November 22, 1963

[howard]

This was the 9/11 for people my age and older, yet too young to remember Pearl Harbor/ December 7, 1941. I was six; while I do not remember where and how I learned the news, I very clearly remember Oswald getting it two days later. This is the earliest clear memory that remains in my brain.

This was a big deal, and the 50th anniversary I assume will be a big deal next Friday. I don't know what the media has in mind, hopefully some good stuff buried in a pile of sentimental garbage and mythologized distorted history. Lucky for you, I will set it straight for ya.

PBS aired a four-hour doc on JFK's life this week. It was very well done, not overly hagiographic (is that a word?), presented the failures of his administration in a straightforward manner. Didn't dwell overly on his womanizing, nor on the other big characters in his life (Jackie, Dad, Bobby, Lyndon) while covering his relationships with these folks. Also didn't dwell on his assassination,, where many tellings of his story tend to overshadow the man himself. One of the best presentations of his life I have seen or read; Howard sez check it out.

Love him or hate him, a lot of really important shit happened in those few months. Bay of Pigs debacle, Berlin Wall built, Missile Crisis, first man in space and he wasn't American (Yuri Gagarin), the whole relationship with Khrushchev/USSR, combat troops sent to Vietnam, the go-ahead for the coup in SVN/murder of the head of state of an allied country, the decision (after much delay) to send National Guard soldiers to enforce civil rights in Alabama. A lot of shit crammed into a short period.

My bias--I was a huge Bobby fan, as he rose to run for president when I was old enough (11yo) to follow the news, be interested, and even get involved (I heard him speak at a rally a few days before he got it). JFK it was all retrospective, from history books, tv documentaries and stories from my parents and teachers. I wasn't a huge fan because of his reticence on civil rights, and I still think he was an OK president who had some major fuckups. But, a nuclear was was avoided in large part by his leadership (large parts also to Khrushchev's decisions, and to dumb luck). And you get credit for results in history, and he scored a huge win by not irradiating the entire planet with plutonium fallout.

You guys will see. 30-40 years from now when you're talking about what it was like during and after 9/11.

[sancarlos]

Great post, Howard.

But, as another Swampe oldtimer, I have to say, I've always felt that JFK is/was overrated by a press corp of fawning acolytes. To them, he was, after Eisenhauer, a breath of fresh air with a beautiful wife and an attractive young family. But, let's face the facts. His father was a lawless bootlegging self-promoter, who greatly advanced the career of his son. If Sam Giancana can be believed, the Illinois electoral votes (and thus, the election) were stolen by the Chicago mob, through the old man, for Kennedy. The Bay of Pigs debacle sits squarely on his shoulders. And, we averted nuclear war with Russia more due to luck than statesmanship. Kennedy greatly escalated the conflict in Vietnam, listening to his hawkish boy-wonder, Robert McNamara, and his domino theory. Most of the civil rights advances he gets credit for actually came under the administration of LBJ. I personally don't blame him much for this (it was the Mad Men era), but we now know he was a chronic philanderer to the point of being a satyr. I think if he had been less attractive and personally likeable, and especially if he hadn't died tragically, his legacy would have been viewed quite differently.

[govmentchedda]

A local group did a documentary about JFK's visit to Tampa (last stop before Dallas). Its been on PBS as well. They interviewed my Dad. He'd always talked about how he shook JFK's hand less than a week before he died. A few years ago a traveling exhibit revealed that there was a photo that included most of his family and JFK. Apparently the documentary has video of the visit and clearly shows my dad. It really made the old man happy to see the documentary. On a side note, the JFK visit was at the old minor league stadium which is where Ray Jay stands now (just south of the old sombrero).

[howard]

Al Lopez field, right?

SCK, I agree with nearly everything you said. A couple of nits (Illinois was won because of Mayor Daley and whatever deal Papa Joe made with him. Giancana was a blowhard, and most of what he said was BS. But, the fact remains, that election was stolen,and few folks give Nixon credit for having the grace to not dispute it. Of course, he swore he would never be cheated out of an election again, and in this respect I blame the Kennedys for Watergate. And, apparently Papa Joe was never a bootlegger, according to the latest biography which is very detailed and well researched. He had plenty of other lawlessness, though.)

Much of his success as a politician was due to his charisma as well as his looks. His personality and magnetism was evident long before he ran for office; we've seen plenty others with this same quality; Reagan, Bubba, to a lesser extent but undeniably Dubya, and most pronounced Obama. Kennedy had the good fortune to coincide with the emergence of television as a mass medium; a huge piece of the story of his administration is the glamor and love that cameras had for JFK and Jackie, at the perfect time in history.

You are absolutely correct on civil rights--he did little, he did it late, and he was moved by political considerations. Lyndon strongly counselled JFK to be on the side of right and of history, and as usual he paid Lyndon little mind.

The Bay of Pigs was a terrible decision. Could've been worse had he approved air support and/or sent in the Marines. A lot of lesser men and lesser presidents would not have stopped digging at that point. OTOH, he and Bobby did all the operation Mongoose bs against Castro and Cuba subsequently.

I really love considering and discussing 1960s history, being very close to much of it, and now with the perspective of a few decades to reconsider.

Oh, Oswald acted alone. There have been times when I was firmly convinced otherwise. But there is just no reasonable doubt anymore. There may be a faint shadow of a doubt, but it is pretty damn cloudy and tough to see any shadow.

A cool show I saw last night on The Military Channel (i think) reunited the secret service team that was on duty that day. These guys have suffered a bit over these 50 years, but about a half dozen are still alive.

[govmentchedda]

Yep, Al Lopez. Native son of Ybor and Tampa.

[rass]

The Jim Morrison of presidents.

Tangentially, I enjoyed Stone's The Doors more than Stone's JFK.

[devilfluff]

45 years later, I got hitched.

I've never understood the appeal of JFK. I lump him into the group of people who's relevance increased because of their death.

[Gunpowder]

Didn't LBJ escalate Vietnam? I had thought that JFK was planning on scaling back that mess.

[A_B]

Didn't LBJ escalate Vietnam? I had thought that JFK was planning on scaling back that mess.

LBJ did everything he could to not make a decision(My biggest takeaway from the Vietnam book I read was that LBJ was kind of a wuss). There was/is a school of thought that JFK had plans that differed from what we ended up doing, but that's conjecture based on discussions that were held while he was alive, which were basically identical to discussions that were had when LBJ took office. So it is easy to say that JFK woulda done this or that, but as far as I know JFK wasn't deadset on a plan.

[The Sybian]

So much to comment on here...

I think the late 50's and 1960s are the most fascinating period in US history. Love the politics, the scandals, the dirty hippies...Love it all. Even the music of the late 60s.

I think that Tampa visit is a lost gem in history that should be the focus of a movie. There were a couple of assassination plans for that trip that are rarely mentioned.

When I think of Bobby, there are 2 completely different Bobbies in my mind. Bobby the Attorney General and right hand of JFK seemed like a snot nosed bulldog and a total prick. Then Bobby on the campaign trail seemed like a great, lovable guy who was going to turn the US into a progressive liberal utopia, complete with happy little trees. I'm sure both are exaggerations of reality.

I completely agree that JFK's death and the manner in which he was killed lead to his deification and revered place in history. I think that has waned over time as his scandals were revealed and the great number of people living who weren't born are were too young to remember the media fellating of him and his legacy. I never got the whole Kennedy worship, the clan seem like drunken scumbags for the most part. Anyways, I think this phenomena is very similar to musicians that die at the top of their game. Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain, if they lived long enough, would have turned into drug addled messes and fallen into disgrace (maybe). There would be Behind the Music episodes detailing their fall from grace and their living in a van down by the river periods.

My understanding of LBJ and Vietnam is that he had a lot of connections and investments in the defense industry, and this lead him towards pushing forward in escalating hostilities. Kind of like Cheney helping Halliburton and its subsidiaries billions.


ETA: after visiting Dealey Plaza and studying the surrounding area, I believe the fatal shot came from a sewer grate in front of the grassy knoll. The sewer pipe was big enough to run through and came out a good distance away. I think with all the commotion, it would have been easy to slip out unnoticed. Oswald was probably set up in a visible spot to draw attention away from the real assassin, or to provide a second shot.

[howard]

…but as far as I know JFK wasn't deadset on a plan.

This is supported by a group of recently (last couple of years) discovered and analyzed tapes of oval office conversations, particularly between JFK an McNamara. The number of american soldiers on the ground was ~16,000 (officially advisers and non-combat, but Americans were routinely fighting and dying) and there was an intention and tentative plan to withdraw ~3000 of those if there were a politically opportune time or event, like a victory by the ARVN.

Lyndon did not immediately reverse any major policies or escalate right away. There was a program of covert guerrilla warfare carried out by special forces launched early by Johnson, but with the political instability following Diem's murder and successive coups and counter-coups, it wasn't until the Gulf of Tonkin (non) Incident in August 1964 that Johnson sent in formal combat troops, and the thing was on.

Lyndon was non a wuss--his record in the Senate , and how he muscled through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts as president illustrate this. As far as wussiness on Vietnam, It is easy for a president to be carried along by his military advisers into huge fucking mistakes. The imperative of opposing Communism/the USSR is weakened by time and the fact that the Soviet Union crumbled without firing a single nuke. Very different time.

Our discussion caused me to review the election of 1960. Illinois alone would not have given Tricky Dick the victory. Texas, where there was voter fraud but ultimately a comfortable Democratic margin, was as significant, specifically the (imo genius) selection of Lyndon as running mate.

Papa Joe was far more instrumental in 'buying' the nomination, where his cash carried much more effect. Particularly the West Virginia primary, and with uncommitted delegates to the convention in Los Angeles.

Another personal tidbit. My father came from a very political family in Brooklyn. His uncle was later elected to Congress, but died of a heart attack on election night, during the victory party. Uncle Rodney was a delegate to the 1960 convention, and we lived walking distance to the LA Sports Arena. I am told Uncle Rodney held court in our living room, with other prominent Black delegates from New York and elsewhere. But at age three, I am dependent on family storytelling. My dad was a Republican anyway, and had little use for the Kennedys.

[howard]

Syb, I'm not so sure that Attorney General Bobby is much of an exaggeration. His brother's death changed him drastically. His legacy is even more problematic because all we have of what his presidency would've been like is four months of campaign promises. At least JFK had a record of actual actions as president. Bobby left nothing but dreams. But his personality underwent a transformation after Dallas.

All I ask is one single piece of physical evidence, just one, that supports or argues for any shot fired beyond the three Lee Harvey squeezed off.

(No, the five wounds in Govenor Connelly are easily accounted for by the single bullet, and by his testimony.)

Although the sewer grate shooter theory does line up nicely with the images of the Zapruder film, the blood splay and the chunk of skull on the rear of the limo that Jackie tried to retrieve.

Truly, I can do this assassination thing all day and night. I was like that dude in the library in the movie Slacker.

[Bensell]

PBS aired a four-hour doc on JFK's life this week. It was very well done, not overly hagiographic (is that a word?), presented the failures of his administration in a straightforward manner. Didn't dwell overly on his womanizing, nor on the other big characters in his life (Jackie, Dad, Bobby, Lyndon) while covering his relationships with these folks. Also didn't dwell on his assassination,, where many tellings of his story tend to overshadow the man himself. One of the best presentations of his life I have seen or read; Howard sez check it out.

I thought that was great - finished the second half late last night. There have been a few cool docs I've watched so far - I even liked the CNN one last night that was about the assassination and the aftermath, including the conspiracy theories that sprang up after the Warren Commission's report.

[Jerloma]

He said in Winter 1963, it felt like the world would freeze, with John F Kennedy and The Beatles.

[A_B]

…but as far as I know JFK wasn't deadset on a plan.

Lyndon was non a wuss--his record in the Senate , and how he muscled through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts as president illustrate this. As far as wussiness on Vietnam, It is easy for a president to be carried along by his military advisers into huge fucking mistakes. The imperative of opposing Communism/the USSR is weakened by time and the fact that the Soviet Union crumbled without firing a single nuke. Very different time.

I admittedly was focused on his Vietnam involvement and not the rest of this administration. I am not versed enough to dispute you, but like I said, the Karnow book spent a lot of time talking about how LBJ just couldn't commit to a decision at all and second guessed himself a lot.

Which is probably what anyone would do when so many lives were at stake.

[howard]

I don't mean to second-guess you or Karnow. (Well, by that I mean Karnow.) Johnson's Vietnam record is indefensible. I think he was wrong in his conduct of the war, but I seek to understand how and why he made his decisions. It was a tough spot; as you said, postponing and second-guessing are what many men would do. I'll go further--postponing tough decisions and second guessing oneself are admirable actions, even when they don't work out. Except sometimes they are not--some occasions call for quick decisions and certitude.

Knowing when is the tough part.

This little political fashion of the greatest sin is 'flip-flopping' is some temporary bullshit that will pass.

ETA: Rummy/Bush routinely went directly against the advice of their military leaders. With certitude. That approach didn't work out either.

ETA: just one more. these are not chronological additions.

A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.
~Daniel Webster

ETA: Quick decision making, based on incomplete data, book knowledge and experience is kinda what I do for a living, on a very compressed time frame. Seconds and minutes vs hours and days. I've given a lot of consideration to the decision making process in my work, and the contrasts to the rest of the real world.

I am fortunate that I learned early on that the choice to do nothing, the decision to wait until committing to a decision or to an action is crucial, and very difficult. Often it is much easier to do something rather than do nothing; to pick up a syringe and inject a drug that will take effect within seconds is often easier than to wait and watch. (And I learned this the old-fashioned way, by choosing wrong. Thank goodness for the resilience of human physiology.)

(It's not like such situations were a daily occurrence for me. You can choose to work in settings when such instances are daily (intensive care unit, trauma surgery in a big city), or rare like once a year (outpatient anesthesia for colonoscopy). For me, about once a month, give or take, suits my personality and my rhythm best, my desire for action but not too much action. At least when I was younger.)

But this is an interesting topic for me.

[brian]

This is probably the time I would strongly recommend Robert Caro's five-volume biography of LBJ, though the final volume has yet to be released and that will cover the bulk of his presidency.

[howard]

I read the first one, way back when. I might have started the second one. But damn that is an intimidating pile of words, despite the wonderfulness that is Robert Caro. I guess instead of re-reading The Power Broker twice, I should've read more of the Johnson tome. One of these days.

[Steve of phpBB]

I am perfectly willing to believe that the conspiracy theories are nuts - but what is the explanation for Ruby killing Oswald? Is there a suggestion that someone needed Oswald killed for reasons unrelated to the assassination?

And Howard, that must have been difficult, as an 11 year old following the news in 1968. MLK and Bobby getting assassinated within a couple of months? That must have been crazy.

[howard]

It was. The foundation of my cynicism. And the beginning of my disgust with the Democratic party (Chicago, Mayor Daley and Hubert Humphery's refusal to go anti-war, until it was too late, in October).

Ruby's act was an impulsive, spur of the moment act of murder. Fitting for the man nicknamed 'Sparky'. No one brings their dog with him when planning to commit a murder--his dog was in his car.

There is the suggestion that Oswald needed to be silenced to preserve the conspiracy (like Huey Long's killer, or Begnino Acquino's shooter in the Philippines in 1979; which is how you do it, kill the triggerman as soon as possible, not two days later). I am unaware of any other reason proffered for killing Lee Harvey, other than really wild-assed theories.

Ruby gave us, in his own words, the explanation for his crime of opportunity: 'I didn't want that poor woman (Jackie) to have to come back to Dallas and endure a trial.' He said words to this effect during his initial interrogation, as well as to the Warren Commission (pp198-199).

Ruby's murder of Oswald is the least mysterious aspect of this story.

But, it inspired this (my fav tune from the boys). Since I too, remember his hat, tilted forward:

[Scottie]

I am perfectly willing to believe that the conspiracy theories are nuts - but what is the explanation for Ruby killing Oswald? Is there a suggestion that someone needed Oswald killed for reasons unrelated to the assassination?

One theme all conspiracy theories have in common is the lack of security surrounding Kennedy's drive around Dealey Plaza and the subsequent lack of security around Oswald being led from police headquarters. That alone, not even touching all the CIA mafia LBJ Castro weapons manufacturers Oliver Stone twisted knotted fantasies, will keep the theorists busy for eternity.

[A_B]

Dead men tell no tales...nor truths that might not be what people want to hear.

[howard]

There is one nod I will give to the theorists. The cast of characters who happened to be in Dallas that day. Richard Nixon. George H. W. Bush. E. Howard Hunt, a major Watergate figure and CIA operative. Frank Sturgis, a man arrested in the Watergate office building that night. And of course Johnson. A lot of future presidents all happened to be there. Just sayin'.

And named to the Warren Commission, a junior GOP congressman, Gerald R. Ford. Had Arlen Specter (a staff attorney to the Warren Commission, credited with formulating the 'single bullet theory') been elected president, I was gonna fold.

But I'm just funnin'. That's like accusing Grant of being complicit in Lincoln's death on the 'proof' that he declined to attend the theater with the president that night. Nixon and Bush had reasonable, logical reasons for being there, and 'inconsistencies' in their accounts of the day are BS ginned up to promote conspiracy agendas, easily seen through.

The doc I saw on tv the other night about the reunion of the Secret Service agents was shocking in one respect--how few agents were on the presidential detail routinely. The routine staffing was a joke, incredibly thin compared to not only today, but compared to administrations soon after Kennedy.

[A_B]

The doc I saw on tv the other night about the reunion of the Secret Service agents was shocking in one respect--how few agents were on the presidential detail routinely. The routine staffing was a joke, incredibly thin compared to not only today, but compared to administrations soon after Kennedy.

Gee, I wonder why?

[The Sybian]

There is one nod I will give to the theorists. The cast of characters who happened to be in Dallas that day. Richard Nixon. George H. W. Bush. E. Howard Hunt, a major Watergate figure and CIA operative. Frank Sturgis, a man arrested in the Watergate office building that night. And of course Johnson. A lot of future presidents all happened to be there. Just sayin'.

OMG! The Illuminati! Skull and Bones! Freemasons! Knights of the Templar! Who am I missing? Where were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on that day, or their ghosts?

[howard]

Gee, I wonder why?

Well, yeah.

But, setting that aside, I was surprised at how rudimentary the SS work was. Their advance team for a presidential visit was one agent. One. This low level of security would shock me for any administration from FDR forward. Or for any other major country head of state in 1963.

I guess JFK traveled much much more than any prior president. This flying to states to raise money and support for midterm elections was new (the prior year), as well as starting your re-election campaign 'early' in the prior November (talk about the good old days.) And, there was the centuries-long battle between security needs vs freedom of movement for big shots, as fought between JFK and Jackie with their keepers.

There was an anecdote from that SS film. For the funeral, Jackie insisted on walking behind the caisson carrying JFK''s coffin, during the procession from the Capitol to the church. SS was emphatic, but Jackie won.

A ton of heads of state attended the funeral. They all decided, if Jackie is walking the route, we are walking the route. About 30 of them. Plus, the new President Johnson, and his wife and daughters.

How the fuck do you coordinate the security and bodyguard details for that? The Jackal could've nailed Charles DeGaulle that day.

ETA: One more thing about the funeral. This was the first time that everybody in the USA watched an event on live television. While everyone remembers where and how they learned the news of JFK's death, practically everyone in the country watched the funeral, at the same time. Plus, the millions of people who had access to a television set in the rest of the world, including the USSR.

This had never ever happened before. This has a lot to do with the cultural memory of JFK, above and beyond his death. No one remembered Garfield or McKinley like that. And, imagine the Reagan mythos had he not survived his wound.

[The Sybian]

And, imagine the Reagan mythos had he not survived his wound.

I bet he wouldn't be the G-d that he is today to the extreme and/or ignorant factions of the right. He wouldn't have had time to set the deck for the destruction of the middle class and the rise of the top 1%'s wealth into the stratosphere. And he wouldn't have told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down this wall.


Just because:

[howard]

(no, this is history--not gay)

Jacqueline Kennedy’s Smart Pink Suit, Preserved in Memory and Kept Out of View

[Scottie]

A nice musing sort of article here: "How JFK’s assassination 50 years ago gave rise to a nation of conspiracists" . . . about how conspiracy theorists were in many ways born out of the JFK assassination and to this day manage to use that event as the central nervous system for the rest of their fantasies.

The comments, naturally, are kook-laden.

[degenerasian]

I'm fairly certain the JFK would have scaled back troops. My question, as a Vietnamese, was why did they assassinate President Diem on nov 2? South Vietnam needed a dictator. Only ruthless dictators scare ruthless commies.

Upon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."

[howard]

The killing of several Buddhist monks in a big protest (at Hue?) and the general oppression of the monks, combined with the impact of the self-immolation in June, both domestically in Vietnam and in the western world. Diem would not agree to back off. The general corruption of Diem's admin, particularly naming cronies and unqualified friends to key ARVN positions. This led to discontent among the generals, and was blamed for the military failures.

I think the commanding ARVN officer in the debacle at Ap Bac at the start of the year, was a Diem crony, the guy who refused to take direction from the top American 'advisor' who wrote the battle plan and directed it. The major discontent by Kennedy and McNamara was that the ARVN under Diem was ineffective, and getting worse; the Buddhist crisis set the timing. Madame Nhu's 'barbecueing monks' comment didn't help.

I got a question--how the hell do you get a 'z' or 's' sound from the letter 'D' or from 'Di'? Ngo Dihn Diem becomes 'go din zi-em'. I blame the French for the fucked up western characters and pronunciations.

[degenerasian]

But the cronyism and corruption afterwards was even worse. To quote my father "Duong Van Minh was the most useless man in the history of Vietnam.

Ngô Đình Diệm
The Vietnamese language has two D's. The D with a line through it is a hard D and the other D without the line through it sounds like a Z.

To confuse you more if you go to South Vietnam that Z turns into a Y. "Yiem"

[howard]

I am bad with languages to begin with.

The Kennedy brothers learned some lessons from the Bay of Pigs, but they were still way too enamored with CIA black ops shit. The idea that you can pull levers to mold events thousands of miles away with little muss and fuss, just kill a few people and magically all your problems will be solved I suppose is very appealing. (The idea that flying killer robots will be any different is just the latest flavor of this lunacy.)

Of course the corruption continued, and worsened once American dollars flowed like water as the troops deployed by the tens of thousands within a year.

Kennedy is frequently said to have bought the 'great man' theory of history; that history turns on the wisdom and action of individuals. Great men do turn history; but not in a vacuum. This should be obvious to any serious student of history, even one who lived through the age of FDR, Churchill, Stalin and Hitler. You need social/political conditions to be favorable; you need large numbers of people to see things the same way.

(If Churchill was so great, why did he ascend to 10 Downing Street so late in the game? Only to be tossed out a few years after his great triumph? If Hitler was so great, why didn't he succeed in 1923? The most notable actions of FDR and Stalin were their decisions not to impose their will upon their nations earlier, before their nations were prepared for WW2. Yeah, without Lincoln, no Union; but it also required the mass action of millions of citizens, and the death of >600,000 in addition to that one great man.)

And those conditions are not universal--they differ from country to country, from generation to generation. There are themes that recur, but they are different in different places and times.

There was a broad consensus in the United States regarding the great foreign question of nearly four decades--what to do about the USSR and their spread of communism? Stand strong against them, but be prepared to negotiate. Kennedy said this; Reagan said this ("trust, but verify"); Nixon lived this, because the mass of Americans deeply believed this.

What was the consensus of the people of Vietnam? I hate to impose the wisdom of hindsight upon historic figures, but this was obvious to anyone who wanted to see it. Foreigner go home. Be you Chinese, Japanese, French or American. Get the fuck out of our country. This simple reality infused every major event of the American in Vietnam era, large and small. Yet, it was ignored, in the decision to oust Diem to firm up the ARVN ability to fight the Viet Cong, as virtually every other major decision made by each subsequent president and defense secretary. Being respectful of the human rights of the Buddhist monks was not gonna overcome this centuries old overriding sentiment Vietnamese people. Yanqui go home!

The effective imperial empires of modern history, most notably the British, understood such social/cultural/political forces in their occupied territories, and made use of them. Sure, you can also overcome such factors with brute force, for as long as two or three decades, by backing a brutal dictator (Egypt, Iran, Iraq until he pissed us off, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Philippines, yeah we did that effectively), and that was the second-best option for Vietnam I suppose. I like to think that throwing everything behind Diem to make him that brutal dictator was rejected by JFK because it is just morally wrong and often backfires quickly (at least as often as it 'succeeds').

But I'm rambling again. Diem was already seen as an American puppet, with a recent history of foreign puppet leaders of Vietnam, strings held by the Japanese and the French. A dictator, beloved but a dictator nonetheless, was the only thing that unified the North; the people of the north were not interested in a revolution of the proletariat. I can't argue that only a legit home-grown southern dictator was the answer. The anti-communist paradigm that was correct and proper for the US to apply generally, did not apply in Vietnam.

I need to lecture in history for high school or college kids.

[degenerasian]

Howard and I are going to ramble about this for awhile.

Back to Kennedy, since JFK wanted to scale back the involvement in Vietnam, could his assassination have anything to do with people who wanted to escalate Vietnam? Or is that just a conspiracy.

Back to Vietnam itself. Howard, I think your statement of wanting foreigners gone was a bit too general. You're lumping all Vietnamese together, not North and South. Wanting the Americans out of Vietnam was simply just North Vietnamese commie propaganda. That was not the sentiment in the majority of the South. To be honest, without American money and involvement, the South would have fallen by 1960 (Diem or no Diem). So of course the South Vietnamese wanted the Americans there. Sort of like how Americans are now in South Korea or in the Philippines. Anti-communists had fled the North in 1954 to come South. In fact some had even fled China in 1949 to North Vietnam only to flee again in 1954. They did not want commies there and to have to flee again.

I have to backtrack to the Vietnamese-French war. While fighting the french the commies were already preparing for a Vietnamese war to follow. They had already placed commies (spies) in the south. In fact there were even "marriage of convenience" for these spies to marry south Vietnamese women and have kids and that A) if there were elections they would have more votes and/or B) if there was war they would have homes to go to in the South. So the South was already infiltrated by commies well before any American involvement. Thousands of these agents and guerrilla soldiers, acting on orders from Hanoi, had ignored the migration amnesty and remained underground in the south.In fact in 1954 there was even a movement not to have Diem as the first Prime Minister and go back to French rule to fight against the North, but this movement failed. The South was never anti-foreigner.

One thing about Diem was that he knew all this. One of his goals as ruthless dictator was the eliminate as many of these spies as possible. There would be no nationalism rah rah we are all Vietnamese when it came to these commie-spies.

Westmoreland caught onto this in 1965ish and also stated that 'everyday we will kill more VCs, we have and will win every battle". Then the Tet Offensive happened and it politically bankrupt Westmoreland. How can you say you kill more VCs every day and we win every battle and they are on the fucking doorstep of the embassy? That was the NLF.

So we disagree. The anti-communist dictator fails as often as it succeeds. I believe it would have succeeded here. The South needed a dictator. They needed a Park Chung Hee equivalent that would choose "democracy" over communism/nationalism. Ho Chi Minh would have been a lot more nervous. Yes being under a dictator would have been brutal for some. South Korea suffered for years. But nowhere as brutal as what actually happened to Vietnam later on and still exists today.

[Pruitt]

This is probably the time I would strongly recommend Robert Caro's five-volume biography of LBJ, though the final volume has yet to be released and that will cover the bulk of his presidency.

I can not praise these books highly enough.

As for 11/22/63 - I grew up with my mother telling me how November 22nd 1963 was her due date with me. She loved to tell how when she got the news about JFK, she crossed her legs and vowed that I would not be born on that horrible day...

I grew up irritated by the coverage of the assassination each and every November. In my mind, the Kennedies are like Marilyn Monroe and Woodstock - things that the older generation just couldn't shut up about.

[The Sybian]

Upon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."

Hey, Ho Chi Minh, we were just getting started! Nobody underestimates the stupidity of Americans anymore.

Very interesting conversation here. Howard, I took a poli sci course in college called something to the effect of "Do Individuals Matter?" Very interesting course, and you summed it up nicely in a paragraph. Throw in a massive amount of tangential game theory, and you could have taught. I do love me some game theory. While my professor refused to let on to his thought, I took Howard's view. The table has to be set for a "great leader" to look great in retrospect. Put Lincoln in a period of calm prosperity, he looks unremarkable and someone else is on the penny.

As for the Kennedy's reliance on and love for the CIA, they clearly never read Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes, otherwise they would have realized the CIA was nothing but a bunch of drunken, over-privileged ivy league fuckups. Then again, the Kennedys weren't much different.

[howard]

So we disagree.

Well, not really. You make a buttload of good points, some I did not realize, some I had forgotten. I am weak on knowledge of the French era (my reading pretty much begins and ends with Karnow and the defeat at Dien Bien Phu). Yes, my point of the nationalist fervor of all Vietnamese people is overstated, and is informed by the Ho/commie propaganda. I plead guilty--remember on the very same ground where those kids were pepper-sprayed during the Occupy protest at UC Davis, I trod as a teeneybopper, protesting LBJ and The War, and that same propaganda was effective on my fragile little mind. Still sits in there.

Yeah, the biggest fact I ignore, of which you gently remind me--the migration of tens of thousands of anti-communist people from north to south as the French were on the way out. I can weakly counter that my point speaks to the rural population--the target of the Viet Mihn/Viet Cong, of the American 'Strategic Hamlet' program begun by Kennedy, of the 'hearts and minds' efforts of the Westmorland/Johnson era. But that is some weak shit on my part--you are correct that I overstate and oversimplify the 'nationalist' argument.

The anti-communist dictator fails as often as it succeeds.

True. In my sea of words above, this point was lost. We agree on this; I am not naive enough to think the sainted Kennedy would not have jumped upon this option and regarded a short-term outcome such as Marcos, Duvalier, Somoza or Park as a wonderful foreign policy success.

The South needed a dictator. They needed a Park Chung Hee equivalent that would choose "democracy" over communism/nationalism.

I don't know why Diem was unsuited for this role. I am also weak on knowledge of his administration except the last six months, and the superficial cartoon image that has been cast. After Diem, Kennedy and Johnson expected the military to produce a strong man they could support, at least for a short term, and this did not happen. Too many factions within the ARVN, based on religion, family ties, school ties, financial interests, and generals corrupted by Ho/the commies. Again, I blame the French, who trained most of those guys in their military schools and system.

No, we don't disagree. I was wrong, you corrected me, same page. I love being wrong, when it means I learn something, and/or rethink something.

And I ramble because there are so many mistakes of recent history that keep getting ignored by our current leaders. I still can't believe Rumsfeld's stupidity in light that he served just prior to Vietnam, saw all this shit unfold, had a few decades to process the lessons, then completely mismanaged both the pursuit of Bin Laden and the entire fucking Iraq war (if he had redeployed that Sgt. Fritz dude five or six times, we might've had a fucking chance).

[degenerasian]

The Americans are the Jerry Jones of World Politics. They are the Owner, President and GM.
When they get involved in something everyone has to do things their way.


-----

Back to the earlier point that Howard and Syb raised. Definitely circumstances play a role. If the Japanese didn't invade Manchuria, Mao would have never existed. Chiang Kai-Shek had already kicked the commies ass. He kicked them so hard they marched for a year. BTW, Chiang Kai Shek was another ruthless and corrupt leader that was needed during that period of time. He was still chasing them until one day, his generals kidnapped him and stated they needed the commies help to fight the Japanese. Of course those Generals were idiots because once Mao came to power the first thing he did was kill them off.

If there was no communist victory in China in 1949 there would be no Ho Chi Minh because the communist movement in this region would have been dead years before.

[howard]

New Lee Harvey documentary airing on PBS this evening (10:00pm EST). It's Frontline, so I am prepared to be disappointed.

ETA: My bad; this is a rebroadcast of a 1993 film. Good news--as I recall this is an excellent piece. A bit heavy on the conspiracy crap, but countered by debunker Posner (but this was long before the ultimate debunking work done by Bugliosi). It combined lots of footage at that time rarely seen (before the History Channel and similar cable channels started cranking out history documentaries).


Here is the latest bit of evidence which strongly supports the lone gunman explanation. Some would call this definitive:

John Kerry: I Have 'Serious Doubts That Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone' the Day JFK Died

Come on, the man's record is perfect.

[Scottie]

John Kerry: I Have 'Serious Doubts That Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone' the Day JFK Died

Come on, the man's record is perfect.

Sigh.

I remember walking around New Haven at two or three o’clock in the morning with a cousin who came down to spend some time with me because he knew I was involved in the politics and involved personally.

He was "involved personally"? Oh, fuck off. The megalomania is absurd in this one. No illusory bias there, nope.

Television networks have, at least thus far, concentrated on honoring a slain president. Or at least documenting known events. Thankfully, I've seen none of the tinfoilhat business. Yet. Conspiracy theorying is all just childish a mind toy anyway.

Besides . . . everyone knows that the real shooter was that Zapruder guy.