Kennedy vs the CIA

[Mitch Todd]

Outstanding answer. I do know bits of the history here but I could not tie it together. You are a real asset to the forum. I usually, do not believe in just gratuitous compliments but I've read some of your other answers as well. Very knowledgeable and insightful.

Wow. Thank you! I'm not used to getting compliments on discussion boards, which makes the surprise more welcome and the welcome more surprising.

[Barry Pollard]

Another one Mitch,
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d47
CIA report on Nhu.

When unclassified point 1. might read;
""so and so" is suprised that this is news to the US since it was reported months ago that Nhu has been up to no good"...

[Barry Pollard]

IF STONES analysis of the International Control Commision's report which both Kennedy and Johnson used to invade South Vietnam.
Ignore the bold text at the top and elsewhere and it's easier to follow.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u_hAXHDJEc4J:http://www.ifstone.org/weekly/IFStonesWeekly-1965mar08.pdf%2Bif+stone's+weekly+volume+xiii+no9&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&ct=clnk

Most foreign made weapons captured from the NFL were from the communist block, that amounts to about 2.5% of the total, where did the other 97.5% come from? The USA of course but just ignore the second part and you're okay.
Also ignore how the US itself violated the Geneva accords on numerous occasions and even stopped the ICC itself from fully checking their own stockpiles of arms and again, you're good to go.

This is what NSAM-111 is based on, a completely one sided view of that same report.
Ring any bells from the not too distant past?

In 1966 and before the commitee of the Vietnam Hearings, secetary Rusk says at least twice, "if they hadn't found the men and the weapons there would be no US troops in Vietnam", pretty simple right? So which men and weapons was he referring to?
Again, read the link above(and my instructions on how it flows), IF Stone demolished it. It's BS, the WMD of the sixties but still used to support both Kennedy and Johnson's attacks.

Over a 3year(1962-65) period, 97% of all weapons captured from the enemy were US made. How is it possible to turn figures like that against your foes? Simple, just don't print them anywhere. Instead have Rusk and his department issue an in depth look into everything that supports an intervention to protect this "peace loving" new republic.
He called it "A Threat to the Peace"  and it's a work of art, if you can deal with it calling South Vietnam a peaceful state you'll have no problem swallowing the lot.

[Mitch Todd]

Another one Mitch,
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d47
CIA report on Nhu.

When unclassified point 1. might read;
""so and so" is surprised that this is news to the US since it was reported months ago that Nhu has been up to no good"...

Of the hundreds, if not thousands, of telegrams and other messages sent between the beginning of the Bhuddist crisis and the November coup, you've found two they you think indicate that Nhu intended to throw the US out and make peace with Hanoi. There's another cable that was sent to Saigon in response to the May cable, which ups the total to three. Compare those three to all the cables involving the various forms of hand-wringing over the GVN's handling of the Bhuddist crisis over the same period.

BTW, if you take doc 47 at face value, it doesn't help you. If the US didn't know that the French ambassador was acting as an in-between for Nhu and Hanoi at the beginning of September, then they didn't know in mid-to-late August when the decision to back a coup was being firmed up. It couldn't have had any influence on the US decision in that case.

One telex further down the line:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d48

This is an account of what Nhu told an assemblage of ARVN generals on Aug 30, essentially spelling the end of the August coup plot.
In the message, one of the things Nhu tells the generals is, "I know without American aid we cannot exist. USG is only country willing support our country without any strings attached."









 



 

[Mitch Todd]

I have no clue where you get any of your information. Lodge lost the 1952 Senatorial election to JFK. Do you suppose he was happy about that? Numerous books have pointed out that Lodge was disregarding JFK's wishes.

This is not a surprise since they went counter to what the power structure wanted. Lodge was aligning himself with the side he expected to be around longer.

You also don't seem to have a clue where you get your own information. "Numerous books??" Which ones are those? Who wrote them? Can you not tell us? And this from a guy who is always complaining about other people don't back up their arguments with specific cites...

There's a great deal of information out there as to what was going on at the time. Pollard and I have been exchanging cites from the State Department FRUS correspondence archive. There are always the Pentagon Papers. Wikipedia can fill gaps quickly.  And there are a lot of great books about Vietnam (in whole or in part), both well-known (The Best and the Brightest and A Bright Shining Lie) and obscure but illuminating (the aforementioned biography of John Richardson by his son for instance). Google can send you in a lot of interesting directions you might not ever have thought of.

But you have your unnamable "numerous books," and the eternal nebulosity of their obscured opinion.

Again, John Kennedy himself appointed Lodge to the crucial Saigon ambassadorship at a critical moment. Do you really think JFK was stupid enough to post someone he couldn't trust to such a position?

[Mitch Todd]

I have read many books on JFK's presidency. I don't need to list them all. Anyone can research this themselves and see that Lodge was not following the orders that the WH was issuing in the months leading up to Diem's murder. The murder of the Diems is proof of this as the WH never approved this action.

I'm not asking you to list them all. Just one or two. After all, you are the king of demanding that others provide support for their contentions. It's simple courtesy to do the same when asked.

Waste all the words that you want, but the truth is the truth.

Over the years, I've noticed that there's a strong inverse correlation between how readily someone uses the word "truth" and their ability to recognize same.

Appointing someone as ambassador is a political thing. It doesn't mean that you like them.

Not merely political, but critical in this case. And it's not about liking someone, it's about trusting them. I ask again --you didn't actually answer the question last time-- do you really think JFK was stupid enough to post someone he couldn't trust to such a position?

Well, do you?

[Richard Rubio]

How about just one book? One little book?