Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Max Boot gets Booted on Lansdale in Vietnam
#11
I really can't forget the following quote from a book by a famous Nazi who was flying over Stalingrad in real time:

"Kirgises, Usbeks, Tartars, Turkmenians and other Mongols. They are hanging on like grim death to every scrap of rubble, they lurk behind every remnant of a wall. For their Stalin they are a guard of fire-breathing war-beasts, and when the beasts falter, well-aimed revolver shots from their political commissars nail them, in one way or the other, to the ground they are defending. These Asiatic pupils of integral communism, and the political commissars standing at their backs, are destined to force Germany, and the whole world with her, to abandon the comfortable belief that communism is a political creed like so many others. Instead they are to prove to us first, and finally to all nations, that they are the disciples of a new gospel. And so Stalingrad is to become the Bethlehem of our century. But a Bethlehem of war and hatred, annihilation and destruction."

From Stuka Pilot, by Hans-Ulrich Rudel at page 65.

This is the most profound passage I have come across in all of my JFK research. In assessing the Ken Burns film about Vietnam, one can only usefully examine the view from 30,000 feet. Whether the directors mentioned the name of Edward Lansdale or John Foster Dulles are just questions which are basically, just so much quibbling.
I thought that the big picture regarding the Burns documentary was:


  1. It presented JFK and LBJ as good guys, and Nixon clearly as a bad guy. To me this is just arbitrary and arguably sophomoric.
  2. The seminal event to Vietnam itself was when Ngo Dinh Diem was living at a monastery in New England and was introduced to JFK by Catholic clergy. With the impetus from JFK and Father Edmund Walsh, Diem became the South Vietnamese leader. Everything else is just minor details.
  3. The directors were trying to "put a face" on Vietnam. This is not because of any Political Party motive. It's because when we want to teach our kids in later generations about a war, we NEVER want to paint a war as basically evil. (That's probably a practice that dates back to the Illiad of Homer).
  4. Some new information in the Burns film, to me, was that President Thieu provided stable leadership from the time he took power, forward.
  5. The film, for the first time I have ever seen, interviews North Vietnamese veterans and attempts to portray the North Vietnamese in three dimensions, (not just as Marvel comic-type villians). They had their struggles and their weaknesses.
  6. And the directors made a good case, I though, that at various times, with the US, the South Vietnamese had a pretty good shot at standing on their own and surviving. It was poor decisions on the part of the US Government, they argue, that caused the unhappy outcome.

Having perused and or read the four-part critique offered by the eminent (and world traveling) Mr. Jim DiEugenio, I can only offer my somewhat different analysis of the entire 1914-1991 period. This would include the Vietnam War.


  1. There have been three revolutions dating back to the middle ages: the American, the French and the Russian.
  2. All three have been against three things and three things only: (a) monarchism, (b) establishment religion and (3) titled nobility.
  3. Because the US, France and Russia are the only countries outside of the Far East with revolutions, that is the reason we have never fought wars with the other two, France and Russia.
  4. All of our major wars have been against monarchy, titled nobility and establishment religion. By the way, imperialism in that context has represented a feature of monarchy and establishment religion.

With the above in mind, it is easy to see what was happening in Vietnam. Catholicism and imperialism were trying to hold onto Vietnam. The fact that Vietnam was only 10% Catholic doesn't matter. At stake were the paychecks and livelihood of Catholic clergy in Vietnam. You could say the same thing about Cuba.

The attempt for fascists in France to hold onto Vietnam and Algeria were all about imperialism and titled nobility. And of course, there were even monarchist elements in France, despite its history.

To state things more generally, World War II and the Cold War were all one war. You could call it World War II, phase one and World War II, phase two.
The monarchies started World War I as a war of attrition to destroy a generation of their own children to wear them out and prevent Europe to becoming Republican, Liberal or worse, Democratic. In Russia, of course, the worst happenedBolshevism. Many monarchies fell, as well.

Most Europeans at the time accurately viewed Bolshevism as an effort of activist Jews in Russia, tired of pogroms, to develop an alternative to Tsarism where their own religion, Judaism, didn't offer any possibilities. This could be compared to the effort of Christ to offer Judaism to non-Jews to improve the state of mankind.

In around 1923, Father Edmund Walsh, a Jesuit professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. was sent to Russia by the Vatican to try and "cut a deal" with the Bolsheviks. This same plaintive drama was re-enacted when the same Father Walsh went to dinner with Senator Joseph McCarthy at the Colony Club in DC on January 7, 1950 to launch McCarthy's bitter anti-Communist crusade in the US.

In between, we saw the rise of fascism. Fascism was invented as the Catholic solution to Bolshevism. And this drama played out from the Spanish Civil War involving Franco starting in 1936 until fascism was laid low by FDR in 1945. (I recently read that Hitler paid his "religion tax" as a Catholic right up until he [allegedly] shot himself in April, 1945).

In Russia, the establishment religion was the Russian Orthodox Church. In England, it was the Anglican Church. For almost the rest of the entire World, it was Catholicism, except in Scandinavia where it was Lutheranism. If one excepts Communism, then the US and France were the only bastions of secularism outside Latin America (the latter being questionable).

In the U.S., because of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, American historians (who are writing or working mostly for public schools), are required to pretend that religion simply doesn't exist for purposes of history. Similarly, to get along with our Allies and "put a face" on reality, they similarly ignore the realities of monarchism and imperialism as well. (How many American readers who are reading this passage, could write even two sentences about the Holy Roman Empire).

The Civil War in China involved mostly Protestant missionaries and Chiang Kai-shek was, in fact, a Methodist. But in the rest of the entire world, the struggle against Communism was really a death-struggle between Catholicism (or less importantly the Eastern Orthodox Religion) against an overpowering competing religionCommunism.

In 1966, I (personally) had already at age 16 gone through two three-year gift subscriptions to Time Magazine, having read most of them cover to cover. So I can remember in real time the feeling that Americans had about the "domino theory."

You basically had one third of the world capitalist and Christian, one third Communist and one third "Neutralist", (hence the phrase "Third World"). For establishment religion, one-third of the world on their side was not nearly enough. Even though Sukarno of Indonesia wasn't a Communist or Ben Bella of Algeria wasn't a Communist; IT DIDN'T
MATTER!!!

It was all or nothing. The imperialist, monarchist, establishment religion people were not going to be happy with only one-third of the world. They had been used to owning the entire planet and THEY WANTED IT BACK!!!!

So it's not a question of whether Ken Burns could have put more of some crucial details in his film: for my taste, I think he surely could have. He didn't nearly do justice to the role of military thinkers like Eisenhower and MacArthur on the issue of land wars in Asia, etc. He didn't really do justice to the real debate going on in the U.S. about the policy behind the Vietnam War. And the worst thing of all, in my opinion, he painted the North Vietnamese (for the first time) in three dimensions, but he reduced my generation of the 1960's back to an ugly version of two dimensions.

He painted the North Vietnamese Government as WAY MORE SYMPATHETIC than, say John Kerry, Joan Baez or Peter Paul and Mary. (That kinda makes me want to puke when I think about itso I won't).

To wrap up, if you analyze the history of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century in terms of monarchism, titled nobility and establishment religion (and their running dog, imperialism), you can't go far wrong. Try it sometime. You'll like it.

James Lateer
Reply
#12
Mr. Lateer:

I beg to disagree with your facts and analysis. When Diem left Vietnam, he was first housed in America at MSU, run by John Hannah, a university executive who had strong ties to the State Department and the CIA. MSU would go on to have a notorious relationship with the CIA in building Diem's future security forces.

He arrived in about 1950, and while there he got to know three key people: Wesley Fishel, Peter White and Robert Amory. The first was a professor who was instrumental in running that security project and also in promoting Diem's career. White was a reporter who began to pen stories in the press that flattered Diem. Amory was a CIA officer who began to mention his name at CIA HQ as an alternative. According to biographer Seth Jacobs, Diem's acquaintance with JFK consisted of one dinner in Washington arranged by Spellman to introduce Diem to several Washington politicians.

These three men--Fishel, White and Amory--were key in establishing Diem's anti communist leanings through 1953. At that time, Diem moved to Paris to curry favor with France. He did not do very well. But Fishel, a government consultant on Vietnam, kept up the drumbeat for him at Geneva. Bao Dai understood that France was now gone from Indochina and the USA was taking charge. Therefore the man who ran the conference, Foster Dulles, made it understood that it did not matter who Bao Dai wanted as premier. Dulles preferred Diem. And this is what Bao Dai did, much to the chagrin of the French, who realized Diem was not the kind of leader who could compete with Ho Chi Minh. These facts are in the first two chapters of the Jacobs biography of Diem called Cold War Mandarin.

That you could write that somehow Kennedy's dinner benefit with Diem is more important than Operation Vulture, Dulles reneging on the Geneva Accords in 1956, Lansdale rigging the plebiscite for Diem, the Battle of Ap Bac and NSAMs, 263, 273, and 288 and Rolling Thunder, well that is kind of weird to me.

Second, there are two major biographies of Hammarskjold. One by Lipsey and one by Uruquart. Can you please specify which one has the info about him being a Nazi collaborator? As you know, unlike Austria, which was annexed by Germany during Anchluss, Sweden was neutral during World War II. So why would Hammarskjold, or any other Swedish citizen, need to collaborate?
Reply
#13
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:South Vietnam was not a Catholic country, it was about 70 per cent Buddhist. This is why Diem and his brother were so wrong as leaders of the country.

According to my sources the Catholic/Buddhist conflict was ginned up by the CIA.

May 8, 1963.

Hue, South Vietnam.

Buddhist protesters crowded around a radio station when two explosions killed eight people.
The Catholic Diem regime blamed the Viet Cong; the Buddhists.blamed Diem.

From JFK and the Unspeakable, pgs 130-1, emphasis added:


Quote:Dr. Le Khac Quyen, the hospital director at Hue, said after examining the victim's bodies that he had never seen such injuries. The bodies had been decapitated. He found no metal in the corpses, only holes. There were no wounds below the chest. In his official finding, Dr. Quyen ruled that "the death of the people was caused by an explosion which took place in mid-air," blowing off their heads and mutilating their bodies...

...In May 1963, Diem's younger brother, Ngo Dinh Can, who ruled Hue, thought from the very beginning that the Viet Cong had nothing to do with the explosions at the radio station. According to an investigation carried out by the Catholic newspaper, Hoa Binh, Ngo Dinh Can and his advisers were "convinced the explosions had to be the work of an American agent who wanted to make trouble for Diem." In 1970 Hoa Binh located such a man, a Captain Scott, who in later years became a U.S. military adviser in the Mekong Delta. Scott had come to Hue from Da Nang on May 7, 1963. He admitted he was the American agent responsible for the bombing at the radio station the next day. He said he used "an explosive that was still secret and known only to certain people at the Central Intelligence Agency, a charge no larger than a matchbox with a timing device."


Holes in the body, no metal.


JFK had two entrance wounds with no exits and no metal found in the body at the autopsy.

Coincidence?
Reply
#14
For Mr. DiEugenio, below is a link which highlights the role of Hammarskjold in trafficking in looted Nazi gold. Sweden may have been neutral but they had crucial decisions which they had to make and apparently they made many such decisions in favor of Germany and the Nazis. And Hammarskjold was apparently the top financial guy in Sweden from 1935 to 1945 and his brother was some kind of Social Minister at his same level. The whole Bank for International Settlements issue during World War II is a huge quandary since it facilitated the conduct of World War II FOR BOTH SIDES!!

https://books.google.com/books?id=tAoXNf...zi&f=false

The Bank for International Settlements: Evolution and Evaluation

By James Calvin Baker

I can't which book which I read that included this information about Hammarskjold since I have read dozens about Nazis. It was in one of my research books or sources and was largely the same story as in the above-cited book.

James Lateer
Reply
#15
Paul Rigby Wrote:
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Back in the late 80's/early 90's I had a Vietnamese girlfriend whose father had been an officer in Nhu's secret police.

She was Buddhist, said the Catholic vs. Buddhist tension was propagated by the CIA because Diem was in the middle of negotiating a peace deal with the North -- and kick the US out.

"Today's World Report: Truce Moves Reported In Viet Nam," New York World-Telegram & Sun, (Friday), 25 October 1963, p.6:*

"LONDON - The government of South Vietnam and Communist North Viet Nam are apparently making exploratory contacts that could lead to a truce, diplomatic sources said. There was no official confirmation…Diplomatic sources said the current moves were believed to be aiming at some sort of truce arrangement with possible wider ramifications."

Thanks for posting this, Paul.
Reply
#16
Mr Lateer,

That trade in iron ore is mentioned in Wikipedia. And Sweden also did deals with the Allies too.

But for you to jump from that to shades of Kurt Waldheim is simply weird.
Reply
#17
Quoted from The Three Barons at page 107

"On January 7, 1950, McCarthy met with three people at a dinner at the Colony restaurant in Washington, DC. The three were Charles Kraus, William A. Roberts (the attorney for investigative journalist Drew
Pearson) and Father Edmund A. Walsh, 63, founder of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service.
Drew Pearson, along with his partner, Jack Anderson, were journalists who "poked their nose" into the affairs of the U.S. Government, often behind the scenes. They did so to an extreme which has no parallel in post-2000 journalism. Father Walsh, also at the table, was founder of the Foreign Service School at Catholic Georgetown University. This university had achieved preeminence in Washington higher education, especially when it came to foreign policy. If any issues of national importance were discussed
over that dinner they would likely be foreign policy. This was a time of great international uncertainty and upheaval. Most historians date the beginning of McCarthy's anti-Communist crusade to that dinner in 1950."

This was considered by most historians as the seminal event for McCarthy's Anti-Communist Crusade. This analysis is also featured in the McCarthy biography The Life And Times Of Joe McCarthy by Thomas C. Reeves.

"seminal" def #3Seminal Holding the first place in a series of developed results or consequents; serving as a source, or first principle; giving rise to related ideas or results; germinal; radical; primary; original; as, seminal principles of generation; seminal virtue; a seminal discovery."The idea of God is, beyond all question or comparison, the one great seminal principle."

The analysis suggested by the eminent Mr. di Eugenio would claim that defining a single meeting between Ngo Dinh Diem, Francis Cardinal Spellman and JFK as the seminal event of the Vietnam War is "weird". To many readers, it might, admittedly, seem weird.

This is because (apparently) the seminal event should have (according to Mr. DiEugeno), involved such people as CIA guys Wesley Fishel, Peter White and Robert Amory or it should have been something much more elaborate like Operation Vulture, Dulles reneging on the Geneva Accords in 1956, Lansdale rigging the plebiscite for Diem, the Battle of Ap Bac and NSAMs, 263, 273, and 288 and Rolling Thunder,


According to the di Eugenio approach to analysis, the significance of the JFK-Spellman-Diem dinner was small because it was so miniscule in terms of (1) time spent, (2) money spent, (3) number of people involved, (4) immediate or short term disastrous results, etc. etc. etc. From this perspective, to elevate this tiny and quick event to the level of, say, the Tet Offensive is weird.

The Diem, JFK, Spellman meeting, (like the crucifiction of Christ), took only a couple of hours. I personally don't think that the seminal event is the same as the "most important event" or "the turning point" or "the most shattering event", etc. etc. etc.
Hitler's Beer Hall Peutsch was the seminal event of Nazi Germany. The most consequential event was the Battle of Stalingrad. These are two different concepts.

The perfect example can be found in The Road to Dallas by author David Kaiser. Kaiser happens to be an author cited above by Mr. Di Eugenio. In his book, Kaiser states that Oswald's visit to the apartment of Sylvia Odio is the most important evidence in the JFK assassination literature.

This sets up the perfect criticism of theories of authors like Mr. Kaiser. Since his book was published by Harvard University and his footnoting and textual scholarship is so outstanding, I was expecting something pretty awesome from The Road to Dallas. The question, to me, is "how can an author like Mr. Kaiser with his impeccable scholarship and his connection to Harvard be so wrong in his assessment of the crucial issues of his subject?" How could anyone view Oswald's visit to Sylvia Odio as ranking as the most important JFK evidence? That baffles me.

Cardinal Spellman was described by biographer John Cooney as "The American Pope: The Life and Times of Francis Cardinal Spellman". So you had the meeting between the American Pope, the future US President JFK and the future Dictator of South Vietnam Ngo Dinh Diem. You just can't put these three incredibly influential people on the same level or scoreboard as Wesley Fishel, Peter White and Robert Amory of the CIA. It's not what you know, but who you know.

All of these events (like Vietnam), to me, have to be looked at as acts of the world hierarchy. A schoolteacher who corners a group of young punk vandals at her school will first look to see who is the ringleader? And in the current FBI "spying on the Trump campaign", the most important question is was it done under the initiative of Obama, the Deep State or under the initiative of UK Intelligence? You have to look at the hierarchy and the dynamics of something like this.

There is no easy measurement like (1) which happened first? (2) which cost the most amount of money? (3) Which took the most amount of time and effort? (4) which generated the most amount of paper? (5) Who were the richest and most wealthy people involved? etc. etc.To get to the root cause or identify the "seminal event", it's an art and not a science.

And there's no "democracy of players" principle at work: i.e. Fishel, White and Amory of the CIA deserve equal credit to Spellman, JFK and Diem because Jefferson said "all men are created equal." That just doesn't work, in my opinion, though it may be idealistic on the part of some authors.

JFK researchers, (only in my opinion, not everyone's) tend to look at society and government more as a flat pancake (and less as a hierarchy with the ultimate villain invariably being at the top). In my opinion, the question of "who is the villain at the top?" is the proper question to be asked by historians. But that's just my own personal bias (and possibly too-suspicious) brain at work.

James Lateer
Reply
#18
For what it's worthy, I'll also throw in the results of my factor analysis for the most important factor (factor #1) in the 15 most diverse JFK books taken together: This underscores the importance of Vietnam in this mess:

[TABLE="width: 420"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Category[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Factor 1[/TD]
[TD]Short Name[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Assassination suspects are in italics (1), current world leaders in bold (2), others have number (3).[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Suspects represent 15 of 33[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Bissell, Richard[/TD]
[TD]BISSE[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.659[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Bloomfield, Major Louis[/TD]
[TD]BLOOMFD[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.765[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Bonanno, Joseph[/TD]
[TD]BONANO[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.849[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Cohn, Roy[/TD]
[TD]COHN[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.814[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]DeMenil, Jean [/TD]
[TD]DEMENIL[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.877[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Dornberber, Gen Walter[/TD]
[TD]DORNBERG[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.843[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Kellerman, Agent Roy[/TD]
[TD]KELLERMN[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.820[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Lansdale, Edward G[/TD]
[TD]LANSD[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.793[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Lemnitzer, Lyman[/TD]
[TD]LEMNI[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.894[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]McCloy, John J[/TD]
[TD]MCCLO[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.790[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Ragiorodsky, Paul[/TD]
[TD]RAGIOROD[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.701[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Russo, Perry[/TD]
[TD]RUSSO[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.794[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Shaw, Clay[/TD]
[TD]SHAWCLAY[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.691[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Walker, Gen Edwin [/TD]
[TD]WALKE[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.695[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]Willoughby, Gen Charles[/TD]
[TD]WILLOUGH[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.698[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]World Leaders represent 14 of 33[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]DeGaulle, Pres Charles[/TD]
[TD]DEGAU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.650[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Fulbright, J William[/TD]
[TD]FULBRIGH[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.790[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Galbraith, J Kenneth[/TD]
[TD]GALBR[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.791[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Humphrey, Hubert[/TD]
[TD]HUMPH[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.846[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Johnson, Lyndon B[/TD]
[TD]JOHNSLBJ[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.656[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Kennedy, Edward M[/TD]
[TD]KENNEED[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.716[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Kennedy, Jacki[/TD]
[TD]KENNEJQ[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.657[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Kennedy, Joseph P[/TD]
[TD]KENNEJP[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.804[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Kennedy, Robert F[/TD]
[TD]KENNERF[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.843[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Lodge, Henry Cabot[/TD]
[TD]LODGE[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.908[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]McNamara, Robert[/TD]
[TD]MCNAM[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.881[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]NgoDinhDiem[/TD]
[TD]NGODIDM[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.900[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]NgoDinhNhu[/TD]
[TD]NGODINU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.856[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD]Nixon, Richard[/TD]
[TD]NIXON[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.693[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]misc[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]3[/TD]
[TD] Carroll, Gen Joseph[/TD]
[TD]CARROLLJ[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.857[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]misc[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]4[/TD]
[TD]Challe, Maurice[/TD]
[TD]CHALLEMA[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.740[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]4[/TD]
[TD]Sheridan, Walter[/TD]
[TD]SHERI[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.739[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 420"]
[TR]
[TD]


[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Reply
#19
Quote:The question, to me, is "how can an author like Mr. Kaiser with his impeccable scholarship and his connection to Harvard be so wrong in his assessment of the crucial issues of his subject?" How could anyone view Oswald's visit to Sylvia Odio as ranking as the most important JFK evidence? That baffles me.

"Most important" is a relative term and is subject to opinion. However, if you combine the Odio visit with the MC story its clear that Oswald was being impersonated in either one or maybe both situations in a manner intended to frame him for the assassination. That this was happening before the event and was associated with a Cuban exile group in one instance (Odio) and elements of the intelligence community (MC) illustrates that a plot was in place and points out the most obvious suspects in the frame-up and the assassination itself.

I'd say that's pretty important evidence. Wouldn't you?
Reply
#20
When taken in conjunction, it has to be.

This is why the WC did all they could to discredit Odio.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Counterpunch, JFK and Vietnam Jim DiEugenio 0 471 04-05-2020, 09:37 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Vietnam Declassified: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon Jim DiEugenio 0 3,870 17-12-2018, 05:54 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  An interesting sidebar to President Johnson's Vietnam War Tom Bowden 5 6,040 17-10-2018, 12:07 PM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  Roger Hilsman on JFK vs LBJ on Vietnam Jim DiEugenio 7 17,178 26-08-2018, 11:34 AM
Last Post: Paul Rigby
  Edmund Gullion, JFK and the Shaping of a Foreign Policy in Vietnam Jim DiEugenio 1 5,285 14-05-2018, 06:00 PM
Last Post: Alan Ford
  Some details from LANSDALE reporting on Op MONGOOSE David Josephs 7 3,858 16-03-2018, 11:18 PM
Last Post: David Josephs
  PBS presents Burns Novick The Vietnam War Jim DiEugenio 22 15,118 16-10-2017, 02:15 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Help spread prof. Newman's jfk vietnam debate challenge re pbs ken burns koch funded vietnam doc Nathaniel Heidenheimer 0 1,576 23-08-2017, 10:16 PM
Last Post: Nathaniel Heidenheimer
  Vietnam Declassified: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon Jim DiEugenio 4 6,842 11-06-2017, 08:46 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  JFK (II): He was learning, so he wouldn't have sent combat forces to Vietnam Bernice Moore 0 1,571 19-07-2011, 06:00 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)