Our Kennedy.

[Bfgrn]

Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words - YouTube

A 'vacuous' woman wouldn't be capable of defining their relationship as "Victorian or Asiatic"

A "vacuous" woman would make statements like "Where do I get my opinions? From my husband of course!"

I'm sorry but that film piece paints Jackie Kennedy as "arm candy" without a brain in her pretty little head.

POLITICAL opinions.

 

[Oldstyle]

A 'vacuous' woman wouldn't be capable of defining their relationship as "Victorian or Asiatic"

A "vacuous" woman would make statements like "Where do I get my opinions? From my husband of course!"

I'm sorry but that film piece paints Jackie Kennedy as "arm candy" without a brain in her pretty little head.

POLITICAL opinions.

She's the wife of a politician...she's the First Lady...but she wouldn't be capable of having her OWN opinions about politics? That's laughable. The fact is...JFK liked his women pretty and vacuous. Is Jackie really that different than Marilyn Monroe? Neither one of them was going to be getting any offers of membership in MENSA any time soon.

 

[Oldstyle]

Kennedy DIDN'T live the to the end of 1963! He also didn't withdraw any troops in 1963! What YOU have is people who are heavily invested in the Kennedy "myth" putting forth a narrative of what they think he would have done if he wasn't killed...a narrative that is solely based on the plan Kennedy had drawn up before the fall of the Diem brothers and the realization that South Vietnam was in no way able to go it alone. Johnson continued the Kennedy agenda in Vietnam! That wasn't troop withdrawals...it was a steady increase in the number of troops being sent there.

You want the "cold hard facts"? The only President that withdrew troops from Vietnam was Richard Nixon.

Dishonest. You are telling us about you, not JFK.

These are not 'op-ed' pieces, they are official policy records.

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

Dishonest? In what way? All I've pointed out is that the "plan" you keep referring to was drawn up under faulty assurances that the war in South Vietnam was going great! Something which Kennedy very quickly discovered was not the case. What you would have us believe is that the same man who drew a line in the sand one year earlier with the Soviets over Cuban missiles...risking WWIII and nuclear conflict...was going to simply walk away from South Vietnam and let it be taken by the communists?

The vast majority of historians have looked at what was happening prior to Kennedy's death and come to the conclusion that he had already turned away from a withdrawal from South Vietnam when he backed the coup that removed Diem from power.

 

[Bfgrn]

Kennedy DIDN'T live the to the end of 1963! He also didn't withdraw any troops in 1963! What YOU have is people who are heavily invested in the Kennedy "myth" putting forth a narrative of what they think he would have done if he wasn't killed...a narrative that is solely based on the plan Kennedy had drawn up before the fall of the Diem brothers and the realization that South Vietnam was in no way able to go it alone. Johnson continued the Kennedy agenda in Vietnam! That wasn't troop withdrawals...it was a steady increase in the number of troops being sent there.

You want the "cold hard facts"? The only President that withdrew troops from Vietnam was Richard Nixon.

Dishonest. You are telling us about you, not JFK.

These are not 'op-ed' pieces, they are official policy records.

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

Dishonest? In what way? All I've pointed out is that the "plan" you keep referring to was drawn up under faulty assurances that the war in South Vietnam was going great! Something which Kennedy very quickly discovered was not the case. What you would have us believe is that the same man who drew a line in the sand one year earlier with the Soviets over Cuban missiles...risking WWIII and nuclear conflict...was going to simply walk away from South Vietnam and let it be taken by the communists?

The vast majority of historians have looked at what was happening prior to Kennedy's death and come to the conclusion that he had already turned away from a withdrawal from South Vietnam when he backed the coup that removed Diem from power.

The very definition of vacuous is to blame a President for policy change, TWO DAYS AFTER HE DIED. Policy does not operate on emotions, or on a whim. It is executive ORDERS. It can only be changes by ORDERS from a president. Kennedy gave no orders to change the policy of withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965...win OR LOSE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

"After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.'

On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.

JFK?s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation

 

[Oldstyle]

Dishonest. You are telling us about you, not JFK.

These are not 'op-ed' pieces, they are official policy records.

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

Dishonest? In what way? All I've pointed out is that the "plan" you keep referring to was drawn up under faulty assurances that the war in South Vietnam was going great! Something which Kennedy very quickly discovered was not the case. What you would have us believe is that the same man who drew a line in the sand one year earlier with the Soviets over Cuban missiles...risking WWIII and nuclear conflict...was going to simply walk away from South Vietnam and let it be taken by the communists?

The vast majority of historians have looked at what was happening prior to Kennedy's death and come to the conclusion that he had already turned away from a withdrawal from South Vietnam when he backed the coup that removed Diem from power.

The very definition of vacuous is to blame a President for policy change, TWO DAYS AFTER HE DIED. Policy does not operate on emotions, or on a whim. It is executive ORDERS. It can only be changes by ORDERS from a president. Kennedy gave no orders to change the policy of withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965...win OR LOSE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

"After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.'

On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.

JFK?s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation

And once again your "proof" that JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 troops is Galbraith...a man who over the years has been one of the foremost authors of the Kennedy "myth"? Someone who views all things Kennedy through rose colored glasses?

Why even waste our time with this nonsense?

Set in concrete? How exactly? You mean to say if things changed...like if it was discovered that the reports about how well the war were going turned out to be wildly optimistic that Kennedy couldn't change his mind and not only not withdraw a thousand but send more? Would that be violating some sort of "Presidential law" that I'm not aware of? That Presidents aren't allowed to change their minds when it turns out that they were given bogus information?

It's not like Kennedy was known for his resolve on decisions, Bfgrn! The reason the Bay of Pigs was such a disaster was that Kennedy changed his mind at the last second and didn't provide the air support he originally agreed to. Funny how THAT guy...suddenly morphs into John "My Mind Is Made Up!" Kennedy on a decision to pull out troops. But that's what happens when you look at things with an agenda in mind. For folks like Galbraith the agenda is to make JFK the guy who was going to pull our troops out...even though Kennedy is REALLY the guy who escalated troop levels from under a thousand when he took office to sixteen thousand when he was killed!

 

[Bfgrn]

Dishonest? In what way? All I've pointed out is that the "plan" you keep referring to was drawn up under faulty assurances that the war in South Vietnam was going great! Something which Kennedy very quickly discovered was not the case. What you would have us believe is that the same man who drew a line in the sand one year earlier with the Soviets over Cuban missiles...risking WWIII and nuclear conflict...was going to simply walk away from South Vietnam and let it be taken by the communists?

The vast majority of historians have looked at what was happening prior to Kennedy's death and come to the conclusion that he had already turned away from a withdrawal from South Vietnam when he backed the coup that removed Diem from power.

The very definition of vacuous is to blame a President for policy change, TWO DAYS AFTER HE DIED. Policy does not operate on emotions, or on a whim. It is executive ORDERS. It can only be changes by ORDERS from a president. Kennedy gave no orders to change the policy of withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965...win OR LOSE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

"After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.'

On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.

JFK?s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation

And once again your "proof" that JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 troops is Galbraith...a man who over the years has been one of the foremost authors of the Kennedy "myth"? Someone who views all things Kennedy through rose colored glasses?

Why even waste our time with this nonsense?

Set in concrete? How exactly? You mean to say if things changed...like if it was discovered that the reports about how well the war were going turned out to be wildly optimistic that Kennedy couldn't change his mind and not only not withdraw a thousand but send more? Would that be violating some sort of "Presidential law" that I'm not aware of? That Presidents aren't allowed to change their minds when it turns out that they were given bogus information?

It's not like Kennedy was known for his resolve on decisions, Bfgrn! The reason the Bay of Pigs was such a disaster was that Kennedy changed his mind at the last second and didn't provide the air support he originally agreed to. Funny how THAT guy...suddenly morphs into John "My Mind Is Made Up!" Kennedy on a decision to pull out troops. But that's what happens when you look at things with an agenda in mind. For folks like Galbraith the agenda is to make JFK the guy who was going to pull our troops out...even though Kennedy is REALLY the guy who escalated troop levels from under a thousand when he took office to sixteen thousand when he was killed!

The proof is in the official documents of policy.

On October 2, 1963, as we have previously seen, President Kennedy made clear his determination to implement those plans—to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end of 1965. There followed, on October 4, a memorandum titled “South Vietnam Actions” from General Maxwell Taylor to his fellow Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:

b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all essential functions visualized to be required for the projected operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965. All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. (Emphasis added.)

“All planning” is an unconditional phrase. There is no contingency here, or elsewhere in this memorandum. The next paragraph reads:

c. Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963 per your DTG 212201Z July, and as approved for planning by JCS DTG 062042Z September. Previous guidance on the public affairs annex is altered to the extent that the action will now be treated in low key, as the initial increment of U.S. forces whose presence is no longer required because (a) Vietnamese forces have been trained to assume the function involved; or (b) the function for which they came to Vietnam has been completed. (Emphasis added.)

This resolves the question of how the initial withdrawal was to be carried out. It was not to be a noisy or cosmetic affair, designed to please either U.S. opinion or to change policies in Saigon. It was rather to be a low-key, matter-of-fact beginning to a process that would play out over the following two years. The final paragraph of Taylor’s memorandum underlines this point by directing that “specific checkpoints will be established now against which progress can be evaluated on a quarterly basis.” There is much more in the JCS documents to show that Kennedy was well aware of the evidence that South Vietnam was, in fact, losing the war. But it hardly matters. The withdrawal decided on was unconditional, and did not depend on military progress or lack of it.

The Escalation at Kennedy’s Death

Four days after Kennedy was killed, NSAM 273 incorporated the new president’s directives into policy. It made clear that the objectives of Johnson’s policy remained the same as Kennedy’s: “to assist the people and government of South Vietnam to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy” through training support and without the application of overt U.S. military force. But Johnson had also approved intensified planning for covert action against North Vietnam by CIA-supported South Vietnamese forces.

With this, McNamara confirms one of Newman’s central claims: NSAM 273 changed policy. Yes, the “central objectives” remained the same: a Vietnamese war with no “overt U.S. military force.” But covert force is still “U.S. military force.” And that was introduced or at least first approved, as McNamara writes, by NSAM 273 within four days of Kennedy’s assassination.Moreover, McNamara effectively supports Newman on the meaning of NSAM 273’s seventh paragraph, which was inserted in the draft (as we have seen) sometime between November 21 and 26—after the Honolulu meeting had adjourned and probably after Kennedy died.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Had Kennedy lived, the withdrawal plan would have remained policy, and the numbers of US troops in Vietnam would have declined, unless and until policy changed. Might Kennedy still have “reversed the decision” at some point? Of course he might have. But there is no evidence that he intended to do so"

The problem with Galbraith's assertion is that the "plan" he's talking about is based on the faulty assumption that the South Vietnamese were in fact trained and capable of taking over the fight against the North. After that plan was formulated, Kennedy subsequently learned that the South Vietnamese were not NEARLY as capable as he had been led to believe. So at THAT point, Galbraith wants us to assume that Kennedy would have gone ahead with the withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam anyways even if that meant the collapse of the country and a takeover by the communists...something which goes counter to everything that Kennedy had done thus far as President. And why does Galbraith assume that? Because "policy" has been locked in supposedly? This from a President who at the eleventh hour totally changed the "policy" to provide air cover for the invasion of Cuba because he didn't like how it would look "politically"? Suddenly THAT President is going to go against an overwhelming national sentiment that we shouldn't allow South Vietnam to fall to the communists and order a complete withdrawal even if the South Vietnamese aren't ready to fight on by themselves?

Galbraith ignores Kennedy's history and personality because he WISHES that Kennedy had the legacy of being the President that withdrew from Vietnam. The fact of the matter however is that Kennedy's "legacy" in Vietnam is that he is one of the Presidents who escalated that conflict.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Had Kennedy lived, the withdrawal plan would have remained policy, and the numbers of US troops in Vietnam would have declined, unless and until policy changed. Might Kennedy still have “reversed the decision” at some point? Of course he might have. But there is no evidence that he intended to do so"

The problem with Galbraith's assertion is that the "plan" he's talking about is based on the faulty assumption that the South Vietnamese were in fact trained and capable of taking over the fight against the North. After that plan was formulated, Kennedy subsequently learned that the South Vietnamese were not NEARLY as capable as he had been led to believe. So at THAT point, Galbraith wants us to assume that Kennedy would have gone ahead with the withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam anyways even if that meant the collapse of the country and a takeover by the communists...something which goes counter to everything that Kennedy had done thus far as President. And why does Galbraith assume that? Because "policy" has been locked in supposedly? This from a President who at the eleventh hour totally changed the "policy" to provide air cover for the invasion of Cuba because he didn't like how it would look "politically"? Suddenly THAT President is going to go against an overwhelming national sentiment that we shouldn't allow South Vietnam to fall to the communists and order a complete withdrawal even if the South Vietnamese aren't ready to fight on by themselves?

Galbraith ignores Kennedy's history and personality because he WISHES that Kennedy had the legacy of being the President that withdrew from Vietnam. The fact of the matter however is that Kennedy's "legacy" in Vietnam is that he is one of the Presidents who escalated that conflict.

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
President


You have the right to your opinion. But the fact remains that the withdrawal plan was the official US policy on the day Kennedy died.

You are the one who "ignores Kennedy's history and personality" You even provide proof that contradicts your conclusions. During the Bay of Pigs Kennedy chose LESS military action, not more. During the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy chose minimal military action, not more. He chose a blockade over an invasion and used negotiations to reach a peaceful solution. THAT was "Kennedy's history and personality". Nothing he did during his presidency would support a conclusion that he would have followed the path LBJ CHOSE. And you criticize Galbraith for being fair and reasonable. Pretty funny. We will never know how Vietnam would have played out had Kennedy lived. But I am confident he wouldn't have followed the course LBJ chose.

Kennedy was well aware the military was lying and providing a rosy picture in Vietnam. He used that against the military brass as MORE reason to withdraw.

What would Kennedy have done? Here is a window into the future had he lived.

President Kennedy's long-time friend, Senator Mike Mansfield, submitted a dismal report on Vietnam . After Mansfield left a tense, two-hour meeting with the president at his Palm Beach retreat in Florida, Kennedy moaned to aide Kenneth P. O'Donnell, “I got angry with Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself because I found myself agreeing with him.” The perceived progress in the war took another jolt in January 1963 when two of the president's closest advisers, Roger Hilsman and Michael Forrestal, returned from Saigon to confirm many of Mansfield 's pessimistic observations. In the meantime, the Vietcong defeated a huge ARVN and Civil Guard contingent at Ap Bac in the Mekong Delta, just thirty-five miles southwest of Saigon . “More or less beginning then,” Forrestal later recalled, Kennedy “began to get worried” about Vietnam .

President Kennedy feared that an immediate withdrawal would cause another witch hunt similar to that following China 's conversion to communism in 1949. In the Oval Office, he admitted to Mansfield that his call for a total military withdrawal was correct. “But I can't do it until 1965—after I'm reelected.” Otherwise, there would be a “wild conservative outcry” in the election campaign that would have severe political repercussions. After Mansfield left the room, Kennedy confided his intentions to O'Donnell. “In 1965, I'll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I'll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don't care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam , we would have another Joe McCarthy Red Scare in our hands, but I can do it after I'm reelected. So we had better make damned sure I am reelected.”
- See more at: History News Network | JFK Wanted Out of Vietnam

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Oldstyle]

Nothing would indicate that Kennedy would escalate the war like Johnson did? Did you REALLY just try and make that point?

Under Kennedy we went from Ike's 900 "advisers" to over 16,000 "advisers" and YOU don't think constitutes an escalation? Now THAT is some funny shit...

 

[Oldstyle]

And you keep on quoting from the same slanted article written by an author that worships at the "altar" of JFK, Bfgrn. I'm not impressed by it. He's taken a "plan" that was put forth to start a very small withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam in response to reports that the war was going so well that it was now simply a matter of the South Vietnamese "mopping up" and stated that plan was "policy"...policy that was unchangeable.

Once again...John F. Kennedy didn't withdraw ANY troops from Vietnam! Neither did Johnson. They BOTH escalated that conflict. Love him or loath him...the President who drew down troop levels is Richard Nixon. Every year that he was in office the number of American troops in Vietnam decreased by a large amount. THAT wasn't a "plan" to withdraw troops...that was actually DOING IT!

 

[Oldstyle]

Vietnam War Allied Troop Levels 1960-73

 

[Bfgrn]

And you keep on quoting from the same slanted article written by an author that worships at the "altar" of JFK, Bfgrn. I'm not impressed by it. He's taken a "plan" that was put forth to start a very small withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam in response to reports that the war was going so well that it was now simply a matter of the South Vietnamese "mopping up" and stated that plan was "policy"...policy that was unchangeable.

Once again...John F. Kennedy didn't withdraw ANY troops from Vietnam! Neither did Johnson. They BOTH escalated that conflict. Love him or loath him...the President who drew down troop levels is Richard Nixon. Every year that he was in office the number of American troops in Vietnam decreased by a large amount. THAT wasn't a "plan" to withdraw troops...that was actually DOING IT!

When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?

I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous.

to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?

 

[Geaux4it]

JFK was closer to today's libertarians than to either the liberals or the conservatives.

He was for smaller government, strong military, and he cut taxes.

Kennedy would not be a democrat today.

Indeed- He believed raising taxes stunts job growth so he promoted tax cuts

-Geaux

[youtube]aEdXrfIMdiU[/youtube]

 

[Bfgrn]

 

[Oldstyle]

All this chart "proves" is that Johnson increased the number of troops in Vietnam to an even greater extent than Kennedy and that Nixon was the one who brought them home. It does NOTHING to prove that Kennedy didn't escalate the war...only that he didn't escalate it as much as Johnson did!

The "facts" are that Kennedy led the way for Johnson's escalation not only in the increased number of "advisers" that he sent to South Vietnam but more importantly how he used them in a TOTALLY different way than Eisenhower did! Kennedy had American pilots flying hundreds of combat missions and he also is the one who introduced both the "defoliation" campaign, the wide spread use of napalm and the forced relocation of civilians into the conflict. Kennedy DID what Johnson would do...only on a smaller scale.

 

[Oldstyle]

And you keep on quoting from the same slanted article written by an author that worships at the "altar" of JFK, Bfgrn. I'm not impressed by it. He's taken a "plan" that was put forth to start a very small withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam in response to reports that the war was going so well that it was now simply a matter of the South Vietnamese "mopping up" and stated that plan was "policy"...policy that was unchangeable.

Once again...John F. Kennedy didn't withdraw ANY troops from Vietnam! Neither did Johnson. They BOTH escalated that conflict. Love him or loath him...the President who drew down troop levels is Richard Nixon. Every year that he was in office the number of American troops in Vietnam decreased by a large amount. THAT wasn't a "plan" to withdraw troops...that was actually DOING IT!

When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?

I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous.

to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?

To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part. The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.

It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.

And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan". So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses? That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.

 

[Bfgrn]

And you keep on quoting from the same slanted article written by an author that worships at the "altar" of JFK, Bfgrn. I'm not impressed by it. He's taken a "plan" that was put forth to start a very small withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam in response to reports that the war was going so well that it was now simply a matter of the South Vietnamese "mopping up" and stated that plan was "policy"...policy that was unchangeable.

Once again...John F. Kennedy didn't withdraw ANY troops from Vietnam! Neither did Johnson. They BOTH escalated that conflict. Love him or loath him...the President who drew down troop levels is Richard Nixon. Every year that he was in office the number of American troops in Vietnam decreased by a large amount. THAT wasn't a "plan" to withdraw troops...that was actually DOING IT!

When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?

I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous.

to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?

To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part. The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.

It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.

And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan". So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses? That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.

Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.

 

[Oldstyle]

When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?

I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous.

to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?

To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part. The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.

It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.

And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan". So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses? That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.

Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.

"Policy" was whatever John F. Kennedy DECIDED it was going to be. You harbor some strange concept that he was locked into a certain policy and I don't have the faintest idea how you've arrived at that conclusion. He's the President and Commander in Chief. It's totally his call.

As an example of what I'm talking about...the policy" for the Bay of Pigs invasion was air support consisting of 16 bombers to take out Cuba's air force. That was the way the "plan" was drawn up. Only at the last moment, Kennedy decided that it would be better to send 8 bombers instead of 16. Kindly explain why Kennedy is somehow "locked into" the policy to withdraw troops in 1963 but in 1960 he was free to change policy at the very last moment? It's obvious that Kennedy was NOT locked into that plan to withdraw a thousand troops and with a worsening situation in South Vietnam he very well would have sent MORE advisers rather than less.

 

[Bfgrn]

To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part. The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.

It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.

And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan". So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses? That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.

Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.

"Policy" was whatever John F. Kennedy DECIDED it was going to be. You harbor some strange concept that he was locked into a certain policy and I don't have the faintest idea how you've arrived at that conclusion. He's the President and Commander in Chief. It's totally his call.

As an example of what I'm talking about...the policy" for the Bay of Pigs invasion was air support consisting of 16 bombers to take out Cuba's air force. That was the way the "plan" was drawn up. Only at the last moment, Kennedy decided that it would be better to send 8 bombers instead of 16. Kindly explain why Kennedy is somehow "locked into" the policy to withdraw troops in 1963 but in 1960 he was free to change policy at the very last moment? It's obvious that Kennedy was NOT locked into that plan to withdraw a thousand troops and with a worsening situation in South Vietnam he very well would have sent MORE advisers rather than less.

When did Kennedy change the policy? Because 2 days before he died the plan to withdraw was still in place.

You really are showing that you are not reading a thing I have posted...

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth is...JFK escalated that conflict rather dramatically. Granted, not as much as Johnson but certainly a lot more than Eisenhower.

"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

That was John Kennedy on the day he was sworn in. You would have us believe that in two short years he essentially quit on South Vietnam? Was willing to simply hand it over to the communists? With all due respect, my liberal friend? You and your ilk are attempting to CREATE a Kennedy that never existed.