21-08-2016, 02:44 AM
(This post was last modified: 21-08-2016, 03:13 AM by Cliff Varnell.)
My comments in red
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:CV: The principals should have known better than to have let the invasion go forward.
The top level of the CIA took the fall, but Rusk, Bundy and Kennedy himself should have known better than to proceed.
The claim Jim DiEugenio and many others make that the CIA and the military tried to pressure JFK into saving the operation with US military force on D-Day is bullshit.
So what if Dulles claimed otherwise well after the fact?
The guy was a professional liar.
So what if JFK made the same claim?
The guy was a professional politician, and the claim is self-serving.
The kind of logic used above and the rules of evidence employed seem to me to be reminiscent of the likes of David Von Pein.
The King of the Contentless Dismissal is back!
Von Pein works from a previously arrived at position and everything else gets consumed by that position.
Irony lives!
Well Varnell does the same with his theory of Zapata.
Not a theory.
It's right there in the mid-March memos you conveniently ignore: "it was decided," consensus amongst the principals that there would be no US military intervention.
What part of that escapes you?
For anyone to write that the CIA and military did not try and get JFK to save the operation by committing American forces or launching an air attack from Nicaragua, that is just utter and complete BS.
Face saving measures - weak and ridiculous. There was no real effort to pressure JFK beyond that.
That is what happened, and it happened more than once.
Yes, Cabell called Rusk at 4am on D-Day and begged to talk to JFK, and Rusk put him thru.
Kennedy turned him down because the official policy of non-intervention was in effect.
Everyone knew it.
And JFK turned it down.
It was turned down a month earlier in a group decision that wasn't going to be overturned by weak last minute pleas.
And the idea that Dulles would lie to himself about this is more complete crap. Because all we have are his notes. Which no one was supposed to see.
Sure about that?
Weren't those notes part of a publishing project?
So who was he deceiving?
Anyone who might read his notes.
Kennedy lied about this to Paul Fay in a private conversation? Which would never have been known about if he had not been murdered?
Standard politician puffery.
If Kennedy did not feel he had been betrayed and lied to about the Bay of Pigs, then why did he commission the Taylor Report?
To get rid of Dulles, the purpose of the operation, probably, once Rusk took over at State and started bitching about it.
Why did they call all of those witnesses?
To remove Dulles, Cabell and Bissell in order to put Richard Helms in charge of clandestine ops.
Why did RFK question Dulles so aggressively?
He wanted to get rid of him.
Why did Bobby then search for the Bruce/Lovett Report?
To get more info from the guys who wanted to get rid of Dulles.
Why did he read the Kirkpatrick Report?
Lyman Kirkpatrick wanted Bissell's job, a perfect alignment of ambition with the Kennedys and the CIA guys vying to move up.
Sadly for old Lyman, Helms got the Deputy Director for Plans gig, instead.
Why did JFK issue the three NSAMs 55, 56, 57? Why did Kennedy then issue orders about the American ambassador's prominence over the CIA station chief in foreign countries? Why did he then consult with Schlesinger about changing the name of the CIA? Why did he then install his brother as ombudsman over Mongoose?
He didn't trust the CIA.
No one is challenging that.
To any objective person with any respect for evidence and logic its because he felt he had been suckered and wanted to get more control of the Agency.
No shit, Sherlock.
No one is challenging that.
The worst thing about a half baked theorist is not that they end up being solipsistic.
Pure projection.
But they end up doing such for no discernible reason than that--to advance their own theories.
Uh hunh, Jim D. Sure thang...
And then they cannot figure out why they are ignored.
Excuse me?
Ignored by those for whom I hold a barely concealed contempt?
Sure thang, Jim...