11-05-2017, 08:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-05-2017, 08:41 PM by Scott Kaiser.)
I always find it admirable when discussing what many others find to be true events. It helps piece together a lifestyle, occurrences of events that took place, wouldn't you agree?
At some other place, I read this interesting tidbit that paints a picture of an aging man who's basically fighting for his life and seems to be "on his last leg", so-to-say, then, six years after Kennedy's assassination he's discovered dead. But most importantly, the picture itself quickly describes how the weight of his obligations and responsibilities shifted to one man in charge of it all after the disaster. I wonder, if this man had as much responsibility as the top brass said, why then wasn't he given the power to use United States troops at wartime to help serve, protect and defend those who were trained by the United States from the unwarranted call the president of the United States made April 17, 1961?
The post goes on to say;
[FONT=&]"After the invasion failed, Dulles fell into a period of shock. ThenAttorney General Robert Kennedy later wrote that he "looked like living death" and "was always putting his head in his hands." John Kennedy dismissed him a few months later.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The declassified transcript of a closed hearing that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held two weeks after the invasion shows that some of Kennedy's advisers attributed the fiasco to Dulles' dreamy absentmindedness. "He showed up at meetings and sat there smoking his pipe," said Admiral Arleigh Burke, chief of naval operations. "I blame him for not being there."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Years later, in an oral history now available at the Dulles family archives at Princeton University, another witness to the disaster, William Bundy, made a similar judgment.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]"I had the feeling that by then, he was slowing down a bit," said Bundy, who at that time worked under Paul Nitze, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security Affairs. "He hadn't been quite the man I had known. All through, he hadn't been as much on top of the operation as I expected."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Several years after his forced retirement, Dulles wrote rambling notes for an essay defending his performance, but his sister, Eleanor Dulles, persuaded him not to publish it because "he had already begun to lose his command over his memory and ideas." In retirement, he began losing his way on the streets of Georgetown.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]"Perhaps it was what we call Alzheimer's disease today," a cousin, Eleanor Elliot, who cared for him later suggested. She recognized what no one at the White House or CIA had seen or dared to mention in the weeks leading up to the Bay of Pigs invasion.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]When Allen Dulles died in 1969, obituaries focused on his responsibility for what one called "the greatest U.S. intelligence blunder." His appalling performance may be explained at least in part by the onset of dementia. It taught Kennedy what he called "sobering lessons," but it remains the low point of his presidency.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]That's the guy top perps picked to orchestrate the murder of JFK?"[/FONT]
I always find it odd at how the Attorney General described Dulles as a man which death became him. ([FONT=&]Kennedy's advisers attributed the fiasco to Dulles' dreamy absentmindedness.) Someone had to be blamed for the fiasco right? [/FONT]Admiral Burke, chief of naval operations says. "I blame him for not being there." As if that were going to make a difference, being there right? Bundy, made a similar judgment years later. And, all of Kennedy's men blamed one man for the fiasco, certainly, this was not the presidents fault though he accepted public responsibility. I always wondered why Kennedy would do such a thing when all of Kennedy's men were blaming Dulles?
Could it be because he was Commander in Chief he felt somewhat responsible for the fiasco? Or, could there been something more penetrable? Perhaps, something kept secret between the Attorney General and the President whereas only they knew why, but nevertheless requested for an investigation?
The facts have led me to believe that Mr. Kennedy adamantly announced to the American public before the invasion took place there would be no American military involved. However, Mr. Kennedy also committed to air-cover only without engagement, but, how could you cover your wing-man and not engage when you're fired upon? This was a huge dilemma the president had just gotten himself into, and without the Senate bringing up a possible impeachment for engaging with the enemy without Congress' approval on an act of war. How could the president of the United States stay faithful to his word for air-cover, yet, not engage the enemy to avoid the use of American military while on the other hand show Congress no American military was used.
I call this "the plan"
There had to be some sort of negotiations with the Russians prior to committing to any plan. The president assured the Russians there would be no American military used, unfortunately. I did not get to see the Russians response to the presidents letter, however, I do understand what the president is saying to the Russians on D-Day two, April 17, 1961.
The biggest question I've always had is just how did the president know the battle was over [before] it was over?
Now that we know what really happened, was president Kennedy correct when he took full responsibility and just after a few days from the resignations of the top three who were suppose to be in-charge of the operation?
You make the call!
At some other place, I read this interesting tidbit that paints a picture of an aging man who's basically fighting for his life and seems to be "on his last leg", so-to-say, then, six years after Kennedy's assassination he's discovered dead. But most importantly, the picture itself quickly describes how the weight of his obligations and responsibilities shifted to one man in charge of it all after the disaster. I wonder, if this man had as much responsibility as the top brass said, why then wasn't he given the power to use United States troops at wartime to help serve, protect and defend those who were trained by the United States from the unwarranted call the president of the United States made April 17, 1961?
The post goes on to say;
[FONT=&]"After the invasion failed, Dulles fell into a period of shock. ThenAttorney General Robert Kennedy later wrote that he "looked like living death" and "was always putting his head in his hands." John Kennedy dismissed him a few months later.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The declassified transcript of a closed hearing that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held two weeks after the invasion shows that some of Kennedy's advisers attributed the fiasco to Dulles' dreamy absentmindedness. "He showed up at meetings and sat there smoking his pipe," said Admiral Arleigh Burke, chief of naval operations. "I blame him for not being there."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Years later, in an oral history now available at the Dulles family archives at Princeton University, another witness to the disaster, William Bundy, made a similar judgment.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]"I had the feeling that by then, he was slowing down a bit," said Bundy, who at that time worked under Paul Nitze, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security Affairs. "He hadn't been quite the man I had known. All through, he hadn't been as much on top of the operation as I expected."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Several years after his forced retirement, Dulles wrote rambling notes for an essay defending his performance, but his sister, Eleanor Dulles, persuaded him not to publish it because "he had already begun to lose his command over his memory and ideas." In retirement, he began losing his way on the streets of Georgetown.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]"Perhaps it was what we call Alzheimer's disease today," a cousin, Eleanor Elliot, who cared for him later suggested. She recognized what no one at the White House or CIA had seen or dared to mention in the weeks leading up to the Bay of Pigs invasion.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]When Allen Dulles died in 1969, obituaries focused on his responsibility for what one called "the greatest U.S. intelligence blunder." His appalling performance may be explained at least in part by the onset of dementia. It taught Kennedy what he called "sobering lessons," but it remains the low point of his presidency.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]That's the guy top perps picked to orchestrate the murder of JFK?"[/FONT]
I always find it odd at how the Attorney General described Dulles as a man which death became him. ([FONT=&]Kennedy's advisers attributed the fiasco to Dulles' dreamy absentmindedness.) Someone had to be blamed for the fiasco right? [/FONT]Admiral Burke, chief of naval operations says. "I blame him for not being there." As if that were going to make a difference, being there right? Bundy, made a similar judgment years later. And, all of Kennedy's men blamed one man for the fiasco, certainly, this was not the presidents fault though he accepted public responsibility. I always wondered why Kennedy would do such a thing when all of Kennedy's men were blaming Dulles?
Could it be because he was Commander in Chief he felt somewhat responsible for the fiasco? Or, could there been something more penetrable? Perhaps, something kept secret between the Attorney General and the President whereas only they knew why, but nevertheless requested for an investigation?
The facts have led me to believe that Mr. Kennedy adamantly announced to the American public before the invasion took place there would be no American military involved. However, Mr. Kennedy also committed to air-cover only without engagement, but, how could you cover your wing-man and not engage when you're fired upon? This was a huge dilemma the president had just gotten himself into, and without the Senate bringing up a possible impeachment for engaging with the enemy without Congress' approval on an act of war. How could the president of the United States stay faithful to his word for air-cover, yet, not engage the enemy to avoid the use of American military while on the other hand show Congress no American military was used.
I call this "the plan"
There had to be some sort of negotiations with the Russians prior to committing to any plan. The president assured the Russians there would be no American military used, unfortunately. I did not get to see the Russians response to the presidents letter, however, I do understand what the president is saying to the Russians on D-Day two, April 17, 1961.
The biggest question I've always had is just how did the president know the battle was over [before] it was over?
Now that we know what really happened, was president Kennedy correct when he took full responsibility and just after a few days from the resignations of the top three who were suppose to be in-charge of the operation?
You make the call!