McAdams, JFK Facts, and "Moderation"

[Marc Ellis]

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....."

In 1963, there were 16,300 US soldiers in Vietnam. The purported Tonkin Gulf incident came on 2 August, 1964. At that time, there were 23,300 US soldiers in Vietnam. By the end of 1965, LBJ had sent 184,300 US military personnel. By the time LBJ left office in early 1969, there were approximately 536,100 US military personnel there.

Notwithstanding NSAM 273, it's reasonable to conclude there would have been no Tonkin Gulf catalyst if JFK were President. Or if there were, the presidential response would have been much different.

And whether JFK intended to withdraw everyone or not, it's clear he would have never have sent a half-million American military personnel there. That's how I see it. The assassination led to the US going to war in Vietnam. That's clear. I don't know what JFK's intentions were. But it's a reasonable conclusion there would have been no Vietnam War had JFK remained in office.

Vietnam was LBJ's war. It was not Ike's, JFK's or Nixon's war. The numbers and dates speak for themselves.
It could not have happened unless LBJ was President.


http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-...statistics

http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm

Over 5,000 helicopters - built by Bell Helicopter of Fort Worth, Texas - were downed during the war. Almost 5,000 crew members
were killed (pilots and non-pilots). The cost of a Huey was between 1 and 2 million USD. Bell actually had a financial interest in
losing helicopters. The more that got shot down - the more money Bell made.

http://www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf

[Albert Doyle]

I think it was total withdrawal as Jim has done a good job of showing. All part of a plan to move towards neutralization. This would have been accompanied by detente with Castro and Khrushchev as a move towards bigger things. Those bigger things would have put a lot people whose power depended on the Cold War going strong out of business. Those men killed Kennedy.

[Jim DiEugenio]

My position on this, as I outlined at the Wecht conference, is kind of revolutionary.

I don't accept the JFK was a Cold Warrior in 1961 concept. And today, I do not think it is supportable.

I also don't like the Cuba/Vietnam only nexus as a measurement of JFK.

If you don't begin with Gullion, and you skip the Congo, you cannot understand Kennedy.

Kennedy was never going into Vietnam and that was predictable by 1954 with his anti Operation Vulture speech when he said no amount of American material can defeat an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere and has the support of the people. Because that is the same argument he used in November of 1961 to reject combat troops. We have that in the only memorandum made of that debate, the Burris Memorandum.. And its in Virtual JFK.

When I began to accumulate all this material, and read the Muelenbeck book, the Mahoney book and the Rakove book, I began to see this was all of one piece. And if you look at it that way, as a continuous line from Gullion and 1951 to, Congo in 1961, to NSAM 263 and Attwood, then Kennedy's foreign policy has perfect consistency.

So this is what I thought was missing from Stone's DVD. I was also disappointed that he fell for that MM crap. And no I don't think Adlai was more of a dove than JFK in 1961. When Kennedy was campaigning for Stevenson in 1956 he made a great anti colonial speech for him in LA. When Stevenson read it, he telegramed JFK to stop it and not make any more speeches for him. That is how out there the guy was.

Although I like the Douglass book a lot, I don't like that rubric the company put on it, A Cold Warrior Turns, because that is not the case. Kennedy's ideas were in place in 1960 and he acted on them immediately, but in places the vaunted and self licking JFK community doesn't know jack about e.g. Indonesia, Congo. But its there. And it took people outside the community to find it: like Mahoney.

PS: Tracy, Kennedy did not put together the advisory plan for Vietnam in 1962. That was done by Rusk and Rostow. Whether or not he knew what the herbicide program was, and was briefed on it, I don't know. But we do know at this time he was looking to JKG and McNamara to begin to find a way out of Vietnam. And he eventually did with the SecDef meeting the next year in Hawaii. Mike Swanson, the guy who wrote The War State, is writing a book on this. He is almost done with his research. He told me he cannot understand why there is a debate on this at all. Kennedy was not going into Vietnam. Period.

I know why there is a debate though. Because the battle to define JFK is as pitched as the battle over the facts of his murder. That is how ingrained and political this all is. All you have to do is look at McAdams' site on Vietnam to see that. As long as you can keep JFK a Cold Warrior then it takes some of the sting out of his death. Even if its a lie. In his debate with me, the professor said that Truman and LBJ were both more liberal than Kennedy.

LOL. ROTF. What a fruitcake.

[Marc Ellis]

I think it was total withdrawal as Jim has done a good job of showing. All part of a plan to move towards neutralization. This would have been accompanied by detente with Castro and Khrushchev as a move towards bigger things. Those bigger things would have put a lot people whose power depended on the Cold War going strong out of business. Those men killed Kennedy.

If McAdams, et al, are arguing the Vietnam War would have played out in exactly the same way with JFK as President, I think that's a dumb argument. There are no facts or even trend-lines to support it. If they stipulate the war would have played out differently, then they've made a significant concession.

Since the purported Tonkin Gulf Incident was supposedly the spark - it might be useful to analyze how that event might have played out with JFK in office. Personally, I think it never would have happened. I think it was a false flag operation. And if it never happened - it's reasonable to conclude there would have been no Vietnam War had JFK lived.

The issue of whether and when JFK intended to withdraw everyone doesn't interest me much. It's clear JFK would never have sent a half-million US soldiers there. That being the case, there would not have been 58,000 Americans killed there if JFK had not been assassinated.

My position on this, as I outlined at the Wecht conference, is kind of revolutionary.

I don't accept the JFK was a Cold Warrior in 1961 concept. And today, I do not think it is supportable.

I also don't like the Cuba/Vietnam only nexus as a measurement of JFK.

If you don't begin with Gullion, and you skip the Congo, you cannot understand Kennedy.

Kennedy was never going into Vietnam and that was predictable by 1954 with his anti Operation Vulture speech when he said no amount of American material can defeat an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere and has the support of the people. Because that is the same argument he used in November of 1961 to reject combat troops. We have that in the only memorandum made of that debate, the Burris Memorandum.. And its in Virtual JFK.

When I began to accumulate all this material, and read the Muelenbeck book, the Mahoney book and the Rakove book, I began to see this was all of one piece. And if you look at it that way, as a continuous line from Gullion and 1951 to, Congo in 1961, to NSAM 263 and Attwood, then Kennedy's foreign policy has perfect consistency.

So this is what I thought was missing from Stone's DVD. I was also disappointed that he fell for that MM crap. And no I don't think Adlai was more of a dove than JFK in 1961. When Kennedy was campaigning for Stevenson in 1956 he made a great anti colonial speech for him in LA. When Stevenson read it, he telegramed JFK to stop it and not make any more speeches for him. That is how out there the guy was.

Although I like the Douglass book a lot, I don't like that rubric the company put on it, A Cold Warrior Turns, because that is not the case. Kennedy's ideas were in place in 1960 and he acted on them immediately, but in places the vaunted and self licking JFK community doesn't know jack about e.g. Indonesia, Congo. But its there. And it took people outside the community to find it: like Mahoney.

PS: Tracy, Kennedy did not put together the advisory plan for Vietnam in 1962. That was done by Rusk and Rostow. Whether or not he knew what the herbicide program was, and was briefed on it, I don't know. But we do know at this time he was looking to JKG and McNamara to begin to find a way out of Vietnam. And he eventually did with the SecDef meeting the next year in Hawaii. Mike Swanson, the guy who wrote The War State, is writing a book on this. He is almost done with his research. He told me he cannot understand why there is a debate on this at all. Kennedy was not going into Vietnam. Period.

I know why there is a debate though. Because the battle to define JFK is as pitched as the battle over the facts of his murder. That is how ingrained and political this all is. All you have to do is look at McAdams' site on Vietnam to see that. As long as you can keep JFK a Cold Warrior then it takes some of the sting out of his death. Even if its a lie. In his debate with me, the professor said that Truman and LBJ were both more liberal than Kennedy.

LOL. ROTF. What a fruitcake.

I think the troop levels and dates speak for themselves. Vietnam was LBJ's war. Regardless of JFK's intentions or beliefs, LBJ presided over a war that ultimately claimed 58,000 plus American lives. That was all on him. A more important question to me is whether McAdams or anyone else can show persuasive evidence that JFK would also have sent a half-million US military personnel there and stood by and watched tens of thousands of them die. I think that's an argument with no facts to support it.

The Texas military contractor nexus interests me though. Bell, Schlumberger, Brown & Root, Haliburton. The more Americans died - the more money Bell helicopter made.

[Dawn Meredith]

I just checked.

Both of those comments are still on moderation.

So I am glad I posted them here. People can finally read them. The information in them is solid, and counters the BS put out by McAdams over there.

And Martin Hay's review of Willens is really right on and his destruction of the whole "RFK wanted Dulles on the WC" exposes that for what it is: a cover story for LBJ.

Jim I have been messaged that the Ed forum will be changing. Via the new management. I suspected you will be welcomed back. But what about all your hundreds of posts that were disappeared? I think Morley is a good guy as well. But he appears to suffer from the same problem Simkin had. The notion that "free speech" ruled, when in fact the lone nutters cannot be debated. It's a total waste of time and that is WHY they are paid to be there. People who believe the official lie don't go on these kinds of forums. They refuse to read the books etc. So the ones who spend endless hours with the lies are, in my opinion, paid to do so.

Dawn

[Jim DiEugenio]

If the Ed Forum does go toward a new management, fine, I would be interested in joining.

But only if its really new. Like Gary Mack not allowed to be a lurker who does not post etc.

Like I said, they lost so many good people though. Including some really good moderators, like that guy from Ireland, Richard something?

The new management will really be put to test I think on Simkin's policy of disappearing posts. I never understood that. At all.

[Bart Kamp]

Paul May has come out of the woodwork claiming he is not Photon, http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/resour...ent-649658
Yet Photon has admitted it on previous posts ('Mother May' and 'well you got me').
Jefferson Morley claims that Paul May has called him to say he is not Photon, like that makes any difference (in my country the burden of proof lies with the accused ).

I have asked him to check the ips for said posters and to this point I have not received a reply, and also some of my posts are held in the cue ('moderation') for days on row now.

Morley also tweeted to me that they are first amendment extremists, then why moderate?

[Albert Doyle]

Morley also tweeted to me that they are first amendment extremists, then why moderate?

I guess it comes down to whose amendment comes first.

[Jim DiEugenio]

That is rich. Paul May called Morley and everything is cool now?

May is the guy who, according to Gil Jesus, even lies about where he lives. That is how imbalanced he is. Like I said, he is so fruity and rabid, he makes Von Pein look reasonable.

First amendment extremists? Again this is rich. As I proved, that is simply not the case.

Albert may be right, and its something I suspected. Morley, coming from the MSM, wants to keep this ersatz "debate" going.

Therefore, he has tilted the playing field toward the WC Crazies side.

If he wanted to solve the trolling problem, all he had to do is say, "no more pseudonyms" and then moderation only for reasons of profanity and obscenity,or libel.

But he does not do that.

BTW, I have not been back there since my last post indicating the utter academic hypocrisy of McAdams.

Lisa told me that Morley actually played a hilarious video interview with Bill Harvey's widow about JFK. He then even "fact checked" it. As if any of it had any validity.

When, in fact, Harvey is a chief suspect in the plot. Talk about the ultimate victory of the conspirators.

[Bart Kamp]

Correct Jim, all this is very questionable to say the least.

The Harvey thread is HERE

or if you just want to watch that video it is on Youtube