The truth and bare facts about the Bay of Pigs

[Scott Kaiser]

If you haven't already read this, than, here you go, it may help explain who my father was.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/arc...ead/168830

[O. Austrud]

Scott, I just hope your new book will be something we can learn from. But stop being annoying to everybody else. Have some respect. Do you have a heart? There are many people here who have dedicated their life to this, and you just come in here to teach us of what happened?

[Scott Kaiser]

Scott, I just hope your new book will be something we can learn from. But stop being annoying to everybody else. Have some respect. Do you have a heart? There are many people here who have dedicated their life to this, and you just come in here to teach us of what happened?

I had no idea I was being annoying, that's how you may perceive it to be, but not me. The problem is no one wants to hear anything new because it's all been written over the past 50 years, and when someone does bring something new to the table, well it just may screw things up?

I don't believe you know me to call me an annoying person. I am who I am, and have been this way my whole life, I've been the same person I am on FB. And, my friends who do know me don't think I'm annoying except my mother, so, I guess that makes two people now.

No one wants to hear what the new kid on the block has to say, because everybody else is right but him.

Respect is earned, and when someone respects me. I respect them, can you tell me why is it that so many here seem to jump to conclusions, assume things or are so quick to judge? I haven't figured that one out yet.

[Scott Kaiser]

^^Edited...

[Scott Kaiser]

A plan that is "Designed to fail" may at any time be revoked, canceled, dismantled, dissolved, everyone from the CIA to the president knew that by canceling the invasion would have been disastrous, therefore, though everyone knew this plan would not work, and several letters by Bowles sent to Rusk warned him about the plan how it would fail. The CIA deemed Bowles who oppose the plan as unloyal to the CIA.

The CIA received their 13 million dollar budget from the presiding president, do you suppose Kennedy knew what the CIA really did with that money? Probably not.

The CIA "deceived" the anti-Castro Cubans in believing American military would be used, the CIA deceived Kennedy in believing the battle would have some success, a year of planning could not be re-worked in time for the landing.

If the plan was truly designed just to fail we have to look at the facts as to why was it designed to fail? The invaders would have no U.S. support, but! We would provide them with planes, ships, ammunition, food, money, etc. etc. etc. But, America would not support them? Bullshit!

The CIA had "deceived" everyone involved in this project including Kennedy. Kennedy faithfully put his trust in the CIA's plans when everyone knew this plan would not work, any plan that is designed to fail is a plan only known by a few that would "deliberately" see it though. That is clearly not the case in the Bay of Pigs.

Everyone but the fighting exiles knew it wouldn't work, no one dared to cancel it. As far as I'm concerned everyone including the fighting exiles were deceived in believing that they could re-take Cuba, and the CIA deceived them all.

[Scott Kaiser]

Oh, look... Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction, but when America invaded Iraq they couldn't find any. I wonder, did the CIA deceive the president again? Or was it just an attempt to invade another foreign country because our government didn't like the way Saddam Husein was treating his people or was it really all about the oil Kwait could provide the United States if the United States stepped in, so the missiles of mas destruction story crap they used to invade, I wonder, was that to deceive the American people? It worked didn't it?

[Scott Kaiser]

I will tell you the truth, many here would like to do nothing more than try and discredit me. My argument all along has NOT been about whether the BOP invasion could or would have worked, or what part of the plan could have had it's success, but simply the diversion of the plan by the CIA.

My argument has been that NO one deliberately "designs a plan to fail", that's not the way it works, the truth about the BOP is the fact that everything went wrong, though the United States supported them monetarily they would not support them militarily. I can tell you, that I have personally been around the CIA long enough to know they are out to deceive.

That's not my opinion, that's a fact, your opinion is that the BOP was "design to fail", and that's your opinion, but that's not a fact.

Perhaps, once the rest of the documents are released on this baby you'll understand. But, don't expect them anytime soon, because if they haven't been released after 50 years chances are they won't.

[Scott Kaiser]

Here's a little tid bit I'll leave you with, hope I'm not being annoying. I have heard so many people say follow the money, and that's true, a friend of mine in Miami told me "this was a Big operation".

I'm willing to bet that the money set aside used for the BOP's was NOT fully depleted, in-fact, it helped carried out much of the financing along with the contributions made by one Pawley to DRE in setting up Oswald.

But, hey! Don't take my word for it.

This is just what I'm told.

[David Josephs]

I will tell you the truth, many here would like to do nothing more than try and discredit me. My argument all along has NOT been about whether the BOP invasion could or would have worked, or what part of the plan could have had it's success, but simply the diversion of the plan by the CIA.

My argument has been that NO one deliberately "designs a plan to fail", that's not the way it works, the truth about the BOP is the fact that everything went wrong, though the United States supported them monetarily they would not support them militarily. I can tell you, that I have personally been around the CIA long enough to know they are out to deceive.

That's not my opinion, that's a fact, your opinion is that the BOP was "design to fail", and that's your opinion, but that's not a fact.

Perhaps, once the rest of the documents are released on this baby you'll understand. But, don't expect them anytime soon, because if they haven't been released after 50 years chances are they won't.

"My argument has been that NO one deliberately "designs a plan to fail", that's not the way it works,"

Sorry Scott, but I have to say this is one of the most naive and misinformed statement I have read in quite a while.
You're understanding of CI, Angleton, Dulles, Helms, Bissel, Cabal, Lansdale, etc... might benefit from some additional research.

Until you can accurately and reliably tell us what the PLAN was in the minds of those who drafted it, what the actual objectives were (not the ones listed in CIA documents - cause we all know how reliable and authentic CIA documents are) there is simply no way you or anyone else not intimately involved in the planning could know these things.

Scott... take some time and read Bill Harvey's ZR/RIFLE & QJ/WIN notes on "Executive Action" and the supporting documentation and deniability involved.... Fake 201's, backdated correspondance, blowback deniability... etc...

This is just one of a number of pages - yet it refers to the COVER activites expected for success.....

Scott, please believe me when I say I am not casting any doubt on your Father's work or activities.... only that your presentation of how you understand covert CIA/Military activity and that the offered or obvious OBJECTIVES of the plans enacted are not always what they appear.... in fact, if the CIA is doing their job, they are NEVER what they appear....

For you to definitely state that CIA plans do not work that way... is as I say naive...

There's an old quote that goes, "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied" (Airplanes fyling into buildings? we NEVER thought of that)

I am hoping you take my comments in the spirit they are offered. I've spent the better part of 15 years involved in the study of these plans and the related plans to cover up the actual Objective...
The CIA et al are in the business of deception. To assume, from information provided about something the CIA did was in any way OBVIOUS, is to me the biggest concern in your argument here.

How are you in a position to know what the BOP plan was actually designed to do, unless you were there and involved?


[ATTACH=CONFIG]6038[/ATTACH]

[Scott Kaiser]

I will tell you the truth, many here would like to do nothing more than try and discredit me. My argument all along has NOT been about whether the BOP invasion could or would have worked, or what part of the plan could have had it's success, but simply the diversion of the plan by the CIA.

My argument has been that NO one deliberately "designs a plan to fail", that's not the way it works, the truth about the BOP is the fact that everything went wrong, though the United States supported them monetarily they would not support them militarily. I can tell you, that I have personally been around the CIA long enough to know they are out to deceive.

That's not my opinion, that's a fact, your opinion is that the BOP was "design to fail", and that's your opinion, but that's not a fact.

Perhaps, once the rest of the documents are released on this baby you'll understand. But, don't expect them anytime soon, because if they haven't been released after 50 years chances are they won't.

"My argument has been that NO one deliberately "designs a plan to fail", that's not the way it works,"

Sorry Scott, but I have to say this is one of the most naive and misinformed statement I have read in quite a while.
You're understanding of CI, Angleton, Dulles, Helms, Bissel, Cabal, Lansdale, etc... might benefit from some additional research.

Until you can accurately and reliably tell us what the PLAN was in the minds of those who drafted it, what the actual objectives were (not the ones listed in CIA documents - cause we all know how reliable and authentic CIA documents are) there is simply no way you or anyone else not intimately involved in the planning could know these things.

Scott... take some time and read Bill Harvey's ZR/RIFLE & QJ/WIN notes on "Executive Action" and the supporting documentation and deniability involved.... Fake 201's, backdated correspondance, blowback deniability... etc...

This is just one of a number of pages - yet it refers to the COVER activites expected for success.....

Scott, please believe me when I say I am not casting any doubt on your Father's work or activities.... only that your presentation of how you understand covert CIA/Military activity and that the offered or obvious OBJECTIVES of the plans enacted are not always what they appear.... in fact, if the CIA is doing their job, they are NEVER what they appear....

For you to definitely state that CIA plans do not work that way... is as I say naive...

There's an old quote that goes, "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied" (Airplanes fyling into buildings? we NEVER thought of that)

I am hoping you take my comments in the spirit they are offered. I've spent the better part of 15 years involved in the study of these plans and the related plans to cover up the actual Objective...
The CIA et al are in the business of deception. To assume, from information provided about something the CIA did was in any way OBVIOUS, is to me the biggest concern in your argument here.

How are you in a position to know what the BOP plan was actually designed to do, unless you were there and involved?


[ATTACH=CONFIG]6038[/ATTACH]

Mr. Josephs, I do not wish to argue with you about what I said, or what you ass-u-me, it appears you have read all my posts but #77.

Have a good day sir.