Halberstam's Vietnam Cover up book Exposed: Part 2

[Jim DiEugenio]

http://www.ctka.net/2011/Halberstam_pt2.html

This deals with the LBJ years. Just as bad as Halberstam on the JFK years.

Its a bad book today. Which means it was bad back then.

Not just obsolete, but misleading. And I think the misleading was deliberate.

[Trowbridge H. Ford]

In Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Peter Dale Scott tried to make out that LBJ was responsible for the shift in American policy regarding the Vietnam War after the Dallas assassination, thanks to what "the boys in the woodwork", apparently led by General Lionel McGarr and Colonel Howard Burris, advised President Diem in May 1961 from LBJ about accepting American combat troops for training purposes in South Vietnam - what John Newman had discused in his JFK and Vietnam. (p. 30ff.) Then there was mention of what was agreed to at the Honolulu conference two days before the JFK assassination which the Vice President did not attend.

LBJ is clearly being made the fallguy for what other personnel, particularly in American military intelligence, were plotting. At least Scott pretty much undercut his whole case by citing what Newman had repeated from Kenny O'Donnell's book where LBJ said to the war-mongering Joint Chiefs a month after the Dallas assassination: "Just get me elected, and then you can have your war." (Quoted from p. 32)

Now DiEugenio is reviving the case against LBJ, claiming that it is all in David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest if you just read between the lines, and make up your own references. Of course, the Vice President was the last person that David had in mind when he wrote the book, as I well know from my acquaintance with him over the years. His mother and the mother of my wife were the best of friends.

What DiEugenio should be asking first is why Halberstam never discussed the assassination of JFK, not even in situations and dinners where he and I were present. He certainly heard my claims about Nixon-Connally, Helms, Harvey, Haig, the Joint Chiefs, et al. being behind it, but he never made an attempt to correct or agree with me. He didn't want to hear anything about it.

Why? Because he knew that JFK had taken the hit in Dallas so that Castro could be eliminated too as its fallguy, thanks to more plotting by the guys in the woodwork, but with the wounding of Connally - most likely accidental because of the failure of Richard Cain to test fire the rifle so that it shot straight in Dealey Plaza - the showdown with Havana was no longer possible, making Vietnam again the battleground. This left David with no story to tell, and LBJ with a terrible mess to clean up.

Little wonder that he quit after he got elected in 1964 when the Joint Chiefs et al. arranged their war at his expense. He just didn't want the terrible job anymore.

[Jim DiEugenio]

More nonsense from Ford.

It makes you wonder if the guy reads anything.

Halberstam does not mention either NSAM 263 or NSAM 273 in his book. Which are crucial to understanding how VIetnam policy changed when LBJ came to power.

Nor does Halberstam describe the first meeting that LBJ had on Vietnam on 11/24.

Halberstam also never mentions the May 1963 Sec Def meeting in Hawaii where McNamara began to supervise Kennedy's withdrawal plan. Nor does he say that the whole trip report for the Taylor/McNamara fall 1963 Saigon visit was supervised by JFK. As a way of announcing NSAM 263.

These are all crucial in understanding just how the order of battle for Vietnam originated and how NSAM 288 came about. Because they did not exist under Kennedy. And never would have.

To say that Halberstam should have mentioned some relationship between Kennedy's death and Vietnam policy is to wish for a fantasy. Halberstam, a pure MSM guy, would never have touched that one in a millenium.

But if he had included all the above info, and other stuff I mentioned, the reader could have gotten that message implicitly.

Halberstam did not. The question then becomes, why? It is very hard to believe he missed it, because some of it is in the Pentagon Papers. Which he says he read. And if he had interviewed people like Mansfield, O'Donnell and Powers, or even Max Taylor, they would have told him that Kennedy was not going to introduce combat troops.

But Halberstam does not even list his interviews, let alone source them. Or did Ford miss Part 1?

[Lauren Johnson]

Why? Because he knew that JFK had taken the hit in Dallas so that Castro could be eliminated too as its fallguy, thanks to more plotting by the guys in the woodwork, but with the wounding of Connally - most likely accidental because of the failure of Richard Cain to test fire the rifle so that it shot straight in Dealey Plaza - the showdown with Havana was no longer possible, making Vietnam again the battleground. This left David with no story to tell, and LBJ with a terrible mess to clean up.

THF: Referencing the above bold print, does the pronoun "he" refer to Halberstam or LBJ? And why would the murder of JFK eliminate Castro as the fallguy?

It appears the "he" refers to Halberstam, which would imply that you agree in part with Eugenio. Halberstam knew but ignored that the boys in the woodwork killed JFK.

[Trowbridge H. Ford]

The "he" does refer to Halberstam, and why Castro was eliminated by the Dallas assassination was because of the wounding, accidental or deliberate, of Connally.

He survived, and theatened to go after those who had apparently betrayed him. The Governor was willing to be in the vehicle along with Nellie and Jackie where the assassination took place in order to give himself an alibi, but was not willing to die silently when Richard Cain - you remember the guy who was gunned down in Rose's Restaurant in Chicago when Watergate was becoming completely out of control, and his assassin was looking for "the package" aka the Manlicker-Carcano rifle which was not test fired in preparation for the assassination.

As for how any of this fits into Jim D.'S claims, I shall look into further, and provide an answer later.

My basic view about Halberstam's book is that he was so disgusted in researching it that he just wanted to wash his hands of the whole mess when writing it. Certainly don't think that Halberstam intended to scapegoat LBJ in the conspiracy which assassinated JFK or the stoking up of the war in Vietnam, many of the details of which he was not aware of.

[Albert Doyle]

Whatever Johnson's exact role Halberstam is obviously carrying on the American tradition of reading a favorable history back to the American people that they want to hear. The lacuna (incriminating donut hole) is clearly Halberstam's conscious knowledge that too much truthful detailing of the real Kennedy history over Viet Nam will make too clear its connection to his assassination. This is all important because the way the machinery of our democracy is designed is that it relies on truthful input to function properly.

[Lauren Johnson]

The "he" does refer to Halberstam, and why Castro was eliminated by the Dallas assassination was because of the wounding, accidental or deliberate, of Connally.

OK, I get it.

The Governor was willing to be in the vehicle along with Nellie and Jackie where the assassination took place in order to give himself an alibi, but was not willing to die silently when Richard Cain - you remember the guy who was gunned down in Rose's Restaurant in Chicago when Watergate was becoming completely out of control, and his assassin was looking for "the package" aka the Manlicker-Carcano rifle which was not test fired in preparation for the assassination.

That is one heckofa run-on sentence.

As for how any of this fits into Jim D.'S claims, I shall look into further, and provide an answer later.

My suggestion is that you are tacitly admitting that Halberstam knew more than what he wrote--a lot more. But he didn't want to write it. Therefore, his book is indeed guilty of being what Jim says it is: disinformation. At least, broadly, you agree with him.

My basic view about Halberstam's book is that he was so disgusted in researching it that he just wanted to wash his hands of the whole mess when writing it. Certainly don't think that Halberstam intended to scapegoat LBJ in the conspiracy which assassinated JFK or the stoking up of the war in Vietnam, many of the details of which he was not aware of.

Once again, you are assigning motive for DH's disinformation. It isn't the same as Jim D's, but at least I find some agreement between you two. You both are accusing him in some fashion of the same poor journalistic practice: dishonesty.

BTW, I am greatly appreciative of Jim's work. Also, I have read JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass about three times now front to back. It would take a lot to persuade me to reject his arguments.

[Trowbridge H. Ford]

Sorry about the run-on sentence, Lauren Johnson, that you have taken exception to, though its meaning is quite clear about the Nixon-Connally leadership in the JFK conspiracy assassination.

Still haven't had time to check if there is any real agreement between what DiEugenio and I have written about Halberstam's book except that we both say that it was a bad one. There is a great difference, though, in DiEugenio claiming that it was because he knew that LBJ was behind the US military build-up in Vietnam, implying that this made him the leader behind the JFK killing, and my claiming that it was simply fallout from the Dallas murder which he never wanted to discuss, much less write about.

BTW, I have the gravest complaints about DiEugenio's work about me and Ed Tatro - what he has never apologized for - though I have made the case in the blog - much less corrected in his head-hunting efforts:

From the January-February, 1996 issue (Vol. 3 No. 2)
From the Chairman's Desk

This special issue is a New Year's gift to our readers. We felt that the release of Oliver Stone's new film Nixon would serve as a good point to demonstrate to the other side a prime reason why the Kennedy case won't disappear. That is, of course, because it is the beginning link in a long chain of contemporary scandals that plagues us to this day. We have tried our best to show those links in this special, lengthened issue.
In our cover story, we talk about the film and some of the attacks on it, especially those by Dick Helms, and "liberal" columnist Chris Matthews. Lisa Pease examines a continuing controversy in this case, the backyard photos, from a different angle and shows why Lyndal Shaneyfelt should not be trusted. Lisa also examines the case that made Nixon a national figure, his accusations against Alger Hiss. We also take a look at the two experts from the Shaw trial from a historical perspective. We take a deep look at the Washington Post and its reporter Bob Woodward and explain why we think they got the Watergate story wrong. Lisa also explains why Hughes was probably the reason behind the seemingly senseless break-in. In our centerfold section we examine six characters and their roles in both the JFK case and Watergate, the veiled question being: Can it just be a coincidence? To show how deep the connections are in the two cases, we present new evidence to bring suspicion on the work of John Lattimer. In what we think is our most valuable contribution for the future, we recommend the ten best books on both Watergate and Nixon.
We would like to add here a couple of more points on Richard Nixon and Watergate. Much has been made about Nixon's jealousy of the Kennedys, which is a fact. But after the anti-Nixon hysteria of Watergate subsided, it became easier to see that a couple of the excesses of those Watergate years-the forged cables about Diem, Hunt's trip to Cape Cod post-Chappaquiddick-were foisted on Charles Colson by his false friends Hunt and CIA asset Bob Bennett. In fact the Ervin Committee found that some of the money for the Plumbers escapades came indirectly from the CIA and that Bennett may have been involved in this funding also.
How bad did things get in those days? When the impeachment process was in gear in 1974, a college professor named Trowbridge Ford, with help from journalist David Truby surfaced a memo saying that Nixon had helped Jack Ruby get out of a jam with the HUAC. Paul Hoch ably revealed this document to be a forgery. But as Ed Tatro said, its real significance was that it showed someone was out to get Nixon and both Ford and Truby had intelligence connections.
Near the end of Stone's film, Nixon turns toward a painting of JFK and says, "People look at you and see what they want to be. They look at me and see what they are." If we are to be taken seriously, it means two things. We have to show why the case is relevant today, and we have to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And if that means defending people we don't like, so be it. If it helps return democracy to America, we can call a temporary truce with Dick Nixon.

All materials within Copyright © 2000 to CTKA. Do not republish or copy this material in any form, electronic or otherwise, without written permission from CTKA.

Home | All Articles | Action Alerts | About CTKA

[Jim DiEugenio]

Yes, it would be nice to be listened to. Especially when one writes things worth writing and reading.

Please show me where I have ever advocated an LBJ led conspiracy? Please show me where in these two essays I say that.

All I was doing was analyzing the contents of an overrated and inflated book that had been venerated for way too long. And exposing it as not just obsolete, but misleading. And I believe deliberately so.

I also fail to see how the accidental wounding of JBC, in and of itself, could eliminate Castro. I mean it sure did not for Gus Russo.

Is Ford saying what I think he is saying? That Nixon and Connally were the leaders of the plot?

If so, then this groups him with the likes of Kangas and Hankey. And I was therefore right about him from the start.

[Trowbridge H. Ford]

He is still indicating that he was right in claiming that I deliberately and falsely - thanks to what he had learned from Jim Marrs' Crossfire about my work through talking to me many times during the early 1980s - claimed that the FBI memo, connecting Nixon to Jack Ruby, was real after examining masses of such official documents when, in fact, I knew it was a fake. This would be a deliberate attempt to malaciously demean the former President, and would constitute a criminal offense as long as Nixon was still alive.

I have never talked to Jim Marrs, a former Board member of DiEugenio's Probe magazine, never studied such FBI memos, and never had any serious thoughts that the Nixon-Ruby one was geniune.

The false memo was contrary to my research into how the former Congressman on HUAC came up with how to deal with former communists in the Nixon-Mundt bill - get all of them to do what Chiago's Jack Rubenstein had done when threatened by his former past.

Rubenstein changed his name, moved to Dallas, and started a new life as as associate of crime boss, Sam Giancana.

In short, there is a vast difference between basic research, and deliberately trying to destroy an important politician maliciiously - what you fail to see, and apologize for.

The wounding of Connally certainly took the pressure off Castro's alleged involvement, as the Governor, when he realized that he would recover from his wounds, indicated that he would get those whoe had apparently betrayed him in any real investigation - what forced LBJ to get Chief Justice Warren involved in the massive coverup of the Dallas assassination.

As for your claims about Halberstam, LBJ et al., I am still going through The Best and The Brightest, and shall provide my answers to these claims in due course.