21-08-2016, 01:35 AM
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. Von Pein works from a previously arrived at position and everything else gets consumed by that position.
Well Varnell does the same with his theory of Zapata.
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. That is what happened, and it happened more than once. And JFK turned it down.
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. So who was he deceiving?
Kennedy lied about this to Paul Fay in a private conversation? Which would never have been known about if he had not been murdered?
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? Why did they call all of those witnesses? Why did RFK question Dulles so aggressively? Why did Bobby then search for the Bruce/Lovett Report? Why did he read the Kirkpatrick Report? 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?
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.
The worst thing about a half baked theorist is not that they end up being solipsistic. But they end up doing such for no discernible reason than that--to advance their own theories.
And then they cannot figure out why they are ignored.
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. Von Pein works from a previously arrived at position and everything else gets consumed by that position.
Well Varnell does the same with his theory of Zapata.
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. That is what happened, and it happened more than once. And JFK turned it down.
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. So who was he deceiving?
Kennedy lied about this to Paul Fay in a private conversation? Which would never have been known about if he had not been murdered?
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? Why did they call all of those witnesses? Why did RFK question Dulles so aggressively? Why did Bobby then search for the Bruce/Lovett Report? Why did he read the Kirkpatrick Report? 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?
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.
The worst thing about a half baked theorist is not that they end up being solipsistic. But they end up doing such for no discernible reason than that--to advance their own theories.
And then they cannot figure out why they are ignored.