I call this topic "Standing my Ground"

[Scott Kaiser]

Aside from Tom posting his usual, anyone else who's capable of thinking understands that memos and or letters always had JKG's signature and stationary letter head at the top of the letter, any vain person in office would not send the president of the United States the junk Tom keeps posting.

"I'm done with this guy!"-

-Vinny Gambini

Primary Source, Scott :

https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/ -
[URL="https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-V-B-4-Book-I.pdf"]https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-V-B-4-Book-I.pdf
[/URL]

Follow up letter to President Kennedy, upon Galbraith's arrival at U.S. Embassy, India. .pdf page numbers (pgs. 435 & 439) displayed on
top left of both letter images in this post, only the first page of Galbraith's two, post Saigon "visit" letters are presented here in this post.
The letter below, for example consists of nine pages and all are available in the .pdf file linked above. Update... pg. 9 of 9 image
of second letter from Galbraith to JDK, dated 21 November, 1963 (.pdf pg. 447) has been added to this post.



I'll stay up late, anticipating an apology and a thank you, posted by Scott later this evening.

Let me try this in a different way the information you posted here is information complied by corresponds apparently between JFK and JKG. And, what this information is suggesting is that prior to Kennedy sending JKG to India as the Ambassador to India he should stop by Vietnam and report to JFK about the ongoing situation, and why wouldn't he if Vietnam is only 3-3.5 hours flight from India.

Now, this report was an apparent report written by JKG and mailed to Kennedy, JKG starts off by saying "here's my full analysis" in his letter to the president and it reflects the letter by this transcript correct? However, the letter in question does not exist at the JFK Library or NARA, neither have a copy of JKG's "letter" analysis other then what you have provided here in this package. Now, someone lied to someone and this information ended up in this package, why is that so hard to believe? Have I not said it any clearer in any of my past posts or is this what you're going to hanging onto?

I'll stay up late, anticipating an apology!