The “ongoing investigation”

From Karen, the Loneliest of Conservatives:

Congress Denied Access To Benghazi Survivors
by  •  • 11 Comments

The cover up continues. The State Department and the DOJ are blocking Congress from having access to survivors of the Benghazi attack. They blame it on the ongoing investigation,

The Justice and State departments are now citing a year-old FBI investigation and a future criminal prosecution to block access to survivors of last year’s Benghazi terror attack.

In an Oct. 28 letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.,the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Julia Frifield, refers to “significant risks” and “serious concerns about having the survivors of the attack submit to additional interviews.”

Graham has been asking since last year for the FBI’s transcripts of interviews with State Department and CIA survivors who were evacuated to Germany after the Sep.11 attack on the U.S. consulate.

He and other Republicans believe the transcripts will show the survivors told the FBI it was a terrorist attack and made no mention of a video or anti-U.S. demonstration at the consulate.

This intelligence was  likely available to the president, his national security team and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who five days after the assault blamed it on an anti-U.S. demonstration and inflammatory video. (Read More)

If they’re so concerned about the investigation why is the main suspect able to have coffee with reporters? It doesn’t sound like he’s too fearful of being caught and brought to justice.

More at the link. As Robert Stacey Stacy McCain — to whom I owe a hat-tip for the link to Karen’s article — noted:

This is a very familiar method of truth-suppression in D.C.: “I can’t comment because of the ongoing investigation.” Understand that when the federal government is investigating the federal government, denying information to Congress is a de facto cover-up.

Remember: Mr McCain was a professional Washington reporter, for the Washington Times, in a past life, and he has seen this kind of thing before.

Both Karen and Stacey Stacy cited the following story, from the Washington Times:

Two U.S. commandos fought in Benghazi rescue, privately honored for valor
Two out of eight in Tripoli sent to rescue, honored for valor
By Rowan Scarborough

Masked from public view, two of the U.S. military’s elite special operations commandos have been awarded medals for bravery for a mission that further undercuts the Obama administration’s original story about the Benghazi tragedy.

For months, administration officials have claimed no special operations forces were dispatched from outside Libya to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012, al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA annex because none was within range.

The Pentagon, under intense public criticism for not coming to the aid of besieged Americans, published an official timeline in November that carefully danced around the issue.

It said time and distance prevented any commandos outside Libya from reaching a CIA compound under attack. The timeline disclosed that a reinforcement flight 400 miles away in Tripoli contained two “DoD personnel” but did not describe who they were. Later, the official State Department report on Benghazi said they were “two U.S. military personnel” — but provided no other details. It made no mention of special operations forces.

More at the link.

This story, if confirmed, is actually less damaging to President Obama and his inept Administration than what we had heard before. I had stated previously that the thing to do, immediately, was to get troops on the way to Benghazi, without waiting for confirmation, without waiting for all of the facts, because it wasn’t a short trip; if information developed between the time that the forces were dispatched and they reached the site of the attack, they could always be called off. That part never happened, which was a complete failure on the part of the President, of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, but now we are learning that there was a small American force on the ground at the time. Mr Scarborough again:

(A) unit of eight special operators — mostly Delta Force and Green Beret members — were in Tripoli the night of the attack, on a counterterrorism mission that involved capturing weapons and wanted terrorists from the streets and helping train Libyan forces.

When word of the Benghazi attack surfaced, two members of that military unit volunteered to be dispatched along with five private security contractors on a hastily arranged flight from Tripoli to rescue Americans in danger, the sources said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because the special operations forces’ existence inside Libya was secret.

The two special operations forces arrived in time to engage in the final, ferocious firefight between the terrorists and Americans holed up in the CIA annex near the ill-fated diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the sources added.

Now, I have to wonder: why was this a volunteer mission? There were eight “special operators” in country at the time, and there was a special flight arranged which got some people to the site; why weren’t the other six Green Berets/Delta Force operatives also sent on the way?

OK, maybe it isn’t less damaging to the President and his minions; no one had the cojones and judgement to get the rest of the team involved.

Could those other six Green Berets/Delta Force operatives have changed the outcome? There’s no way to know. We know the whole thing was a huge failure on the part of the President and his people, but failure is inevitable if you don’t at least try to succeed.

There are reasons why I have said that Barack Hussein Obama is the worst President in my lifetime — and my lifetime includes Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter — and the inept, and fatal, lack of initiative and response to the attacks in Benghazi is just one of them.

23 Comments

  1. No one should be surprised at Julia Frifield’s recent attempt to prevent our elected representatives from interviewing Benghazi survivors, her transparently duplicitous excuse-making is entirely consistent with Obama’s desperate efforts to conceal the truth of that terrible night. Right from the start, and even before 9/11/12, Obama has cynically and callously sacrificed the personal integrity and the public reputations of of his minions to keep the dark and bloody secret of his abominable treachery from coming to light.

    Julia Frifeld is only Obama’s latest victim, albeit a willing one. Her appointment as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs was only confirmed by the Senate on October 16th, only 12 days before she disgraced herself. Previously, she was Chief-of-Staff to Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).

    Still, it’s interesting how Frifield’s double talk revealed the truth even as she was attempting to hide it. She referred to significant risks and serious concerns about having the survivors of the attack submit to additional interviews, which of course only makes sense if it’s the Obama Administration’s web of lies they’re so concerned about the risk of exposeure if the actual on-the-ground witnesses to Obama’s despicable crimes are ever allowed to testify openly without the overhanging threat of government reprisals.

  2. And Nixon was hounded out of office for less. But that was a Dem Congress that did that. Rep. Issa is trying to get the truth, but the Praetorian Guard led by Sen Reid (Commie in disguise-Nev) blocks everything at the gate. Whatever Issa will find should be grounds for Impeachment as we can see, but it would not see the light of day in the Senate. So, the Emporor will live on, and the proles will receive cake from Marie Antoinette Michelle.

  3. Our Editor asked, Now, I have to wonder: why was this a volunteer mission? There were eight “special operators” in country at the time, and there was a special flight arranged which got some people to the site; why weren’t the other six Green Berets/Delta Force operatives also sent on the way?

    It’s a good question and it deserves a straight answer. Our special operators aren’t the kind of men who hang back ducking confrontation and keeping out of harm’s way, just the opposite, they’re selected for special ops training because they’re the kind of men who run toward the sound of gunfire, the kind of men who’ll fight like hell, the kind of men who’re committed to come to the aid of their brothers-in-arms. They’re the kind of men who put their lives on the line, the kind of men who deserve our admiration and our respect because they’ve earned it, they’re America’s best.

    So, given their natural inclinations, their specialized combat training, and their deep commitment to each other, why did only 2 of the 8 special operators go to Benghazi? I’m speculating here, but the only explanation that makes sense is they were ordered to stand down and 2 of them disobeyed the order.

  4. the only explanation that makes sense is they were ordered to stand down and 2 of them disobeyed the order.

    And NINE General or Flag Officers have been relieved of duty in a little over a year. I know were shown the door for Benghazi and possibly two Marine Generals were also.

  5. This and above should create fear in the country. But probably 2% know and it will bite us in the ass and our C-i-C doesn’t care.

    Army Chief of Staff Reveals His Greatest Fear
    Oct. 21, 2013 10:27pm Jason Howerton

    If Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno were to receive an order to deploy thousands of troops into a combat situation, he would be hard-pressed to comply. That’s because the U.S. Army reportedly only has two combat-ready brigades right now.

    “Even the ones headed to Afghanistan are qualified for the trainer and adviser mission, not combat,” Defense News reports.

    That’s also why receiving such an order is currently Odierno’s greatest fear, according to the report.

    “There is going to come a time when we simply don’t have enough money to provide what I believe to be the right amount of ground forces to conduct contingency operations,” he said. “We’re not there yet, but it is something we are going to continue to review.”

    more:
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/21/army-chief-of-staff-reveals-his-greatest-fear/

  6. Army (Un)Training. Our mower recently came back from basic. He could tell it was done on the cheap. The hated Gas Chamber where you experience tear gas was done with 6 CS Pellets instead of 20 Pellets. Might as well done it with Vicks VapoRub.

  7. There are reasons why I have said that Barack Hussein Obama is the worst President in my lifetime — and my lifetime includes Lyndon Johnson

    Sorry, but I argue Johnson was worse, far worse. The Vietnam War (his fuck-up) devastated and traumatized the nation for a generation. 58,000 men killed to satisfy Johnson’s vanity, and to prop up his (mostly nonexistent) manhood. America became an international laughingstock, our enemies no longer feared us and our allies no longer trusted us. And it changed our culture and politics, too. The left wing radicals went from being on the fringe to essentially running the Democrat Party, where they remain to this day. And the nation was infested with hippies, druggies, and weirdoes of every sort. Americans no longer felt proud of their country. Patriotism was out and cynicism was in.

    Johnson couldn’t have done more to wreck this country if he had deliberately tried. And don’t even get me started on his domestic politics, which established the Leviathan State and made being dependent on government go from being something to be ashamed of to a way of life.

  8. And, the only way LBJ got into the position to escalate the Vietnam War and to initiate the modern Welfare State was because John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, 50 years ago this month. No assassination, no LBJ presidency.

    Some Americans still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, while others are aware that Senate hearings on LBJ’s blatant corruption were in-progress in Washington DC at the time of JFK’s death. Those hearings, which were called off at the news from Dallas and never resumed, would have resulted in LBJ’s criminal malfeasance being exposed. He would have been replaced as Kennedy’s VP running mate in 1964, and it would have ended his political career. And, quite likely landed LBJ and a good number of his co-conspirators in prison where they belonged.

    Some of us also remember JFK’s previously announced decision to pull American troops out of Vietnam with the first 1000 troops to be home before Christmas 1964. Had JFK lived there would have been no Vietnam War, or at least no US troops fighting it. LBJ reversed Kennedy’s Vietnam policy within days of the assassination, 3 days if memory serves. Some observers see that as a coincidence and some see it as a direct result.

    I go back to FDR’s presidency and we’ve had more that a few bad apples in the Oval Office since then, but the short list for worst in my lifetime includes LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama. But, truth is Carter doesn’t really measure up to the others, not even close. Sure, he’s a stupid fool and an incompetent ass but he isn’t a cold blooded murderer like LBJ, or a treasonous anti-American dictatorial tyrant like Barack Obama.

    So, IMO, LBJ is the worst, but since Obama’s still in office it’s too soon to make the call. LBJ’s black hearted murder of JFK clearly qualifies him for the lead, but Obama hasn’t completed his term in office yet, and his fast growing list of dead Americans might soon total enough for him to overcome LBJ’s regicide.

  9. I go back to FDR’s presidency and we’ve had more that a few bad apples in the Oval Office since then, but the short list for worst in my lifetime includes LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama. But, truth is Carter doesn’t really measure up to the others, not even close. Sure, he’s a stupid fool and an incompetent ass but he isn’t a cold blooded murderer like LBJ, or a treasonous anti-American dictatorial tyrant like Barack Obama.

    Great points, all. Agreed on Carter. I’ve not been as down on him as some conseratives. He was dealt a bad hand coming off both Vietnam and Watergate. Whatever his other faults, at least he wasn’t dishonest.

    Everything I’ve read about Johnson makes him out to be loathsome swine. One book points him out as having been a coward since childhood, which he tried to make up for with his fake “Tough Texan” persona. Supposedly in WW 2 he flew on a single combat mission, possibly by mistake, then based on that, put himself in for (and got) a Silver Star. His faux war hero status assured, he then launched himself into politics. Once he got power, the coward predictably became a bully. If you want a hilarious example of his assholiness at work, read the part from Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff where he tries to bully his way into John Glenn’s house, putting pressure on Glenn’s bosses as NASA, until Glenn himself essentially told him to fuck off and die.

  10. After the fall of the Philippines FDR was getting conflicting reports from Army and Navy sources (MacArthur and Nimitz) filtering up to him through the military chain of command on the difficult situation in the Southern Pacific. FDR wanted a report from someone who could see through political double talk, so on the recommendation of SECNAV James Forrestal he appointed LBJ as part of a traveling inspection team.

    While visiting MacArthur’s HQ, LBJ was scheduled as an observer on a B-26 bombing mission. One Marauder in the flight was shot down and several others came under enemy attack. LBJ claimed his aircraft was attacked, but official records show it suffered a generator malfunction, aborted the mission shortly after take-off, and returned to base without encountering the enemy.

    Nevertheless, MacArthur awarded LBJ the Silver Star. In fairness to LBJ he did report accurately on the need for supplies and equipment, and on the consequent deteriorating moral of the troops. FDR had agreed with Churchill on a Europe First strategy at the First Washington Conference (late December ’41 and early January ’42). But, an official overemphasis on Europe was putting our forces in the Pacific in serious jeopardy. LBJ’s report did result in much needed improvement and he deserves credit for that achievement, even if he was awarded an honor he didn’t earn.

  11. Got it. Thanks.

    Anyway, speaking of Vietnam, I just started re-reading the book Flight of the Intruder. It’s an excellent read if you haven’t already done so. The basic story is about Navy pilots getting increasingly frustrated at being sent to risk their lives trying to hit targets that were often worthless. Not to mention, it takes place late in the war when it was obvious we weren’t going to win anyway.

  12. Nevertheless, MacArthur awarded LBJ the Silver Star.

    What? A Silver Star ? For what? I have a Bronze Star and I killed two men and dragged a dead American 16 miles home to get it. But LBJ got a Silver Star for being a fraud? The older I get the less I love this country and the people who inhabit it. I’m beginning to believe this entire republic (?) is made up of Perry’s and Dumbasses. A Silver Star, indeed. I’ve shot better men than that.

  13. My nominee for worst president could be First, or Fourth or Fifth depending on your out look. This nominee is Woodrow Wilson, Progressive. It was WW that signed the Federal Reserve System into law Dec, 1913. 100 years of mismanaging our money. Here’s an inflation chart for the Country’s history. Look at pre 1913 and 1913 to the present. What we get to put in our wallets is just Fiat Money. The high amounts look good, but it has no relation to reality.

    Why you are buying less and paying more:
    1 - Inflation

    Here’s where we’re heading:
    PD_0092Front

    Here’s what we’re printing:
    [caption id="attachment_11189" align="aligncenter" width="290"]The new US $100 bill The new US $100 bill [/caption]

    And here is the economic system under BO.
    1 - House of Cards

    And Wilson Started It. And here is the CPI Calculator.
    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100.00&year1=1949&year2=2013 Put in the year of your birth for start and this year as the end and use $100. I did from 1949 to now and it takes about $983.82 to buy what $100 would buy in 1949.

  14. Yes, York, Wilson institutionalized collectivist malignancy into American government and later during the mid-60s LBJ nurtured it to the point Obama has been able to bring it nearly to fruition. However, I specified presidents in my lifetime in response to Eric’s comment which directly referenced Dana’ caveat. That’s why I started with FDR.

    However, if you want to look back further into our national past, candidates for worst president abound: Jackson, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Grant, come immediately to mind. But, I’m still going with LBJ, he’s leading by a length but Obama is coming up fast on the inside.

  15. I was born in April of 1953, just after President Eisenhower was inaugurated, so that’s as far back as the set from which I could choose would go.

    Would President Kennedy have pulled us out of the Vietnam War had he not been assassinated? No one can know, but President Johnson pretty much kept on the same “whiz kid” advisors installed by President Kennedy on his foreign policy team, and they were telling President Johnson that the war could be won.

    President Johnson wasn’t all bad: he got the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act passed, and those were necessary things. Even with the war going on, he balanced the FY1969 budget. But his Vietnam policy was disastrous, and that puts him down as a rotten President in my view.

    President Nixon was a mediocre muddle, who passed too many Democrat Lite laws. His foreign policy was just OK, and Vietnam wasn’t his doing, but he seriously weakened the office and the party. President Carter was simply incapable in office, though he did have the Camp David Peace Accords to his credit, and that, by itself, makes him better than Barack Hussein Obama.

    Reports are that Syria has complied with the chemical weapons agreement, which, if it proves to be true, is to his credit, but even in that, he stumble into it.

  16. The Editor commented:
    Even with the war going on, he balanced the FY1969 budget.

    From Social Security History https://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html :
    Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government.”

    Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the “unified budget.” This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are “on-budget.” This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken “off-budget.” This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are “on-budget” or “off-budget” is primarily a question of accounting practices–it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

    And that folks is how the Lame Brained Jackass balanced the budget in 1969.

  17. ropelight wrote:

    However, if you want to look back further into our national past, candidates for worst president abound: Jackson, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Grant, come immediately to mind.

    Other than President Grant, I’d disagree with that list. Andrew Johnson really din’t have much of a chance, and I’d put him in the Gerald Ford category: a President struggling against strong majorities from the other party in Congress, doing his best to limit their damage, mostly, but not entirely, ineffective. President Lincoln should have allowed the Confederacy to secede peacefully; that should have been the lesson of our Declaration of Independence and revolution, that people desiring their independence have a right to it. Nevertheless, he’s generally regarded as a great President.

    As for Andrew Jackson, I think he was a great President. Under President Jackson, the federal budget was balanced and, in 1835, the national debt paid off. He eliminated the Bank of the United States, and was supportive of a smaller rather than larger federal government. The only real stain on his presidency was the Indian Removal Act, but even that, despite its harshness, probably benefited the county as a whole.

  18. I agree that the “unified budget” made FY1969 balanced, but not a single budget subsequent to that under the “unified budget” concept was balanced again.

  19. Eric wrote:

    I go back to FDR’s presidency and we’ve had more that a few bad apples in the Oval Office since then, but the short list for worst in my lifetime includes LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama. But, truth is Carter doesn’t really measure up to the others, not even close. Sure, he’s a stupid fool and an incompetent ass but he isn’t a cold blooded murderer like LBJ, or a treasonous anti-American dictatorial tyrant like Barack Obama. (ropelight)

    Great points, all. Agreed on Carter. I’ve not been as down on him as some conseratives. He was dealt a bad hand coming off both Vietnam and Watergate. Whatever his other faults, at least he wasn’t dishonest.

    A bad hand? The Vietnam war was over, completely over, by the time Jim Carter was inaugurated, and Watergate was an overblown mess that gave him huge majorities in both Houses of Congress; he inherited a better situation than did his three immediate predecessors. But he had no flaming idea what to do about the economy — not that the government was really in a position to fix it anyway — and he was a total foreign policy incompetent, getting walked all over by Leonid Brezhnev in the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty and later with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to which he so forcefully responded by withdrawing American participation in the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. He undercut Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran — though the Shah would probably not have survived anyway — and then got his nose rubbed in it by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khoumeini. He was Casper Milquetoast personified as our President, and the best foreign policy move he ever made was to lose to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Even the Camp David peace accords — for which I do give him some credit for getting Menachem Begin to go along — happened only because Anwar al-Sadat initiated the process in the first place.

    It was under Jimmy Carter’s weak “leadership” that the communists were able to establish puppet regimes in Angola and Nicaragua, messes that President Reagan had to clean up.

    Was he honest? Maybe, but the fact that he left our county weaker abroad and less prosperous at home is not somehow mitigated because those weren’t his aims; the fact that he didn’t try to damage our country does not somehow erase he fact that he did damage our country.

  20. Our Editor questioned the contention that JFK intended to end US troop involvement in Vietnam with the first 1000 troops to be home before Christmas 1963.

    Would President Kennedy have pulled us out of the Vietnam War had he not been assassinated? No one can know…

    No one can know what would have happened if he hadn’t been assassinated, but what we do know is what JFK said to Senator Mike Mansfield and what he said in public, and we also have National Security Action Memo #263 which JFK signed on October 11, 1963 which established the withdrawal as official policy. The momentous contents of that NSAM were made public on November 16, 1963 which was less than one week before he was murdered in Dallas.

    It’s possible Kennedy might have changed his mind in the ensuing 6 days, but there is no record of such a decision. However, LBJ signed NSAM #273 which did reverse JFK’s policy, and he did it at his earliest opportunity, only 3 days after the assassination.

    Additionally, JFK intended to end the oil depletion allowance, the provision was included in his tax reform proposal to Congress. That was another of JFK’s policies which LBJ quickly abandoned.

  21. A bad hand? The Vietnam war was over, completely over, by the time Jim Carter was inaugurated, and Watergate was an overblown mess that gave him huge majorities in both Houses of Congress; he inherited a better situation than did his three immediate predecessors.

    Not really. Post Vietnam, post Watergate, morale in the country was shit. No one trusted the government (and probably with good reason), and our faith in the military was rock bottom. It got so bad that, in 1975, the Congress wouldn’t even vote to send military supplies, let alone military forces, to help South Vietnam defend itself from invasion.

    In short, in foreign affairs, we were weak and Carter inherited that. Plus he, personally, had little political capital. He was just some peanut farmer from Georgia. As proof of such, he barely beat Ford, who had not even been elected president. Given the post-Vietnam mood of the country, even if he had wanted to take military action in either Nicaragua or Iran, it’s unlikely the Congress would have let him. Still, even with all that against him, I would wager that, had the hostage rescue mission been successful, he would have been re-elected. That it failed was just pure bad luck. And “Bad luck” seemed to be Carter’s middle name.

  22. To dispel any lingering doubt that JFK intended to end US involvement in Vietnam, and to show that his approval of NSAM #263 indicates exactly that, here’s the relevant text:

    At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

    The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

    NSAM #263 incorporates recommendations 1 through 3 in section 1 B of the McNamara/Taylor report. Recommendations 2 and 3 are directly relevant to this issue:

    2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

    3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

    After JFK’s assassination both LBJ and Richard Nixon made attempts to blame the Vietnam war on the man who intended to end it. E. Howard Hunt, CIA propaganda specialist, Bay of Pigs veteran, JFK assassin, WH Plumber, and Watergate conspirator, forged official documents and planted them in WH, CIA, and State Department files to discredit JFK and exonerate Johnson and Nixon, even going so far as to implicate JFK in the assassination of Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem.

    However, it cannot be disputed that JFK signed NSAM #263 before he was murdered in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and it shows his clear determination to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, 1000 troops before the end of 1963 and the bulk of our remaining forces during the first year his second term.

    President Kennedy’s policy, the official policy of the US government as of October 11, 1963 was to withdraw the bulk of all US personnel from Vietnam as specified in National Security Action Memorandum #263. Yet, only 4 days after JFK was assassinated, the day after his funeral, LBJ signed NSAM #273 which completely reverses US policy and establishes America’s commitment to defeating the communist conspiracy in South Vietnam.

    It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the effectiveness of their contribution to this purpose.

    Prior the JFK’s murder US policy toward Vietnam was WITHDRAWAL, the day after he was buried the central object of US policy was TOTAL COMMITMENT.

    JFK’s signature on NSAM #263 wasn’t the only reason he was assassinated but it was a major compelling factor for many of the conspirators, especially the ones who saw great opportunity in escalating the wars in South East Asia, and most especially by the man who gained the most: Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Comments are closed.