed, and, one could argue, assassinated.
You have raised the question about why JFK turned SV over to Lodge. It almost looks like he shoved the dirty work off on Lodge.
Of course, the murder of the Diems was an end-around of the CIA station in Saigon. I forget the names, but JFK changed out the station. The CIA'ers largely, probably uniformly, supported the Diems.
The Diem murders were an ugly chapter in US history, as were attempts by the Kennedy Administration to assassinate Castro.
But, that was statecraft in the 1960s. Remember, JFK went to the brink of a nuke war, and deployed a naval blockade, to keep Russian missiles out of Cuba. High-drama marked the era.
From the sidelines and in hindsight...a lot looks easy.
-
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!
-
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.
-
In an October 2, 1963 National Security Meeting where the McNamara/Taylor report/plan was vetted, JFK expressed "reservations" about the proposed 1000 troop withdrawal by the end of the year. Here is his exchange with McNamara.
President Kennedy: My only reservation about it [the report] is that it commits us to a kind of a ... if the war doesn't continue to go well, it'll look like we were overly optimistic, and I don't—I'm not sure we—I'd like to know what benefit we get out [of it] at this time announcing a thousand—
McNamara: Mr. President, we have the thousand split by units, so that if the war doesn't go well, we can say these thousand would not have influenced the course of action.
President Kennedy: And the advantage of taking them out—
McNamara: And the advantage of taking them out is that we can say to Congress and people that we do have a plan for reducing the exposure of U.S. combat personnel to the guerrilla actions in South Vietnam —actions that the people of South Vietnam should gradually develop a capability to suppress themselves. And I think this will be of great value to us in meeting the very strong views of Senator [J. William] Fulbright and others that we're bogged down in Asia and will be there for decades.
President Kennedy: All right.
________________________
That's not much of a disagreement or reservation to me; it sounds half-hearted and staged. And completely political. JFK wanted McNamara to give him cover, cover for something he didn't want attributed to him.
Note as well McNamara's conditional statement: "...actions that the people of South Vietnam should gradually develop a capability to suppress themselves..."
You can hear JFK himself say this in a taped recording of that meeting: https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkpof-mtg-114-a49d
Go to the 19:00 minute mark.
-
DiEugenio responded to MTG and pretty much put him to bed...There are many authors and message board experts who have been trying to revise Kennedy's withdrawal policy...They keep trying and DiEugenio keeps destroying them...It is pretty clear that JFk intended to withdraw and it was part of the reason he was assassinated...
DiEugenio:
"An interesting aspect of what LBJ did is this.
As John Newman revealed, Johnson was getting the real intel estimates, not the phony ones, from Howard Burris.
When Kennedy was killed, he called in McNamara and he said--since he knew the facts--what are we doing leaving a war we are losing?
Up until that time, McNamara had been faithfully executing Kennedy's plan to withdraw. This began his transformation. Which he underwent with great emotional stress.
LBJ now formed a secret committee inside the government to alter policy in VIetnam, working closely with the Pentagon. At first it was headed by William Sullivan, the guy who tried to rip out the withdrawal program from the Taylor/McNamara report, and Kennedy made him put it back in.
That committee, later helmed by Bill Bundy, went ahead and worked on an escalation plan for literally months on end. They even planned on a casus belli event in order to create a crisis atmosphere. Which, of course, ended up being the Gulf of Tonkin incident. So now, as planned, Johnson used that dubious episode to get what was really a declaration of war against Hanoi. The heavy duty planning was cued around NSAM 288, which mapped out an air war against the north, with I think, scores of targets. That list was used as retaliation for Tonkin.
The whole keystone was the election of 1964. Which LBJ won in a landslide. And that gave him the imprimatur to, shortly after, land the first combat troops at DaNang. An event which he had filmed.
So LBJ did three things that Kennedy never did and never would have done. He brought the Pentagon into planning for the war, he used a provocation to get a war declaration, he then landed combat troops in South Vietnam.
And it got tagged as McNamara's War. Because Johnson always insisted he was continuing Kennedy's policy in Vietnam. Which he knew--and McNamara knew-- was an utterly false statement."
-
One of the many important facts that Cheevers discusses is the fact that one of the leading anti-Diem plotters was a Communist agent, and that two Communist agents were feeding anti-war "journalist" David Halberstam information for his slanted, misleading stories about the Diem government and the war effort.
-
MTG--
Please expand on this.