General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963 [View all]Jim DiEugenio
(6 posts)If we were in an MA or Ph. D. American history program, and I was your mentor, I would tell you to start over.
Your comment above violates about 3 rules of historiography: concerning both textual and witness testimony, and most recent testimony.
As is proven by the declassified October phone call between Bundy, McNamara and Kennedy, Bundy was not in on the origins and progress of the withdrawal plan. This is proven by the fact that McNamara has to repeat the fact that they must find a way to get out of Vietnam. Bundy does not know what they are talking about. This is in the movie Virtual JFK. JFK was disappointed in the fact that Bundy was one of the first advisors to urge him to commit combat troops into Vietnam.
The other problem you have is that Bundy's own testimony vitiates Dallek's book. Dallek's book was published in 2003. Gordon Goldstein's book Lessons in Disaster was published in 2008. That book was to be a co venture with Bundy as the main author. Bundy went through the whole declassified record and came to the conclusion that JFK was not going into Vietnam. And he had nothing but admiration for how Kennedy had handled it. And he was chagrined at his own stupidity. And he acknowledged that JFK had worked out his plan with McNamara and not him.
Dallek's book was disappointing because he did not use the most recently declassified documents about the withdrawal plan from the ARRB. Both Virtual JFK and Lessons in Disaster used more of them.