Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
I am so tried of reading the BULLSHIT that the BOP project was "designed to fail". Who the hell designs plans just so they can fail? The plan was never, ever design to fail. Nixon supported the plan, Kennedy wanted Castro dead. The only way that plan would have worked is had American military been used which by the way was apart of the original plan. Kennedy had a change of heart, and he feared what Russia would do in the wake had it be found out that America was behind the operation in the first place, so Kennedy decided there would be no military intervention, so how the hell do you design a plan that's destine to fail? Try having a change of heart! UGH!
Some folks really need to get a grip on reality, and stop being an on board roadie.
plans are not drawn up "designed to fail", that is not logical, they are however, drawn up with the attention of deceiving Congress or the President so that either one may call upon an act of war, Iraq, Guatemala, Kuwait and Afghanistan, Vietnam and 911. All wars drawn up by the CIA not designed to fail, but to deceive.
If Kennedy wanted Castro dead, why was he trying to normalize relations with Castro just before he himself was killed?
That's exactly what I mean by having a "change of heart" just as Kennedy did in the BOP. And, where did that get him? A shot in the back and one to the head.
Kennedy "tried" having peace talks with Castro, it was Castro who would keep putting them off, talking with Kennedy's (middle men and women) when Castro was good and ready, they weren't getting anywhere. So, Kennedy fired Bill Attwood. It wouldn't have looked good on Kennedy to be having these peace talks with Castro, especially because they weren't going anywhere. Had the anti-Castro Cubans found out Kennedy was doing this, Kennedy would have been long gone before 11/22/1963. Kennedy than started having these talks with Khrushchev in order to prevent war, Cuba was no real threat towards the United States, nor could it pose a communist take over of the United States, but Russia could, which is why Castro got very upset with Russia over having these talks behind Castro's back. Castro didn't really want a relation with the U.S. never.
My two cents.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
IMO, you're two cents is not worth two cents.
The Bay of Pigs operation was designed to fail. Period. We have this from Dick Bissell, Lyman Kirkpatrick (more or less) and above all Allen Dulles. And we have it not secondhand, but in their own words.
You have read the Douglass book have you not? How about Destiny Betrayed? Its all in there at length. All one has to do it read the Kirkpatrick Report and the Taylor Report. And you will see that both investigations were puzzled at the feasibility of the operation. So was JFK. Which is why Dulles had to scare JFK into doing it by saying he had a disposal problem if he called it off. Dulles admitted this also, that Kennedy was never enthusiastic about the project. It was an orphan child he had to push on Kennedy. Further, the CIA was going to arrange an operation to launch it anyway if Kennedy did cancel out at the last minute. To me, and to Bobby Kennedy, this was treason.
As Lyman Kirkpatrick wrote, let us say the CIA had knocked out Castro's Air Force. So what? That would have left 1,500 exiles against a 35,000 man regular army. Supported by a militia of about 175,000 volunteers. In other words, the exiles were outnumbered by over 20-1. As anyone with familiarity with amphibious operations knows, this will not work. Dulles understood this. So he lied to Kennedy and told him that 1.) It would be a surprise operation 2.) Thousands of defectors would come to their side 3.) The exiles could go guerilla if they had to.
You should read Dulles answering these question under RFK's questioning during the Taylor hearings. He was caught by his own BS. This is all in new edition of Destiny Betrayed. You should read it sometime.
RFK was so outraged by Dulles' answers that he called in Robert Lovett, who wanted to fire Dulles under Eisenhower. He then read the Lovett-Bruce report. After this, RFK arranged a meeting with Lovett with JFK. Lovett told him he now had the perfect opportunity to fire Dulles since he was caught in his own deceptions. Because JFK had announced days in advance that there would be no direct American intervention in Cuba. As Dulles wrote in his notes, he though that once exposed to the "realities" of the operation--in other words a failure--he would cave. Kennedy did not.
So during the Taylor hearings, Dulles saw the handwriting on the wall. Namely that his secret agenda had been exposed. He knew the operation had no chance of achieving success without American forces. And he and Bissell made sure any memo saying that would not go to JFK's desk. So he decided to sneak attack JFK in advance of getting fired. He called in Howard Hunt and Hunt secretly penned an article for Charles Murphy at Fortune. It branded Kennedy a callow neophyte who listened to too many doves. It then said it was Kennedy's fault the Bay of Pigs failed. Thus began the myth of the cancelled D Day air strikes. Which Hunt and Phillips used to fire up the exiles against JFK. If you had read my book, you would realize that JFK never authorized any D Day air strikes. These were all contingent on achieving a beachhead and having an air strip on Cuba to launch these strikes from. The CIA knew this. Which is why they picked Playa Giron after Kennedy vetoed their first plan. The Cubans never got close to a beachhead since Castro knew they were coming and he had mortars, artillery, and tanks at the front within hours.
The difference between Kennedy and Nixon is this: Nixon told JFK he would have said they had a beachhead and sent in the Navy. That is he would have overthrown a Third World government with American forces and lied about it. If you know anything about Kennedy, you would understand why he did not.
As per your throwaway line about JFK offing Castro, please. Have we not had enough of this crap? The CIA was trying to kill Castro since 1959. And they continued to do so until 1965. In their own report, they admit they never had executive authorization to do so. Which is why they 1.) Kept these plot from JFK,and 2.) Lied to Kennedy about their continuation after he found out about it.
Read some good stuff on this case, in addition to talking to those Cubans. You can then cross check what they say. And maybe teach them something.
Posts: 17,303
Threads: 3,464
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
Well said Jim!
Scott, what ever the Miami Cubans were told by their handlers is not necessarily what upstairs were doing.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:IMO, you're two cents is not worth two cents.
The Bay of Pigs operation was designed to fail. Period. We have this from Dick Bissell, Lyman Kirkpatrick (more or less) and above all Allen Dulles. And we have it not secondhand, but in their own words.
You have read the Douglass book have you not? How about Destiny Betrayed? Its all in there at length. All one has to do it read the Kirkpatrick Report and the Taylor Report. And you will see that both investigations were puzzled at the feasibility of the operation. So was JFK. Which is why Dulles had to scare JFK into doing it by saying he had a disposal problem if he called it off. Dulles admitted this also, that Kennedy was never enthusiastic about the project. It was an orphan child he had to push on Kennedy. Further, the CIA was going to arrange an operation to launch it anyway if Kennedy did cancel out at the last minute. To me, and to Bobby Kennedy, this was treason.
As Lyman Kirkpatrick wrote, let us say the CIA had knocked out Castro's Air Force. So what? That would have left 1,500 exiles against a 35,000 man regular army. Supported by a militia of about 175,000 volunteers. In other words, the exiles were outnumbered by over 20-1. As anyone with familiarity with amphibious operations knows, this will not work. Dulles understood this. So he lied to Kennedy and told him that 1.) It would be a surprise operation 2.) Thousands of defectors would come to their side 3.) The exiles could go guerilla if they had to.
You should read Dulles answering these question under RFK's questioning during the Taylor hearings. He was caught by his own BS. This is all in new edition of Destiny Betrayed. You should read it sometime.
RFK was so outraged by Dulles' answers that he called in Robert Lovett, who wanted to fire Dulles under Eisenhower. He then read the Lovett-Bruce report. After this, RFK arranged a meeting with Lovett with JFK. Lovett told him he now had the perfect opportunity to fire Dulles since he was caught in his own deceptions. Because JFK had announced days in advance that there would be no direct American intervention in Cuba. As Dulles wrote in his notes, he though that once exposed to the "realities" of the operation--in other words a failure--he would cave. Kennedy did not.
So during the Taylor hearings, Dulles saw the handwriting on the wall. Namely that his secret agenda had been exposed. He knew the operation had no chance of achieving success without American forces. And he and Bissell made sure any memo saying that would not go to JFK's desk. So he decided to sneak attack JFK in advance of getting fired. He called in Howard Hunt and Hunt secretly penned an article for Charles Murphy at Fortune. It branded Kennedy a callow neophyte who listened to too many doves. It then said it was Kennedy's fault the Bay of Pigs failed. Thus began the myth of the cancelled D Day air strikes. Which Hunt and Phillips used to fire up the exiles against JFK. If you had read my book, you would realize that JFK never authorized any D Day air strikes. These were all contingent on achieving a beachhead and having an air strip on Cuba to launch these strikes from. The CIA knew this. Which is why they picked Playa Giron after Kennedy vetoed their first plan. The Cubans never got close to a beachhead since Castro knew they were coming and he had mortars, artillery, and tanks at the front within hours.
The difference between Kennedy and Nixon is this: Nixon told JFK he would have said they had a beachhead and sent in the Navy. That is he would have overthrown a Third World government with American forces and lied about it. If you know anything about Kennedy, you would understand why he did not.
As per your throwaway line about JFK offing Castro, please. Have we not had enough of this crap? The CIA was trying to kill Castro since 1959. And they continued to do so until 1965. In their own report, they admit they never had executive authorization to do so. Which is why they 1.) Kept these plot from JFK,and 2.) Lied to Kennedy about their continuation after he found out about it.
Read some good stuff on this case, in addition to talking to those Cubans. You can then cross check what they say. And maybe teach them something.
Jim, you seem like you're an intelligent man, although, I don't know you, I have, however, read some of your work, (and disagree). Can you please provide me with any document, not second hand hearsay that Dulles said himself that "We designed, I designed, or they designed the Bay of Pigs just to fail?" I'd love to read that.
Jim, I understand your want and need, or otherwise to cover up Kennedy's crap with one finger (that's an old Mexican saying), but, I'd rather tell you the truth no matter how much it hurts you or me.
In the beginning, and (I'm not quoting scripture), but simply pointing out the fact that Jack did want Castro dead. <Period>. In-fact, both brothers wanted Castro dead. <Period>
In-fact, Kennedy promised the Brigade 2506 flag would fly freely over Havana, have you not heard that one before?
I agree that Jack was one of the finest presidents that ever held office, mainly because at the time of adversity stirring him in the face, Jack was able to overcome.
He prevented WWIII, he pushed for the arms race, he wanted to have a man on the moon, he wanted to dismantle subrogation, by bringing us all together and he was able to obtain peace.
But, so did Khrushchev. Neither man wanted war, a complete annihilation of man kind, millions would die at the push of a button, I give Kennedy a great deal of respect for what he has done.
However, here's the truth. Both Kennedy's wanted Castro dead, it's no secret, the Kennedy's were just as human as you and I, they made mistakes, but, unlike you, I will not put them on a pedestal and believe they could do no wrong, that is your first downfall.
Your second is to believe everything you read without any proof. Hearsay, theories and wishful thinking is all fine and dandy, but the truth still remains the same. And, the truth shall set you free.
Speaking of the truth, I did NOT post this because of your opinions, but now that I think about it, you have been pushing the Bay of Pigs plan designed to fail crap for years. If you can find the first idiot that purposes a plan that he himself or anyone else knows "it's designed to fail" than that person should NOT be working in our government.
Mistakes get made all the time, and the results of those mistakes are answers that are very hard to explain, but to say that "I designed the Bay of Pigs only because I knew it would fail" is an outright lie.
Why is it a lie? Because you're dealing with human life, casualties on both sides, and a possible all out war against your enemy. Can you tell me who said, "For the first time, I feel ashamed of my country". Yes, he was an American.
Jim, I truly understand your love for JFK, as I do realized how many here have wished the assassination never happen, as I've said, in my opinion, Kennedy was the greatest president that has ever taken office, but I will not make stuff up that is not true.
As much as I hate the CIA, and hate is a very strong word, (because they killed my father), I've also learned that not everyone in the CIA is bad. Sure, you'll always have that one cook that spoils the broth, but not every cook is bad.
I don't mind having an intelligent one on one debate with you about this, but as soon as you start in with the name calling just as our president did with his opponent by calling him a circus elephant I draw the line. I am neither Democrat or Republican, Liberal, left or right winger. I believe in voting for the man who is best for the job, who believes in defending our Constitutional rights and freedom for all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXEkz6ksxdk
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
26-05-2014, 02:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-05-2014, 05:09 AM by Scott Kaiser.)
I could break down everything you said, but I won't, however, you did say that Dulles told Kennedy that he would have disposal problem if he called it off.(Paraphrasing).
Have you ever stopped to think why he said what he said if in-fact he did say that? Just think about the uprising problems Miami would've had if Kennedy had called off what Eisenhower and Nixon started.
If you think that one man getting beat by the LAPD started riots throughout the United States imagine 1,400 men not fighting for the freedom of their homeland would have done. If Dulles did say that, than he was well ahead of his time knowing what could have happen.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
The following is from Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 47. I will denote what I wrote by not using quotation marks. I will denote what Dulles wrote by using quotation marks.
In 1965, Dulles was preparing a magazine memoir about the Bay of Pigs. he got so far as writing some notes about it. He then decided against it. But many years later, his coffee-stained notes were discovered in his papers at Princeton. In them Dulles finally admitted that he had a secret agenda for leaving Kennedy misinformed. He wrote that he never raised any objections when Kennedy insisted that there be no American troop commitment to the operation, or that the invasion be deniable, or quiet, or it should rely on internal uprisings. He then explained why.
"We did not want to raise these issues...which might only harden the decision against the type of action we required. 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."
In other words, by misleading Kennedy into committing to a project he really did not want to commit to, Dulles would place him in a position where he would either have to swallow a humiliating defeat or reverse his public pledge of April 12: "There will not be under any conditions, an intervention in Cuba by the United States armed forces." In Dulles' eyes, all the deceptions about "going guerilla", about the D Day air strikes, about the Cuban masses rallying to the exile beachhead, these were all justified in his Machiavellian world view. He then tried to rationalize his justification:
"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."
This essay, by Lucien S. Vandenbroucke, was not published until 1984. At the time, the publication, Diplomatic History, gave Bissell an opportunity to reply. Bissell admitted that he and Dulles, "Had allowed Kennedy to persist in misunderstandings about the nature of the Cuban operation."
Quotes off.
Its not often these guys confess to treachery in print. But this time they did. They couldn't avoid it. Someone stuffed the unfinished manuscript into the files.
You should read some of these things from the actual pens of Dulles and Bissell. This is what the CIA is all about: lies, lies and more lies. Which would have been fine under Ike, Nixon or LBJ. But as Kennedy told Red Fay, Dulles had misjudged him. Which is why Dulles told the author he was working with on this essay, "That little Kennedy, he though he was a god." (ibid, p. 34)
No Allen. He just thought he was president. It was you who thought you were a god.
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Jim says,
Quote:As per your throwaway line about JFK offing Castro, please. Have we not had enough of this crap?
There is enough information out there, this may not be the best site to reference, there is a number of documents at MFF that would support this information, all you have to do is look.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...0-000.html
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Scott, I think Dulles knew they had a problem with JFK which is why they executed Lumumba before JFK could get in office. They also knew his Algeria policy and knew he was not a party line man. I don't think you fathom that Dulles knew he would take a victory in Cuba just as much as he would take the destruction of Kennedy as a man with his finger on the chicken switch just as equally. You have to understand that JFK's alleged betrayal of the Cubans at the Bay Of Pigs was something that was played to the hilt and helped get the Cubans in on the assassination.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
That's really credible isn't it?
A rightwing rag like the Daily Mail prints without comment a document that was found about 50 years later with no official markings on it. This was all discussed previously at Jeff Morley's site.
And that is supposed to supercede the report by Fitzgerald and Helms to LBJ and Bundy made in March of 1964 summing up all operations against Castro in the second half of 1963.
There were no assassination attempts. And there were all of five raids authorized by JFK. (Ibid, p. 70) Think the Daily Mail would print that one?
In other words, Kennedy wasn't interested in this stuff anymore. He was interested in the back channel. The CIA knew about this.
That combined with the signing of NSAM 263 in October initiated the Cuban apparatus into the Chicago Plot.
When that failed, Dallas was initiated. Needless to say, it succeeded.
I am not at all saying the Cubans masterminded the two plots. They did not. But whipped into a frenzy by the likes of Hunt and Phillips and Morales over this Bay of Pigs BS, they wllingly became the operational arm for a multi-leveled, insanely complex design.
BTW, just out of curiosity, do you talk to DeTorres? The guy with the pictures from Dealey Plaza who knew about the murder in advance?
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:The following is from Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 47. I will denote what I wrote by not using quotation marks. I will denote what Dulles wrote by using quotation marks.
In 1965, Dulles was preparing a magazine memoir about the Bay of Pigs. he got so far as writing some notes about it. He then decided against it. But many years later, his coffee-stained notes were discovered in his papers at Princeton. In them Dulles finally admitted that he had a secret agenda for leaving Kennedy misinformed. He wrote that he never raised any objections when Kennedy insisted that there be no American troop commitment to the operation, or that the invasion be deniable, or quiet, or it should rely on internal uprisings. He then explained why.
"We did not want to raise these issues...which might only harden the decision against the type of action we required. 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."
In other words, by misleading Kennedy into committing to a project he really did not want to commit to, Dulles would place him in a position where he would either have to swallow a humiliating defeat or reverse his public pledge of April 12: "There will not be under any conditions, an intervention in Cuba by the United States armed forces." In Dulles' eyes, all the deceptions about "going guerilla", about the D Day air strikes, about the Cuban masses rallying to the exile beachhead, these were all justified in his Machiavellian world view. He then tried to rationalize his justification:
"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."
This essay, by Lucien S. Vandenbroucke, was not published until 1984. At the time, the publication, Diplomatic History, gave Bissell an opportunity to reply. Bissell admitted that he and Dulles, "Had allowed Kennedy to persist in misunderstandings about the nature of the Cuban operation."
Quotes off.
Its not often these guys confess to treachery in print. But this time they did. They couldn't avoid it. Someone stuffed the unfinished manuscript into the files.
You should read some of these things from the actual pens of Dulles and Bissell. This is what the CIA is all about: lies, lies and more lies. Which would have been fine under Ike, Nixon or LBJ. But as Kennedy told Red Fay, Dulles had misjudged him. Which is why Dulles told the author he was working with on this essay, "That little Kennedy, he though he was a god." (ibid, p. 34)
No Allen. He just thought he was president. It was you who thought you were a god.
Jim,
I truly appreciate you quoting your book. And, I could do the same, however, mine is not released until Oct 22, 2014. Exactly one month prior to the 51st anniversary of Kennedy's assassination. The book is not about the Kennedy assassination, it is however, about a man who did what he did to make the choice's he made in life; it's about The secret life of one man whose mysteries could have had big implications for the conspiracies that outlived him.
In it, I not only give you my information, but the majority of it is backed by evidence, you're telling me what Dulles said, but the invertibility you seem to use is taking the context of ones thoughts and applying them to your own understanding. How are we to understand Dulles' true definition without an explanation from him as to why he said what he says or thinks what thought.
Should we jump to conclusions? I beg to differ, I just like anyone here wants proof as to why this has happened or why that has happened, because if Kaiser doesn't have the photos than it didn't happen. Right?
|
