General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Justice for JFK [View all]coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)
initiating and sustaining this thread
Will read each and maybe comment later today or tomorrow. A quick perusal gave me the vertiginous feeling of starting to spin down the rabbit hole of left-wing insider baseball (apologies for the mixed metaphor).
I would point out that on November 4, 1963, JFK dictated a memo giving his reflections on the coup that had deposed the brothers Diem. In the account (detailed in David Kaiser's American Tragedy, pp. 276-8), JFK does not express any skepticism about the military situtation in Vietnam as conveyed to him by his advisors Taylor and McNamara. JFK, it seems, was willing to stay the course militarily in Vietnam (supporting the puppets), provided the brothers Diem and Nhu stepped down. Any decision about whether to pull the plug entirely was being left until after the elections in 1964. I suppose in this regard I side with Chomsky to the extent that no firm decision to withdraw in toto had been made. With no decision to withdraw from Vietnam having been made, the withdrawal from Vietnam can hardly suffice as a motive for any would-be assassins. (Fear of a future withdrawal might suffice, but that's another question entirely.)
Further to that point, on September 2, 1963, JFK had given an interview to Walter Cronkite where the following exchange took place:
The President: I do. With changes in policy and perhaps in personnel (emphasis author's) I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good.
Cited in Kaiser, p. 246.
It seems to me that a fair reading of the historical record suggests that JFK hoped to kick the can down the road with regard to America's continued presence in Vietnam until after the 1964 election. He had made no clear decision to stay, to escalate or to withdraw. Thus, the central motive alleged at the heart of Stone's JFK simply is not supported by a fair reading of the historical record.