Monday, January 16, 2012

The Covert Op attack on Oliver Stone's JFK movie at IMDB

There is yet another attack on Oliver Stone's movie JFK underway at the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) site.  There is a  Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) site which portends to be factual, and unbiased information.  It's not.  It is not written by IMDB staff but by anonymous users of the site.  Guess who?
These are listed as the top 5 contributors - Trp1985, roark-12, tfilm78, radstonecold316, snowball-2.

Who they really are is anyone's guess.  But the majority of the writing is from the Dave Reitzes, David Von Pien, Max Holland, Gary Mack, Gerald Posner, Todd Wayne Vaughn, John McAdams et. al., crowd who are the Oswald did it Warren Commission loving types. 

It is full of lies.  It ignores the FACT that there is a book of the film.  It's still available.  

Here's one of the great lies.  Under the heading "Who was Mr. X":

"Mr. X, as the character identifies himself, is loosely based on Col. Fletcher Prouty, who also served as advisor to the film. It was Prouty who claimed that NSAM 263 was proof that JFK was withdrawing from Vietnam. The claim that NSAM 273 signed by Lyndon Johnson did not include the 1000 troop withdrawal (as included in NSAM 263) is false. Inspection of NSAM 273 dated 11/21/63 reveals this: '2.The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963. Note that NSAM 273 is dated the day before Kennedy was assassinated, and "the President" here is JFK. So, NSAM 273 was issued UNDER the Kennedy Administration and signed by LBJ."

This is false and deliberately misleading.  The beginning of a withdrawal from Vietnam, which is what that 1,000 man figure is all about, and, by the way, the idea of withdrawing from Vietnam did not begin with NSAM 263, was changed into a mere rotation of personnel to hide the FACT that LBJ reversed JFK's withdrawal order as stated in NSAM 263 with the new NSAM 273.  So, it appears to the ignorant, uneducated mind on this issue that since there seems to be the same language there was no difference in policy which is absolute bullshit.  And the ass who wrote this garbage knew he was lying when he wrote it.

Additionally, the argument from a purely chronological perspective that since JFK was the President of the United States on November 21, 1963 therefore he was knowledgeable about, ordered, read, approved, and would have signed NSAM 273 had he not been assassinated on November 22, 1963 is total bullshit too.  There is no documentation anywhere that JFK ever saw or had any knowledge about NSAM 273.  If there was then there would be some record of this in the JFK library, some notes, a meeting, some discussion, something.  But there isn't.

There is a draft of NSAM 273.  But that's not in the JFK Library.  It can be found in the LBJ library.  

In concentrating on paragraph 2 they ignore the rest of NSAM 273.  Jim DiEugenio didn't:

"NSAM 273 was not finalized until November 26th. As Newman notes, LBJ was conscious that he had to have the illusion of continuity with JFK. That it was too early for him to break completely with the previous policy, even though that was his ultimate intent. He had to get elected first. But even in light of that the alterations he made to 273 are significant. First, by changing paragraph seven, concerning South Vietnamese maritime operations, he opened the door to direct American involvement, that is to OPLAN 34A, which included the American patrols that were involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Which LBJ then used to utilize direct American air power against North Vietnam and which they considered an act of war. The resolution authorizing that attack was then used by LBJ to wage war against the north. (ibid, p. 446)

LBJ's two other changes allowed further involvement in cross border operations in Laos and Cambodia. (ibid p. 448) These were also crucial, as any student of the war should know.

A month later LBJ told the chiefs, "Just get me elected, and then you can have your war." (Newman, p. 449)

Now, it is true that the advisor withdrawal was not specifically cancelled by LBJ in NSAM 273. But the point is they were not withdrawn. And as David Kaiser makes clear, LBJ now sent McNamara back to Vietnam to come back with a different report. One that demanded direct US involvement of American power. Something JFK would never tolerate. These proposals were then turned over to the military and lists of bombing targets were now put together in late January of 1964 (American Tragedy, p. 294)

In two months, LBJ had reversed JFK's policy. Incredibly, this FAQ does not mention any of this. For good reason. The film was right on this." 

And again later in the thread at the Education forum:

"The FAQ-- which curiously sounds so much like a product of the McAdams Gang, but which none of them will claim-- then goes on to say that the film misleads the public by presenting "the myth that Kennedy planned to pull out of Vietnam."

To present that sentence today is simply and purely black propaganda; in that it presents the opposite of the truth.

Today, this JFK withdrawal concept, first presented many years ago by Fletcher Prouty and Peter Scott, has now become accepted in academia. This is proven by the fact that several books have been released since which support this thesis: books by people like David Kaiser, Gordon Goldstein, and most of all ,James Blight. This last book, Virtual JFK, was the record of a large academic conference in which half the participants voted at the end that LBJ had broken with Kennedy's policy of withdrawal. Some myth.

Stone relied on two authorities in his presentation of the JFK withdrawal plan: Fletcher Prouty and John Newman. Prouty was actually involved with the plan and knew others who were even more directly involved with it. Newman wrote the 1992 book JFK and Vietnam, which literally revolutionized the scholarship in the field. Many people, including myself, still believe that this book is still the best in the field. In other words, Stone had very good sources. And John Newman has told me he either wrote or edited the writing in all the Vietnam scenes. Therefore, they have to be grounded in facts.

The FAQ itself is misleading when it says that the basis for the depiction of the withdrawal plan is NSAM 263. Not accurate. The film also mentions the 1961 debates in the White House, in which Kennedy rejected each and every attempt by his advisors to insert combat troops into theater. In fact, the narration actually says that his advisors knew that Kennedy was not going into Vietnam in 1961. It also says that Kennedy was planning on pulling out the advisors well before NSAM 263 was signed. This is all true, and it is all in Newman's book. 

The FAQ is also deceptive in it depiction of NSAM 263. It was not just "issued to the joint chiefs of staff". Kennedy ordered Secretary of Defense Bob McNamara to announce the plan to the press. (Newman, p. 407)

The FAQ is also deceptive in that it suggests the NSAM only ordered a withdrawal of a thousand advisors at the end of 1963. This is technically true. But it was based on the Taylor-McNamara report which states that this is the first step toward a complete evacuation of all advisors by the end of 1965. (ibid)

The FAQ is also deceptive in saying that NSAM 263 was meant to pressure President DIem into being more lenient in his campaign against the Buddhists. Today, this is a ridiculous statement. Newman's book takes on this issue directly and demolishes it. (Newman, pgs. 408-09) For as he states, neither Kennedy nor McNamara felt anything like this would impact Diem. And, Kennedy specifically directed that McNamara not bring up the withdrawal to pressure DIem. (ibid) 

Newman ends his discussion by saying that Kennedy planned on having the army of South Vietnam carry out the war by 1965. And in fact, the ARRB declassified documents showing that McNamara had arranged the complete withdrawal in May of 1963 to align with Kennedy's timetable of 1965. This is new and key information which the FAQ completely ignores.

WIth junk like this, no wonder the McAdams Gang won't claim this piece of crap. But if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck then....."   

No comments:

Post a Comment