McAdams, JFK Facts, and "Moderation"

[Magda Hassan]

I'm upset with Marquette. Not because they suspended McAdams but because they failed to fire him for his JFK assassination denial.

Just be grateful for any small mercy.

[David Healy]

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

I went round and round and round with Bill Clarke and Ted Gittinger about those 1963 troop numbers, and more specifically, just how many advisors were in-country in Vietnam when JFK was murdered. The military advisor total (including SF) was less than 1000. My unit based in Saigon at the time supported US Element MAAG-Vietnam (Military Assistance Advisory Group [for-runner of MAC-V, Military Assistance Command-Vietnam]

The total number of Americans in country when I left Vietnam (Feb 1964) was near 17,000. In fact, because I was DEROSing 2/64, I was included in that 1000 reduction of troops that was proposed in mid-late 1963. That17,000 number included, military support units (aviation, aviation maint, military police, signal units, etc. AID employees, CIA, naval admin suppport services, embassy personnel, civilian contractors (Brown & Root for one) and surprise of all, dependents... the 17,000 number re "advisors" in country at the time of JFK's murder is incorrect...

[Jim DiEugenio]

Wow, Dave, I had never heard that before.

Dependents?

ANd man isn't Carroll a piece of work?

[David Healy]

Wow, Dave, I had never heard that before.

Dependents?

ANd man isn't Carroll a piece of work?

Hi Jim,

Civilian dependents: embassy personnel, religious missionary services, civilian contractor family members, the American School. Most dependents were located in Saigon-Cholon area (now Ho Chi Minh City).

Which Carroll might you be speaking of, I've known a few over the years?

[Jim DiEugenio]

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.

[David Healy]

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...

[Jim DiEugenio]

More on JFKFacts and Bill Clarke.

First of all, I think the moderation policy there has hurt the frequency of the comments. Many of the recent posts have very few comments and some of the people who had commented are now gone.

Second, I think Morley may have killed his own scoop when he downplayed the O'Reilly lie about being at DeMohrenschildt's house to hear the shotgun blast that took his life. He made more than one appearance about this after he and Talbot got the tapes from Marie Fonzi. In one of his last appearances he kind of downplayed their importance. I did not understand the logic of that. Pointing out a fabrication in a book which the author is encouraging his public to buy, I think that is important. As I think the mystery of how the Baron died is important also. Which he pretty much ignored.

Third, McAdams may be gone, but Bill Clarke is in full bloom now. I just noted how, in addition to trying to say JFK was not really withdrawing from Vietnam, he also tried to downplay a statement I made about Kennedy's achievements in civil rights. I talk about this in this week's BOR which is on tomorrow night.

In my review of Sabato's book, The Kennedy Half Century, I wrote that Kennedy did more for the civil rights of black Americans in three years than the previous 16 presidents did in a century. Clarke, with a straight face, actually wrote that Grant had appointed a few black judges to the bench, and Truman had integrated the armed services.

LOL ::angeldevil::

Can the man be real? Maybe its McAdams using an alias, or Paul May taking on a second one in addition to "Photon".

Just what Kennedy accomplished at the U. of Mississippi and the U. of Alabama outweighs what Truman did. Because those two colleges were the last two which accepted segregation. Kennedy made sure that Meredith finally got into Ole Miss against all the racist efforts of Governor Barnett. He then had to call in the army when rioting broke out. He then had Meredith escorted to class for about two years so he would not be murdered. Barnett is the same guy who showed up at the trial of Byron de La Beckwith and interrupted the testimony of Medgar Evers' wife to shake hands with the killer. Great guy eh?

In 1963, Kennedy moved in 3000 national guardsmen to counteract Wallace's bringing in over 800 state troopers to stop Alabama from being integrated. Wallace was determined to stand in the schoolhouse door and make Kennedy move him out. Kennedy ultimately had to nationalize the state national guard in order to bring a detachment of jeeps and army vehicles on campus to move Wallace out. Its an image that millions of people saw live on TV and will never forget. The end of southern racism in education. Who can forget it?

Maybe Bill Clarke? Hey Bill, did Truman ever do anything like that?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

But that was just one aspect of a full court press that the Kennedys had planned in advance to break down the walls of segregation and voting rights discrimination in the south. Kennedy had been keen on this since Johnson's 1957 civil rights act, which he did not think went far enough, even though he voted for it. So he told his campaign advisory committee on civil rights that he would use the Attorney General's office to file suits in all the deep south states which he could prove were violating the civil rights of black Americans. Of course they did not know at the time that the AG would be RFK. But once appointed that is exactly what RFK started doing. For instance, Eisenhower had never field a lawsuit in Mississippi. RFK not only filed suits, he ended up suing the whole state. JFK monitored this progress every week. He asked Bobby when it would all be over, and the AG said probably 1967, maybe 68.

But see, something else happened in the meantime which nuts like Clarke do not acknowledge. Because of the campaign JFK ran--with the call to Coretta King and RFK arranging for MLK to get out of jail, plus JFK mentioning Africa 470 times in his campaign--all this and more raised the dormant expectation of black Americans throughout America. No presidential candidate had ever done that: I mean show an interest in Africa? (BTW, this is how we got Barack Obama as president. JFK secretly funded his father's voyage to America. To be honest, with how Barack turned out, maybe he shouldn't have.)

Therefore, the black civil rights groups throughout America now began to break out of their shells since they knew they finally had an ally in the White House. Somebody who would have their backs. So you got things like the Freedom Riders and lunch counter sit ins etc. And King in Birmingham. And in all these cases, in an escalating way, the Kennedys came through. It was culminated of course with the March on Washington. Which Kennedy backed and gave his brother Bobby responsibility for running. It was the high point of the civil rights movement. And then Kennedy got these activists into the White House to actually make calls to lobby congress for his all out push on the Civil Rights Act. They even got private donors to contribute money to voting rights causes.

Hey Bill, did Eisenhower ever do that? Truman? Grant? Who was one of the worst presidents ever.

After I stopped posting there because of the moderation policy which I felt was aimed at me, the owners said they were extreme first amendment defenders. Well, that is one way of saying you will allow anyone to post just about anything.

Including Clarke's ahistorical but pure BS.

[Joseph McBride]

More on JFKFacts and Bill Clarke.

First of all, I think the moderation policy there has hurt the frequency of the comments. Many of the recent posts have very few comments and some of the people who had commented are now gone.

Second, I think Morley may have killed his own scoop when he downplayed the O'Reilly lie about being at DeMohrenschildt's house to hear the shotgun blast that took his life. He made more than one appearance about this after he and Talbot got the tapes from Marie Fonzi. In one of his last appearances he kind of downplayed their importance. I did not understand the logic of that. Pointing out a fabrication in a book which the author is encouraging his public to buy, I think that is important. As I think the mystery of how the Baron died is important also. Which he pretty much ignored.

Third, McAdams may be gone, but Bill Clarke is in full bloom now. I just noted how, in addition to trying to say JFK was not really withdrawing from Vietnam, he also tried to downplay a statement I made about Kennedy's achievements in civil rights. I talk about this in this week's BOR which is on tomorrow night.

In my review of Sabato's book, The Kennedy Half Century, I wrote that Kennedy did more for the civil rights of black Americans in three years than the previous 16 presidents did in a century. Clarke, with a straight face, actually wrote that Grant had appointed a few black judges to the bench, and Truman had integrated the armed services.

LOL ::angeldevil::

Can the man be real? Maybe its McAdams using an alias, or Paul May taking on a second one in addition to "Photon".

Just what Kennedy accomplished at the U. of Mississippi and the U. of Alabama outweighs what Truman did. Because those two colleges were the last two which accepted segregation. Kennedy made sure that Meredith finally got into Ole Miss against all the racist efforts of Governor Barnett. He then had to call in the army when rioting broke out. He then had Meredith escorted to class for about two years so he would not be murdered. Barnett is the same guy who showed up at the trial of Byron de La Beckwith and interrupted the testimony of Medgar Evers' wife to shake hands with the killer. Great guy eh?

In 1963, Kennedy moved in 3000 national guardsmen to counteract Wallace's bringing in over 800 state troopers to stop Alabama from being integrated. Wallace was determined to stand in the schoolhouse door and make Kennedy move him out. Kennedy ultimately had to nationalize the state national guard in order to bring a detachment of jeeps and army vehicles on campus to move Wallace out. Its an image that millions of people saw live on TV and will never forget. The end of southern racism in education. Who can forget it?

Maybe Bill? Clarke Hey Bill, did Truman ever do anything like that?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

But that was just one aspect of a full court press that the Kennedys had planned in advance to break down the walls of segregation and voting rights discrimination in the south. Kennedy had been keen on this since Johnson's 1957 civil rights act, which he did not think went far enough, even though he voted for it. So he told his campaign advisory committee on civil rights that he would use the Attorney General's office to file suits in all the deep south states which he could prove were violating the civil rights of black Americans. Of course they did not know at the time that the AG would be RFK. But once appointed that is exactly what RFK started doing. For instance, Eisenhower had never field a lawsuit in Mississippi. RFK not only filed suits, he ended up suing the whole state. JFK monitored this progress every week. He asked Bobby when it would all be over, and the AG said probably 1967, maybe 68.

But see, something else happened in the meantime which nuts like Clarke do not acknowledge. Because of the campaign JFK ran--with the call to Coretta King and RFK arranging for MLK to get out of jail, plus JFK mentioning Africa 470 times in his campaign--all this and more raised the dormant expectation of black Americans throughout America. No presidential candidate had ever done that: I mean show an interest in Africa? (BTW, this is how we got Barack Obama as president. JFK secretly funded his father's voyage to America. To be honest, with how Barack turned out, maybe he shouldn't have.)

Therefore, the black civil rights groups throughout America now began to break out of their shells since they knew they finally had an ally in the White House. Somebody who would have their backs. So you got things like the Freedom Riders and lunch counter sit ins etc. And King in Birmingham. And in all these cases, in an escalating way, the Kennedys came through. It was culminated of course with the March on Washington. Which Kennedy backed and gave his brother Bobby responsibility for running. It was the high point of the civil rights movement. And then Kennedy got these activists into the White House to actually make calls to lobby congress for his all out push on the Civil Rights Act. They even got private donors to contribute money to voting rights causes.

Hey Bill, did Eisenhower ever do that? Truman? Grant? Who was one of the worst presidents ever.

After I stopped posting there because of the moderation policy which I felt was aimed at me, the owners said they were extreme first amendment defenders. Well, that is one way of saying you will allow anyone to post just about anything.

Including Clarke's ahistorical but pure BS.

****

What JFK did is major, of course. The confrontation with Wallace was Kabuki theater. Wallace
wanted to be seen "standing up to the federal government" before being forced to step aside to save face.
The Kennedys wanted to avoid physically removing him.

Truman's integration of the armed services by executive order was a big deal, however belated.
African Americans' service in the war led them to expect such integration, though it took three
years. This helped lead the way for the nascent civil rights movement. But parts of the military still
resisted. It took Eisenhower's threat to fire a top general to get the army finally integrated
after he took office. Eisenhower's attitude and overall record on civil rights was not progressive (he was privately
a racist), but he did send the troops to Little Rock to defend federal sovereignty over states'
rights. He hated to send troops to the South but felt it had to be done. That was also
important.

[Tracy Riddle]

It's ironic that Curtis LeMay enthusiastically supported the desegregation of the military (so I've read), and then later ended up as George Wallace's running-mate. That was a strange ticket - LeMay didn't "hate the N******" and Wallace didn't want to blow up the world. And as he showed in later years, Wallace didn't really have his heart in the segregation thing - it was purely politics.

[Jim DiEugenio]

That's what most people don't know about Wallace.

Wallace really was not a Ross Barnett. He did what he did for purely electoral politics.

Once he was defeated by being perceived as being too liberal on civil rights, he told a follower that he would never be "outniggered" again.

So he changed his whole style to "stand in the schoolhouse door" etc. It was mostly for effect.

But Barnett was different. RFK later said, the whole thing at Ole Miss was planned by Barnett to end up as it did. It was to be perceived as the federal government coming in and taking over a state issue, as in the Civil War. After Ole Miss, RFK said that his brother never looked upon Reconstruction the same way. And most historians have not. If Reconstruction had worked, Kennedy would not have had to do what he did.