Oliver Stone Talks to Jacobin About JFK’s Killing

[Martin Weidmann]

(hint: it was Oswald)

Why only hint if you have the evidence to back it up?

Presenting the evidence and defending it, makes him and his belief system vulnerable, because he fully understands that the evidence is weak, superficial, speculative and non-conclusive. By not presenting and/or defending the evidence, he can stay in his comfort zone and keep on whining about all those nasty contrarians who only challenge LNs and not CTs.

It's sad

[Charles Collins]

The plan as I read it was to withdraw forces as the South was able - through our training, assistance, aid et cetera - to take on more of the battle. It wasn't simply to withdraw regardless of the situation on the ground. Two things were to happen simultaneously: we withdraw as they step up. So what would JFK do it the South wasn't able to accomplish that? That's what happened. That's what LBJ faced; and what JFK would have to face. That's why we had to take on more of the effort or leave. Nixon tried to reverse that but it was too late.

As to JFK and a settlement: What's the evidence that Hanoi wanted one? Or Moscow either? After 1964 the Soviets fundamentally changed their approach to SE Asia and, after Khrushchev's removal (he was reluctant to get involved because he believed it would help Mao), began providing massive military and economic support to the North.

JFK was able to settle - for a time - the Laotian crisis without sending in troops because Khrushchev agreed to one. The historian and conspiracy believer John Newman argues that JFK would have dealt with Vietnam like he did with Laos. That is, not send in ground troops. But that ignores the key fact that Soviet policy towards Vietnam was completely different after Khrushchev then it was when he was in charge.

As to LBJ: he uncritically listened to his advisers, the "Best and Brightest", who gave him bad advice and didn't like disagreement among his people. As you pointed out, JFK was much more willing to challenge his advisers, especially the Pentagon and liked hearing dissenting views; so while LBJ went along with their advice, JFK was probably going to reject it.

Anyway: again, what JFK wanted to do is not the same thing as what he was able to do. I don't think LBJ wanted to send in troops either. There are records of conversations he had with people where he said he didn't know what to do. We had to get out but how? What about the consequences?

But that ignores the key fact that Soviet policy towards Vietnam was completely different after Khrushchev then it was when he was in charge.

I think that the Soviet policy changes had more to do with a response to the U.S. policy changes that took place under LBJ’s reign than anything else.

By August, 1964, the Johnson Administration believed that escalation of the U.S. presence in Vietnam was the only solution. The post-Diem South proved no more stable than it had been before his ouster, and South Vietnamese troops were generally ineffective. In addition to supporting on-going South Vietnamese raids in the countryside and implementing a U.S. program of bombing the Lao border to disrupt supply lines, the U.S. military began backing South Vietnamese raids of the North Vietnamese coast. The U.S. Navy stationed two destroyers, the Maddox and the Turner Joy, in the Gulf of Tonkin to bolster these actions. They reported an attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on August 2, and a second attack on August 4. Doubts later emerged as to whether or not the attack against the Turner Joy had taken place.

Immediately after reports of the second attack, Johnson asked the U.S. Congress for permission to defend U.S. forces in Southeast Asia. The Senate passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with only two opposing votes, and the House of Representatives passed it unanimously. Congress supported the resolution with the assumption that the president would return and seek their support before engaging in additional escalations of the war.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident and the subsequent Gulf of Tonkin resolution provided the justification for further U.S. escalation of the conflict in Vietnam. Acting on the belief that Hanoi would eventually weaken when faced with stepped up bombing raids, Johnson and his advisers ordered the U.S. military to launch Operation Rolling Thunder, a bombing campaign against the North. Operation Rolling Thunder commenced on February 13, 1965 and continued through the spring of 1967. Johnson also authorized the first of many deployments of regular ground combat troops to Vietnam to fight the Viet Cong in the countryside.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/gulf-of-tonkin

[Mark A. Oblazney]

You almost seemed reasonable. JFK did not create what he found himself confronted with, or appoint them, except the extremist hawks of the Ex-Comm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Lemnitzer
"...Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 1960. As Chairman, Lemnitzer was involved in the Bay of Pigs crisis and the early years of United States involvement in the Vietnam War. He was also required to testify before the United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee about his knowledge of the activities of Major General Edwin Walker, who had been dismissed from the Army over alleged attempts to promote his political beliefs in the military.

As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, Lemnitzer approved the plans known as Operation Northwoods in 1962, a proposed plan to discredit the Castro regime and create support for military action against Cuba by staging false flag acts of terrorism and developing "a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". Lemnitzer presented the plans to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962. It is unclear how McNamara reacted, but three days later President John F. Kennedy told the general that there was no chance that the US would take military action against Cuba. Within a few months, after the refusal to endorse Operation Northwoods, Lemnitzer was denied another term as JCS chairman.[3] ..."

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/CMC50/DavidGWelchandJamesGBlightAnIntroductiontotheExCommTranscriptsInternationalSecurity.pdf
Page 6


Page 8

says a lot+

[Jerry Freeman]

All of this has been argued to death, but here are a couple links.
Oswald owned the rifle:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

From that page---
 

Regardless of the fact that Oswald technically did order a 36-inch Italian carbine, per the words written in the February 1963 American Rifleman magazine ad that Oswald used to order the rifle (pictured below), Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped a 40-inch rifle with serial number C2766 on it to "A. Hidell" on March 20, 1963.

A company doesn't have what you ordered so they send something else instead? Not an acceptable explanation at all.
The company will send a statement advising you that what you ordered is not available but has an alternative stock if you wish.
Especially a firearm.
Also there is the still unexplained situation where Oswald [never to be separated from his supposed precious rifle] somehow ships it back from a New Orleans location with Ruth Paine ...not telling her or Marina about the concealed cargo...but yet it arrives voila' back in Irving-- covering itself up with a blanket, remaining snug until Lee [without even asking it's location] recovers it [un-noticed by all others] on a garage floor.
All that the nutters can come up with.. is maybe, perhaps, coulda, shoulda, woulda speculation and conjecture and none of it can hold even one drop of water.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

A company doesn't have what you ordered so they send something else instead?

Yes it was quite common for companies to substitute a very similar item in the pre-Internet age.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes it was quite common for companies to substitute a very similar item in the pre-Internet age.

What's the evidence to support such a claim?

[Mitch Todd]

From that page---
 
A company doesn't have what you ordered so they send something else instead? Not an acceptable explanation at all.
The company will send a statement advising you that what you ordered is not available but has an alternative stock if you wish.
Especially a firearm.

Not all that long ago, Mytton posted a copy of the Carcano entry in the Klein's ad from the April, '63 issue or American Rifleman. The April issue would have been published at the beginning of March, so this advertisement reflects what Klein's was offering at the time the A Hidell order was fulfilled. In this ad, C20-T750 refers to the 40" FC rather than the 36" TS rifle advertised as C20-T750. Oswald got exactly what he ordered, if not exactly what he thought he ordered.