04-08-2015, 09:33 PM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Sorry, I meant Clarke.
He actually tried to say that I tried to avoid him on JFK Facts after he showed NSAM 263.
1.) Like I had never see NSAM 263 before.
2.) I left there for reasons totally unrelated to that issue. I left because I felt some of my annotated comments, especially on Vietnam, were being unduly moderated. While people like McAdams were allowed to post all kind of lies indiscriminately.
yeah Clarke and Gittinger (whom I believe has passed on) to the extreme loyal to LBJ and his policies, IMHO. Especially when it came to Vietnam. I almost concluded they both felt LBJ was a victim as opposed to being the CIC. Both his naievete, and by 1968 the military industrial complex in general...
anyway, here's an obscure comment re NSAM263/273:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/vietna...el/ch1.htm
"For a while in the early 1960s optimism ran high at General Paul D. Harkins' joint headquarters, in anticipation of an early end to hostilities. For example, a telecommunications plan of June 1963 called for phasing out the Army's 39th Signal Battalion. This plan, which was modified by the staff of the Commander in Chief, Pacific, Admiral Harry D. Felt, and later approved by the joint Chiefs of Staff, envisaged that the communications operated by the Army would be turned over to the Republic of Vietnam. By the end of 1963 the 39th Signal Battalion was training South Vietnamese troops to operate its mobile radio relay equipment. Plans which had assumed that the Viet Cong could be eliminated by the end of 1964 provided the basis for communications efforts up to mid-1964. But they were precluded by events which drastically changed the requirements for communications in Southeast Asia."
more grist for the mill regarding JFK's early withdrawal from Vietnam, eh? BTW, the above quote was what I was involved in while in Vietnam 2/63-2/64, the DCS MAAG-Vietnam element...