Message from discussion CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs
Received: by 10.68.73.229 with SMTP id o5mr2863320pbv.7.1328847659830;
Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:20:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs
Date: 9 Feb 2012 23:20:58 -0500
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
X-Original-Trace: 9 Feb 2012 21:08:39 -0600, 22.214.171.124
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1328847658 126.96.36.199 (9 Feb 2012 22:20:58 -0600)
X-Original-Trace: 9 Feb 2012 22:20:58 -0600, 188.8.131.52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/7/2012 4:50 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article<4f316...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> On 2/7/2012 8:09 AM, robert dobbson wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 8:55 pm, doctorw<PSA...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs Debacle Would
>>>> ?Confuse the Public.?
>>> I have to agree with them - I think "The Public " would be confused to
>>> learn that "Gerry Droller" was actually George De Mohrenschildt - but
>>> I think these documents ought to be released anyway.
>> That is not true. Droller was a German who became a CIA officer. De
>> Mohrenschildt was only an asset, an informant.
>> I know what the CIA is worried about. They blame the failure on JFK and
>> say that he did not authorize the second air strike. Sy Hersh has repeated
>> that lie for them. But the documents show tbat he did authorize it and
>> even authorized US Navy jets to protect the bombers, but they arrived at
>> the wrong time and never saw the bombers. Someone named Ned in the CIA
>> didn't understand the difference in time zones. THAT is what they are
>> covering up. THEIR mistakes.
> You?ve been wrong forever about this even though you have the answer on
> your website, http://the-puzzle-palace.com/co2-19.JPG . Not the first
> time you haven?t been able to comprehend your own references and I don?t
> suppose it will be the last.
> Two airstrikes were planned to take out the Cuban air force. This was
> vital to the operation so that the Cuban air force wouldn?t wipe out the
> invading force. They flew the first day?s mission without decisive
> results. The second day?s mission was canceled at the highest level.
> This mission of striking the Cuban air fields was never reinstated.
There was never a mission planned for the second day to strike the
airbases. The first strike was two days before the day of the invasion.
The second strike was scheduled for D-Day. Kennedy cancelled that one. But
then reinstated it for late Monday/early Tuesday morning. You have not
bothered to read the official CIA history. Even that history makes the
same mistake you do about confusing the air cover with the airstrike on
But in discussing what strikes did go forward the official history
accidentally mentions that the second airstrike WAS launched late Monday
"It was not until near
midnight Monday and before dawn on Tuesday morning
(18 April) that the abortive reattacks were launched."
So the CIA admits in its own official history that JFK authorized a second
airstrike against Castro's airfields, but the B-26s were not able to find
their targets. So it's a LIE for the CIA apologists to claim that there
was no second airstrike. Kennedy was not the pilot so don't blame him for
the failure of that mission. So, once again, who the Hell are YOU to call
the CIA liars? They say in print that the second airstrike was launched.
> What you refer to was a mission to drop badly needed supplies to those
> poor souls on the ground. And now I?m sure you?ll tell me bad weather
> prevented the second mission to strike the Cuban air fields. That will
> also be so many horse apples.
One of several missions which did go ahead. Also attacking Castro's tanks.
> Do you understand the difference in striking enemy air fields and flying a
> resupply mission?
Do you understand that the failed mission that I discussed was also to
protect the invasion forces on the beach and at sea?
> Bill Clarke