#: 505886 S7/JFK Debate  [POLITICS]
    19-Mar-96  15:15:43
Sb: Prouty Critique # 15
Fm: D.T. FUHRMANN 71301,527
To: ALL

continued # 15....

A minor point here, but Mr. Prouty states that "South Korea had been
invaded by "Communist" forces from the north, and through the medium known
as television, moving pictures of an ongoing war were brought into the
homes of millions of Americans for the first time. A bit premature. 
Vietnam during the late 1960s is generally perceived to be the first
"television" war, in which that medium had a significant impact on public
attitudes. I'm old enough to vaguely remember Korea, and most news of the
Korean War still came over the radio, not through television.  But I
digress again...... 

In a paragraph that is (IMO) eggregious in its misrepresentation, Mr.
Prouty (referring to a speech by Dulles) declares: 

"....Dulles admitted in his St Louis speech that the United States had
been contributing to both sides of the newest "desperate struggle," that
is, "to the combined efforts of the Fdrench and of Vietnam"----a rare
admission, and true.  As a major manufacturers of military supplies and
equipment, it mattered not at all to the great industrial combines of the
United States who bought their products...." 

This clearly states that Dulles said we had supplied both the French and
the Viet Minh. However, what Dulles was referring to was our assistance to
the Bao Dai regime, which was at the time the recognized government of
Vietnam as far as the US was concerned....not US assistance to the Viet
Minh or Ho Chi Minh. But having already "proven" to the reader that the US
gave Ho Chi Minh vast amounts of military material, Dulles' words can be
held up to mean something other than what they were. In fact, Dulles did
not say we had supplied "both sides" in the Indochina conflict. 

The focus throughout is completely and solely on the activities of the
CIA, "living up to the name given to it by R. Buckminster Fuller: "The
Capitalist Welfare Department."  If it was, the Pentagon and the military
was Neiman-Marcus, for their involvement and effort far exceeded that of
the CIA during the 1950s.  Of course, Mr. Prouty doesn't mention that at
all. Nor does he mention that everything which was going on in SEA during
these years was done with the involvement and knowledge of the president
in the decision making process. 

On page 47 we again see reference to the supply of a "tremendous stock of
military equipment" to Ho Chi Minh by the CIA. Still nothing other than
Prouty's say-so for this though. I would welcome someone pointing out an
independence source which confirms this story. Any source other than Mr.
Prouty.  Someone please help. 

After a VERY brief reference (less than one page) to a couple of
statements made by US officials in 1944 and 1945, which presumably are
supposed to show the reader what US policy was (but which are culled from
the record and ignore the vast majority of statements and events relative
to the problem of Indochina) and a quick description of how the French
took back southern Indochina, refused to deal honestly with Ho Chi Minh in
1946, and then ended up in a war with the Viet Minh, Prouty declares: 

"This is the way it was.  There can be no clearer picture of events of
that time." 

On the contrary.  Any of the works cited above will provide a far more
detailed and much clearer picture of those events, and of US policy during
those crucial months.  I challenge anyone to find corroboration for Mr.
Prouty's version of history in those works. 

Further: "We do not have precise answers as to why we gave US arms to Ho
Chi Minh in 1945 and then a few years later provided Ho's enemy, the
French, with $3 Billion worth of arms."  Maybe the reason we don't have
precise answers is because we never gave arms to Ho Chi Minh. Thus far, we
still only have Mr. Prouty's assertion for this, but no other confirmation
or supporting information.  Repeat something often enough and perhaps
people will start to believe it. 

On page 49 he notes: "By February 1950, both Great Britain and the United
States had established diplomatic relations with the new State of Vietnam
in the south even though each relationship was no more than an empty
shell." What he does not tell the reader was that the US was reluctant to
extend diplomatic recognition to the Bao Dai government, and only did so
because Communist China and the Soviet Union had both already recognized
the Communist regime of Ho Chi Minh.  Irrelevant details.  Maybe Mr.
Prouty thinks the US and Britain should have extended diplomatic
recognition to the Communist regime of Ho Chi Minh? 

And again, at the bottom of page 49, we are once more told about "those
heavily laden transports" which left Okinawa for Korea and Vietnam. That's
an average of almost once a page in this chapter. But not one piece of
supporting evidence, not one confirming source, nothing other than Mr.
Prouty's assertion that this happened. 

Finally, in the last paragraph of the Chapter (page 50), Mr Prouty
corrects "a common misconception" about the CIA. The CIA, Mr. Prouty tells
us, does not act by and for itself. In fact, states Mr. Prouty, the CIA is
merely an "agency," carrying out "the orders of others, as their agent."
The CIA rarely makes plans, it acts "in response to some other
initiative," and following close behind are"its strong and ever-present
allies, the rest of the government infrastructure, along with the willing
support of the entire military-industrial complex and financial
community."  The "high cabal" provides the plan and the orders, and the
CIA leads the "secret team" into action?  Or is this a reference to
bureaucratic politics and the nature of large organizations? If so, then
that suggests a very different picture than one of a secretive high cabal
conspiring to manipulate history. Unfortunately, Mr. Prouty is not
particularly clear on this point, so the reader is left to decide on their
own....though we have certainly been pointed in the "right" direction. 

In the end, there isn't much of anything substantive being presented in
this chapter, and the bits and pieces of history which Mr. Prouty weaves
are relatively innocuous....except as the setup for further revelations to
come. As noted above, not all of the historical details mentioned by the
author are wrong or inaccurate, but overall the presentation is selective,
incomplete, misleading and based on allegations of events which are
neither supported nor substantiated by independent sources.  IMO. 

dtf - 3/19/96