I call this topic "Standing my Ground"

[Scott Kaiser]

Afternoon, Mr. Kaiser

First, so there is no misunderstanding here, your right to stand your ground is a given. Now, without making light of your right to do so (certainly not my intent, but communication online is void of eye contact and facial expressions, etc., so to be clear the following comments have nothing to do with disagreeing with the position you have taken on who went where and who met with this person or that person).

However, in fairness to the legacy of President John F. Kennedy's position on the ill-advised war in Vietnam given by those knee-jerk, blood thirsty hawks over at the Pentagon, it's a matter of public record (whether through his public speeches, EO's, etc.,) that the president was trying to avoid the slippery-slope those no good warmongers pushed him toward.

In fact, the final straw for those warmongering hawks IMHO was the president's smart move of reversal in Vietnam; but where they could forgive him for their own debacle at the Bay of Pigs; and, his calm, cool and collected handling of the Cuban Missiles crisis, those entrenched hawks embedded deeply within the machinery of the Military Industrial Complex just couldn't allow the young whippersnapper in their little minds show them the right way to engage humanity any further.

President John F. Kennedy was a man of peace, someone who simply wanted to adopt the old sensible doctrine of 'Walk Softly, But Carry A BIG Stick", but those no good for nothing warmongers just had to have their damn war didn't they?! f#$$$$@ clowns.

That said, Mr. Kaiser, I want you to know your right to hold your own position on who went where and who met this person or that person or not isn't my issue here with you. Carry on sir. Enjoy your day. Cheers!

The audacity of those %$#%@ clowns over on E Street and over at the Pentagon (Mr. Kennedy wasn't even at fault for their self made debacle at the BOP, but yet these lying treasonous cowards could never cowboy up and take some responsibility for their own inept actions).

See Jim? Now, I agree with this gentlemen. And, we didn't even need to drag this out. If you could only see my face now, grinning from ear to ear.

Scott, do you ever use google or another search engine before you react with attitude?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=gal...dia+saigon :

The War Council: McGeorge Bundy, the NSC, and Vietnam

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0674021983
Andrew Preston - 2006 - ‎History
Undeterred, while returning to India Galbraith cabled Kennedy from Saigon with an extremely negative assessment.

The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, ...

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1851099611
Spencer C. Tucker - 2011 - ‎History
Kennedy requested Galbraith, in Washington at the time, to return to India via Saigon and report his findings. Indicting Diem's regime, Galbraith opposed ...

An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917 - 1963

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0759528284
Robert Dallek - 2003 - ‎Biography & Autobiography
... that as Saigon's military failings increased pressure for more "advisers" and ... when Galbraith returned to Washington in early April to testify on India before ...


A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0618219277
Arthur Meier Schlesinger - 2002 - ‎Biography & Autobiography
J. K. Galbraith, who was back in Washington for a few days, and Averell ... about next steps, asked Galbraith to stop by in Saigon on his way back to India.

The Suicide of an Elite: American Internationalists and ...

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0804717362
Patrick Lloyd Hatcher - 1990 - ‎History
One of the most vocal among them, John Kenneth Galbraith, had visited Saigon at Kennedy's request. Upon his return, Galbraith told Ball "in unambiguous terms ...

I know why you are so angry, I explained it four years ago to you on the Education Forum. Back then you did the right thing.... you asked John Simkin to remove
your posting access. You are still grieving over the sudden loss of your father, Scott, you wear your grief on your sleeve. I know I am explaining the obvious to you, but no forum poster, not Jim DiEugenio, nor I, (remember accusing me of being GW Bush's medicare administrator, Thomas B. Scully ?) or anyone else who posts on JFK research forums and disagrees with you, appreciates having to inform you and the elephant in the room, your grief, that you are mistaken.....

Pleae back off, pleae consider pursuing grief counseling. What you are doing instead is avoidance, and you know it is not working for you, and is an annoyance to other posters on every forum you "visit". If you cannot control your continued posting, could you please restrain yourself from starting new threads with click bait titles? The tactic has the word "bait" in the description because it is a substitute for a description of the content impressing you enough to initiate a new thread, instead of posting a comment about it in an existing, on topic thread. Your titles are a cry for attention, especially this one, which ironically is less click baiting than your last few.....

"Has it?"

Has it been pretty quiet here without me? Was I missed?

Please do not reply, and I won't click on a thread authored by you, again.

Then, I suppose Tom won't reading this, and that's only because he's too busy believing everything that's written in books! SMH....

I just knocked down another Domino! Looks like I will be the last one standing...