02-08-2014, 04:38 PM
McAdams has a soul brother, Bill Clarke, at JFK Facts who insists that Kennedy was not really going to withdraw from Vietnam. And he also despises any mention of John Newman's groundbreaking book JFK and Vietnam.
He and I went at it a few times. He then started following me around the site on topics that had nothing to do with Vietnam, trying to bait me.
So I dropped the following reply to him. You won't believe this, but this has been on moderation since June 16th, in other words about a month and a half. So in the interests of full disclosure and fairness, I will post it here:
On another thread, Clarke said that somehow he replied to me on this one and then I failed to do so after he pointed out certain things wrong with Newman's masterful JFK and Vietnam.
Well, Clarke is wrong again. Since I have not posted on this thread as far as I can see.
As far as any thing to argue about, Clarke makes the silly non distinction that Advisors are really combat troops. So that he can say that JFK already had combat troops there. Fine. But that kind of shell game belongs on McAdams' site, not here. Because no one buys that subterfuge.
As per RFK saying JFK was going to pull out, he told it to Ellsberg in no uncertain terms. And Ellsberg said this in public at the Harvard Conference in 1993. I was there.
When Clarke points up in an academically genuine way, where Newman did not note an important point, that is with page numbers and paragraphs, I will reply. Until then, I will ignore him on this issue.
For the last time, NSAM 263 was part of the Taylor-McNamara report, which was not written by those two men but by Krulak under JFK's supervision. It specified the thousand man withdrawal as part of a larger plan to get everyone out by 1965. That announcement was in the press many times, including the front page of the Ny TImes. And Kennedy told McNamara to issue a press release on it in October. He did, since he mentions it in his book.
NSAM 273 reversed 263 in the sense that it allowed direct US involvement in the raids in Tonkin Gulf. Which led to the Tonkin Gulf Incident. NSAM 288, signed by LBJ in March, was the total reversal of NSAM 263, which LBJ tried to conceal as shown in VIrtual JFK by Jim Blight. It was NSAM 288 which allowed LBJ to go ahead and bomb Vietnam over one bullet through one hull. So 288 piggybacked on 273.
Again, this is all factual and, if not footnoted, its referenced. And there is new info here since no one there mentioned NSAM 288, which really was the complete reversal of JFK's policy by LBJ and the JCS. Most of this I had proven with documentation in other places. Clarke did not like it. And further, he had never pointed out with references and page numbers where Newman was being inaccurate. So I did not reply since I did not think it warranted any reply.
Therefore I do not understand why this was censored. I cannot say "moderated" since a month and a half is not moderation, its more like elimination.
Eric Alterman once noted that the way Fox News moves the debate to the right is by constantly saying the MSM is "liberal", which is a way of "working the refs". Is this what McAdams did? Did it work?
He and I went at it a few times. He then started following me around the site on topics that had nothing to do with Vietnam, trying to bait me.
So I dropped the following reply to him. You won't believe this, but this has been on moderation since June 16th, in other words about a month and a half. So in the interests of full disclosure and fairness, I will post it here:
On another thread, Clarke said that somehow he replied to me on this one and then I failed to do so after he pointed out certain things wrong with Newman's masterful JFK and Vietnam.
Well, Clarke is wrong again. Since I have not posted on this thread as far as I can see.
As far as any thing to argue about, Clarke makes the silly non distinction that Advisors are really combat troops. So that he can say that JFK already had combat troops there. Fine. But that kind of shell game belongs on McAdams' site, not here. Because no one buys that subterfuge.
As per RFK saying JFK was going to pull out, he told it to Ellsberg in no uncertain terms. And Ellsberg said this in public at the Harvard Conference in 1993. I was there.
When Clarke points up in an academically genuine way, where Newman did not note an important point, that is with page numbers and paragraphs, I will reply. Until then, I will ignore him on this issue.
For the last time, NSAM 263 was part of the Taylor-McNamara report, which was not written by those two men but by Krulak under JFK's supervision. It specified the thousand man withdrawal as part of a larger plan to get everyone out by 1965. That announcement was in the press many times, including the front page of the Ny TImes. And Kennedy told McNamara to issue a press release on it in October. He did, since he mentions it in his book.
NSAM 273 reversed 263 in the sense that it allowed direct US involvement in the raids in Tonkin Gulf. Which led to the Tonkin Gulf Incident. NSAM 288, signed by LBJ in March, was the total reversal of NSAM 263, which LBJ tried to conceal as shown in VIrtual JFK by Jim Blight. It was NSAM 288 which allowed LBJ to go ahead and bomb Vietnam over one bullet through one hull. So 288 piggybacked on 273.
Again, this is all factual and, if not footnoted, its referenced. And there is new info here since no one there mentioned NSAM 288, which really was the complete reversal of JFK's policy by LBJ and the JCS. Most of this I had proven with documentation in other places. Clarke did not like it. And further, he had never pointed out with references and page numbers where Newman was being inaccurate. So I did not reply since I did not think it warranted any reply.
Therefore I do not understand why this was censored. I cannot say "moderated" since a month and a half is not moderation, its more like elimination.
Eric Alterman once noted that the way Fox News moves the debate to the right is by constantly saying the MSM is "liberal", which is a way of "working the refs". Is this what McAdams did? Did it work?