01-03-2013, 01:24 PM
CD: I submit that at the Sponsor level there could be found perception of long-term value in the maintenance of a communist "threat" just 90 miles away. Castro was more valuable alive than dead.
Mike Ruppert and I once talked about something like this which touches on this issue. At times there are differences among the elite in objectives. For example, with the "surge" in Iraq, the nutty neo cons were for it, the ideological paleo cons were against it.
See, in any serious examination of the Bay of Pigs, which includes the declassified record, it is an inescapable conclusion that the ultimate aim of the operation was to hood wink Kennedy into launching American forces into an invasion i.e. using Arleigh Burke's naval fleet off the coast of Florida, which was monitoring the failed incursion. And, in fact, there is no doubt that if Nixon was president, that is what would have happened. Since he admitted this to Kennedy when Kennedy called him for advice.
The only reason that Cuba is not a colony of the USA today is that Kennedy was president. If it had been Nixon, Johnson or Eisenhower, Cuba would be a territory of the American empire today.
In what we are talking about here, that is the aftermath of the assassination, things are a bit different. For the simple reason that we are talking about a supposed provocation and not an invasion. And we are talking about a supposed provocation from both the USSR and Cuba, down in Mexico City. When Johnson called McNamara, he was obviously worried about the Russians, since Cuba had no atomic weapons. He then used this to manipulate both Warren and Russell into signing onto the WC.
One can look at what LBJ did in two ways: 1.) He was not going to start nuclear holocaust over whether or not Oswald was at work for the commies when he killed Kennedy. Or 2.) Since Hoover told him it was not Oswald's voice on the tape BEFORE he used this material, he himself suspected something was wrong with this evidence insinuating Oswald did what he did for the commies.
IMO, I think its a mixture of both. At this particular time, as with "the surge", there were differences among the elite in the perception of both circumstances and objectives. IMO, there is no doubt that some people involved wanted an invasion. Evidence for this is what Bringuier and the DRE did right afterwards.
Mike Ruppert and I once talked about something like this which touches on this issue. At times there are differences among the elite in objectives. For example, with the "surge" in Iraq, the nutty neo cons were for it, the ideological paleo cons were against it.
See, in any serious examination of the Bay of Pigs, which includes the declassified record, it is an inescapable conclusion that the ultimate aim of the operation was to hood wink Kennedy into launching American forces into an invasion i.e. using Arleigh Burke's naval fleet off the coast of Florida, which was monitoring the failed incursion. And, in fact, there is no doubt that if Nixon was president, that is what would have happened. Since he admitted this to Kennedy when Kennedy called him for advice.
The only reason that Cuba is not a colony of the USA today is that Kennedy was president. If it had been Nixon, Johnson or Eisenhower, Cuba would be a territory of the American empire today.
In what we are talking about here, that is the aftermath of the assassination, things are a bit different. For the simple reason that we are talking about a supposed provocation and not an invasion. And we are talking about a supposed provocation from both the USSR and Cuba, down in Mexico City. When Johnson called McNamara, he was obviously worried about the Russians, since Cuba had no atomic weapons. He then used this to manipulate both Warren and Russell into signing onto the WC.
One can look at what LBJ did in two ways: 1.) He was not going to start nuclear holocaust over whether or not Oswald was at work for the commies when he killed Kennedy. Or 2.) Since Hoover told him it was not Oswald's voice on the tape BEFORE he used this material, he himself suspected something was wrong with this evidence insinuating Oswald did what he did for the commies.
IMO, I think its a mixture of both. At this particular time, as with "the surge", there were differences among the elite in the perception of both circumstances and objectives. IMO, there is no doubt that some people involved wanted an invasion. Evidence for this is what Bringuier and the DRE did right afterwards.