26-05-2014, 06:51 AM
Your reply at number ten about me quoting my book is nothing but an evasion on your part.
I was quoting Dulles and Bissell. As they were both quoted directly in Diplomatic History.
The title of that article, which apparently you did not know about, was "The Confessions of Allen Dulles." And no objective person could say it was anything else.
Again, here is Dulles: "We felt that when the chips were down...when the crisis arose in reality--any action required for success would be authorized rather than permit the enterprise to fail....We believed that in a time of crisis we would gain what we might have lost if we provoked an argument in advance."
What do you think he is talking about when he says "any action required for success would be authorized rather than permit the enterprise to fail"? That is English isn't it? He is talking about the Bay of Pigs failing--as he knew it would. Then again, in English, "I have seen a good many operations which started out like this B of P insistence of complete secrecy--non-involvement of the U.S.--initial reluctance to authorize supporting action. This limitation tends to disappear as the needs of the operation become clarified."
What else could be mean about "limitation tends to disappear as the needs of the operation become clarified" except JFK authorizing direct intervention?
If you have an alternative to what everyone else thinks it says, then please offer it. But its pretty clear you were not even aware of this bombshell article. Which is what I would expect from a newbie.
You did not answer my question about DeTorres. Why?
I was quoting Dulles and Bissell. As they were both quoted directly in Diplomatic History.
The title of that article, which apparently you did not know about, was "The Confessions of Allen Dulles." And no objective person could say it was anything else.
Again, here is Dulles: "We felt that when the chips were down...when the crisis arose in reality--any action required for success would be authorized rather than permit the enterprise to fail....We believed that in a time of crisis we would gain what we might have lost if we provoked an argument in advance."
What do you think he is talking about when he says "any action required for success would be authorized rather than permit the enterprise to fail"? That is English isn't it? He is talking about the Bay of Pigs failing--as he knew it would. Then again, in English, "I have seen a good many operations which started out like this B of P insistence of complete secrecy--non-involvement of the U.S.--initial reluctance to authorize supporting action. This limitation tends to disappear as the needs of the operation become clarified."
What else could be mean about "limitation tends to disappear as the needs of the operation become clarified" except JFK authorizing direct intervention?
If you have an alternative to what everyone else thinks it says, then please offer it. But its pretty clear you were not even aware of this bombshell article. Which is what I would expect from a newbie.
You did not answer my question about DeTorres. Why?