Sounds Stupid...
Guest
....But do you think racism had something to do with it? Do you think
part of the reason he was killed was because he was Irish and they brought
in a lot of their people to Washington?
Chuck Schuyler
I think your theory is just as valid as anything the other CT kooks
post here.
Let's add it to the pile as "JFK Assassination Theory # 1,205,001,290."
Harry
Whatever you're drinking, order me case, will ya?
treads...@gmail.com
I had better make sure that I never run for President than:) barack better
watch out too, because despite his complexion, he apparently has Irish
roots in his not too distant past :) Will he get an open topped car in a
motorcade too if he gets elected?
Bud
I agree with your header.
Baldoni
>
> ....But do you think racism had something to do with it? Do you think
> part of the reason he was killed was because he was Irish and they brought
> in a lot of their people to Washington?
Yes in part because Joe Kennedy hated the British. He was a supporter of
Irish Republicanism and allowed that to cloud his vision when in London as
Ambassador prior to the outbreak of War.
Winston Churchill never forgave Kennedy for this and it led to him first
nearly drinking himself to oblivion as PM which in turn brought about
depression (which Churchill named "The Black Dog"). Such was Churchill's
anger that he did not inform the US that the Japanese were about to attack
Pearl Harbor. He became so vindictive that he backed the plan of Orson
Welles to kill JFK.
I may add that while this appears as folly and incredible it was no more
folly and utter foolishness than many of the US's attempts to kill Fidel
Castro.
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
Harry says...
A wee bit of the Irish whiskey, perhaps?
jfk...@gmail.com
They did call them the Irish Mafia. I think JFK was considered to be
too amenable to the Communists. He refused to take forceful military
actions against them in the BOP and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Harry
JFK wasn't about to let the Joint Chiefs and the CIA force him into
the use of overt U.S. Military action against Cuba. He told them this
beforehand, but they didn't believe him. They made the mistake of
believing he thought in the same fashion they did. JFK wanted, and
worked for, peace, not war. The BOP plan was a hair-brained to say the
least. They knew it wouldn't work as presented to Kennedy and wasn't
designed to. It was designed to precipitate the use of military force
for a full-scale invasion.
During the early sixties the Pentagon was populated by madmen. They
wanted war over Cuba in April 1961; presented a plan to Kennedy in
July of 1961 for a nuclear first-strike against the Soviet Union; In
March of 1962 prepared plans for false-flag terrorist operations
(Operations Northwoods) as a pretext for invading Cuba; and tried to
force Kennedy to bomb the missiles in Cuba in Oct. or 1962 which would
have brought the Soviet Union into the situation. The CIA was creating
foreign policy on its own (Vietnam e.g.) outside the purview of the
State Dept. or White House and assassinating foreign leaders without
approval.
The government of the United States in the early 60s was at war with
itself. In the end, Kennedy lost his battle against the war machine
and was assassinated in Dallas.
treads...@gmail.com
> Guest wrote :
>
>
>
>
> Such was Churchill's
> anger that he did not inform the US that the Japanese were about to attack
> Pearl Harbor. He became so vindictive that he backed the plan of Orson
> Welles to kill JFK.
>
Guest
news:485e9436-abcf-4dd3...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
The reason I bring this up is because it is clear that JFK alone was not
the prime target - may have been the Kennedys' controlling the government.
Despite what many of you may think, there is still a race war (some may
call it "ethnic," but people who are distinct from one another are
different races and history shows this as well, even in Europe) going on.
Peoples or Germanic background seem still seem to think of themselves as
the leaders. Anglos of course feel that they have their place and Jews?
Well, the Kennedys' did put in a lot of Irish people in the White House so
some people may not like it.
See, I am wondering was the hit on JFK because of his policies or because
it was simply a power move to take the Kennedy's place? Fidel is STILL
alive and Cuba was never invaded. I find it hard to believe that he was
killed simply because of Cuba or Vietnam. Since the government still
withholds the truth from people, that must mean that he was killed for
reasons other than his policies. Usually when people kill a leader - mob
boss, gang leader, president or a leader of a company is replaced,
radically different ideas usually follow. There were none after JFK. It
is as if the Kennedys' were stopped - not JFK or RFK.
robcap...@netscape.com
> Guest wrote :
>
>
>
> > ....But do you think racism had something to do with it? Do you think
> > part of the reason he was killed was because he was Irish and they brought
> > in a lot of their people to Washington?
>
> Yes in part because Joe Kennedy hated the British. He was a supporter of
> Irish Republicanism and allowed that to cloud his vision when in London as
> Ambassador prior to the outbreak of War.
You cluelessness is showing again. The "Royal" family of Britain is
actually of strong Germanic foundations. So when you say he hated the
British, who are you refering to?
tomnln
"Harry" <harryfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f705819-eb82-460c...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That's essentially what the CIA's own Inspector General said in his report
on the B O P Abortion.
Baldoni
> On Aug 18, 8:29 pm, Baldoni <baldoni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Guest wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>> ....But do you think racism had something to do with it? Do you think
>>> part of the reason he was killed was because he was Irish and they brought
>>> in a lot of their people to Washington?
>>
>> Yes in part because Joe Kennedy hated the British. He was a supporter of
>> Irish Republicanism and allowed that to cloud his vision when in London as
>> Ambassador prior to the outbreak of War.
>
> You cluelessness is showing again. The "Royal" family of Britain is
> actually of strong Germanic foundations. So when you say he hated the
> British, who are you refering to?
>
family were major players. The English have a "constitutional"
Monarch, the King or Queen does not rule, they reign.
--
Count Baldoni
treads...@gmail.com
With all due respect, I think you should stick to the football my
friend.
This is a different "league" :) entirely and your posts are off the
wall.
billc...@live.com
This is rather too strong I think. The CIA is set up to maintain an
aspect of plausible denial between them and the president. This might be
what leads to your confusion. I might add that most presidents are
attracted to the covert paramilitary actions of the CIA. Getting by on
the cheap, so to speak and JFK was particularly intrigued by this type of
operation. By nature most were doomed to failure, including the BOP.
Some operations were even discouraged by the CIA but they were forced to
run them.
> and assassinating foreign leaders without approval.
What foreign leaders would that be? There is ample evidence that Bobby
ran the plan to murder Castro. If Bobby knew I think it a sure bet JFK
knew.
> The government of the United States in the early 60s was at war with
> itself. In the end, Kennedy lost his battle against the war machine
> and was assassinated in Dallas.
I thought this theory had finally run out of favor. It needs too.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
I believe what really chapped the old War Horse’s behind was Joe
Kennedy’s pro-German stance. If Joe wasn’t a Nazi enthusiast (the
Jews you know) he was at best a defeatist and of course Churchill
objected to the Ambassador from the United States being so.
Churchill requested that FDR recall Kennedy but FDR didn’t want the
horse’s rear end back in the U.S. running for president so he left him
in London. Churchill then bypassed Kennedy, much to Joe’s irritation.
As for Pearl Harbor and Orson Welles, do we really have to go there?
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
This is not true. The CIA decides on their own what and when they are
going to do it, that is why JFK had a problem with them. They wanted
the BOP to fail so we would have to invade with the military. The
estimate of death is 800,000 based on the weapons the Soviets had on
the island. This is what JFK avoided. Your man (LBJ) and Nixon would
have gladly lead them to slaughter.
> > and assassinating foreign leaders without approval.
>
> What foreign leaders would that be? There is ample evidence that Bobby
> ran the plan to murder Castro. If Bobby knew I think it a sure bet JFK
> knew.
Ample evidence? List it. This was all made post-RFK's death. The
Kennedys were against murder. Your man favored it. Read about Allende
to start with but there are many more.
> > The government of the United States in the early 60s was at war with
> > itself. In the end, Kennedy lost his battle against the war machine
> > and was assassinated in Dallas.
>
> I thought this theory had finally run out of favor. It needs too.
You have NOT proven it to be false, and your man gave it validity by
faking an attack to escalate the war. This is all the proof we need.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
So the CIA is the organ that determines U.S. foreign policy? I don’t
think so.
> that is why JFK had a problem with them.
JFK had a problem with them because they gave him shitty intelligence
that caused him to get much egg on his face.
> They wanted the BOP to fail so we would have to invade with the military.
Speculation without any evidence.
> The estimate of death is 800,000 based on the weapons the Soviets had on
> the island. This is what JFK avoided.
He should have avoided the BOP.
> Your man (LBJ) and Nixon would have gladly lead them to slaughter.
You have no idea what either would have done. Speculation again.
> > > and assassinating foreign leaders without approval.
>
> > What foreign leaders would that be? There is ample evidence that Bobby
> > ran the plan to murder Castro. If Bobby knew I think it a sure bet JFK
> > knew.
>
> Ample evidence? List it.
There is ample testimony and interviews with those involved with the
Castro assassination plots. Try Helms for starters.
> This was all made post-RFK's death.
I hope you aren’t saying that the Castro assassinations attempts were
made only after Bobby’s death?
> Kennedys were against murder. Your man favored it. Read about
Allende
> to start with but there are many more.
If you are inferring that Nixon is my man you would, as you so often
are, be very wrong.
> > > The government of the United States in the early 60s was at war with
> > > itself. In the end, Kennedy lost his battle against the war machine
> > > and was assassinated in Dallas.
>
> > I thought this theory had finally run out of favor. It needs too.
>
> You have NOT proven it to be false, and your man gave it validity by
> faking an attack to escalate the war. This is all the proof we need.- Hide quoted text -
You really must read of the Tonkin Gulf incident. May I suggest Dr.
Moise’s book.
Bill Clarke
tomnln
<billc...@live.com> wrote in message
news:1054abde-c93e-4651...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILL CLARKE WROTE;
So the CIA is the organ that determines U.S. foreign policy? I don’t
think so.
I write;
The CIA's own Inspector General's Report on the B O P "Specifically" states
that the CIA did indeed "set policy" in the B O P Fiasco.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/i.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
billc...@live.com
> MIDDLE POST;
>
> <billcla...@live.com> wrote in message
> BILL CLARKE WROTE;
>
> So the CIA is the organ that determines U.S. foreign policy? I don’t
> think so.
>
> I write;
>
> The CIA's own Inspector General's Report on the B O P "Specifically" states
> that the CIA did indeed "set policy" in the B O P Fiasco.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/i.htm
It says no such thing and I’d like you to point out just which
paragraph in which this shocking information is supposed to appear.
It is a report on the CIA failure and blame for the “fiasco”, nothing
more. Ike formed the policy when he commissioned the operation and
JFK let it go forward. Are you suggesting that Ike and JFK was not
aware of the operation?
My god man, even Anthony Marsh had to say you were over-extending this
report.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
You better do more research as Queen Elizabeth II is the head of some
powerful groups (of which Churchill was a member of as well) and her
"rule" extends beyond just England.
tomnln
<billc...@live.com> wrote in message
news:462efcf8-fb09-40f3...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Bill Clarke wrote;
It says no such thing and I’d like you to point out just which
paragraph in which this shocking information is supposed to appear.
It is a report on the CIA failure and blame for the “fiasco”, nothing
more. Ike formed the policy when he commissioned the operation and
JFK let it go forward. Are you suggesting that Ike and JFK was not
aware of the operation?
My god man, even Anthony Marsh had to say you were over-extending this
report.
Bill Clarke
Apparently you haven't seen me prove Marsh Wrong on severasl previous
issues.
Are you Denying that the CIA's Inspector General's Report states what I said
it states?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
billc...@live.com
> BOTTOM POST;
> > BILL CLARKE WROTE;
>
> > So the CIA is the organ that determines U.S. foreign policy? I don’t
> > think so.
>
> > I write;
>
> > The CIA's own Inspector General's Report on the B O P "Specifically"
> > states
> > that the CIA did indeed "set policy" in the B O P Fiasco.
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/i.htm
>
> Bill Clarke wrote;
>
> It says no such thing and I’d like you to point out just which
> paragraph in which this shocking information is supposed to appear.
> It is a report on the CIA failure and blame for the “fiasco”, nothing
> more. Ike formed the policy when he commissioned the operation and
> JFK let it go forward. Are you suggesting that Ike and JFK was not
> aware of the operation?
>
> My god man, even Anthony Marsh had to say you were over-extending this
> report.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
> Apparently you haven't seen me prove Marsh Wrong on severasl previous
> issues.
That is all fine and good but you gotta admit; this ain’t saying much.
> Are you Denying that the CIA's Inspector General's Report states what I said
> it states?
You said the report stated “specifically” that the CIA “set policy” in
the BOP fiasco. The page you posted does not do this. It points out
the failure in planning and execution of the operation by the CIA.
Ike set the policy. Do you have something else? Or maybe you could
point out the paragraph that is supposed to say all of this policy
stuff?
Bill Clarke
tomnln
<billc...@live.com> wrote in message
news:ce52f5a4-9b27-4c8c...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clarke wrote;
You said the report stated “specifically” that the CIA “set policy” in
the BOP fiasco. The page you posted does not do this. It points out
the failure in planning and execution of the operation by the CIA.
Ike set the policy. Do you have something else? Or maybe you could
point out the paragraph that is supposed to say all of this policy
stuff?
Bill Clarke
I write;
Why don't you read the IG's Report? (It's in there)
I hope you don't expect me to put all 232 pages on my website.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
billc...@live.com
> > > BILL CLARKE WROTE;
>
> > > So the CIA is the organ that determines U.S. foreign policy? I don’t
> > > think so.
>
> > > I write;
>
> > > The CIA's own Inspector General's Report on the B O P "Specifically"
> > > states
> > > that the CIA did indeed "set policy" in the B O P Fiasco.
>
> > > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/i.htm
>
> > Bill Clarke wrote;
>
> > It says no such thing and I’d like you to point out just which
> > paragraph in which this shocking information is supposed to appear.
> > It is a report on the CIA failure and blame for the “fiasco”, nothing
> > more. Ike formed the policy when he commissioned the operation and
> > JFK let it go forward. Are you suggesting that Ike and JFK was not
> > aware of the operation?
>
> > My god man, even Anthony Marsh had to say you were over-extending this
> > report.
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> > Apparently you haven't seen me prove Marsh Wrong on severasl previous
> > issues.
>
> That is all fine and good but you gotta admit; this ain’t saying much.
>
> > Are you Denying that the CIA's Inspector General's Report states what I
> > said
> > it states?
>
> Bill Clarke wrote;
>
> You said the report stated “specifically” that the CIA “set policy” in
> the BOP fiasco. The page you posted does not do this. It points out
> the failure in planning and execution of the operation by the CIA.
> Ike set the policy. Do you have something else? Or maybe you could
> point out the paragraph that is supposed to say all of this policy
> stuff?
>
> Bill Clarke
>
> I write;
>
> Why don't you read the IG's Report? (It's in there)
>
> I hope you don't expect me to put all 232 pages on my website.
Of course not! Just post the page that confirms what you claim. It
needs to say something about the CIA setting POLICY about the BOP.
The page you posted does not.
Bill Clarke
Baldoni
robcap...@netscape.com
Earth to Bill, where have you been since the creation of the CIA? Of
course they decide what they are going to do. JFK couldn't reign them
in, Johnson, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc... couldn't reign them in. Truman
said he wouldn't have signed them into being if he knew they were
going to turn into the American Gestapo. The CIA reports to the same
groups that the CFR and the Trilateral Commission do, and these are
NOT in the White House.
> > that is why JFK had a problem with them.
>
> JFK had a problem with them because they gave him shitty intelligence
> that caused him to get much egg on his face.
>
> > They wanted the BOP to fail so we would have to invade with the military.
>
> Speculation without any evidence.
Really? Then why invade with 1,500 men when you knew Castro had close
to 200,000? Why did they want to invade during the CBC? There is a
ton of evidence, you choose to igore it.
> > The estimate of death is 800,000 based on the weapons the Soviets had on
> > the island. This is what JFK avoided.
>
> He should have avoided the BOP.
Of course, but he was listening to the CIA and the Chiefs as he was
new. I mean who would think these two groups would out-and-out lie to
you if you were president?
> > Your man (LBJ) and Nixon would have gladly lead them to slaughter.
>
> You have no idea what either would have done. Speculation again.
Bull, Nixon worked for the Mob, the Bushes and the oil men. He would
have done what he was told and all concerned (save the Kennedys and
some of their inner circle) were for invading.
> > > > and assassinating foreign leaders without approval.
>
> > > What foreign leaders would that be? There is ample evidence that Bobby
> > > ran the plan to murder Castro. If Bobby knew I think it a sure bet JFK
> > > knew.
>
> > Ample evidence? List it.
>
> There is ample testimony and interviews with those involved with the
> Castro assassination plots. Try Helms for starters.
\
Helms is a professional LIAR!!! It was a big part of his job, so why
would I believe him? Many document were faked after both JFK and RFK
were dead to make it look this way, but the Kennedys were NOT for
murder.
> > This was all made post-RFK's death.
>
> I hope you aren’t saying that the Castro assassinations attempts were
> made only after Bobby’s death?
NO, I'm saying the blaming of him was posthumously done. The CIA was
told to ceast and desist numerous times in this area, but they did as
they pleased.
> > Kennedys were against murder. Your man favored it. Read about
> Allende
>
> > to start with but there are many more.
>
> If you are inferring that Nixon is my man you would, as you so often
> are, be very wrong.
Your man is LBJ. Try Lumumba and there is one other one from South
America (1954).
> > > > The government of the United States in the early 60s was at war with
> > > > itself. In the end, Kennedy lost his battle against the war machine
> > > > and was assassinated in Dallas.
>
> > > I thought this theory had finally run out of favor. It needs too.
>
> > You have NOT proven it to be false, and your man gave it validity by
> > faking an attack to escalate the war. This is all the proof we need.- Hide quoted text -
>
> You really must read of the Tonkin Gulf incident. May I suggest Dr.
> Moise’s book.
I have and LBJ knew it was bunk, I'm NOT disputing that, but it didn't
stop him from letting it esclate to war did it?
robcap...@netscape.com
Of course I do. Read about their "East Indian Trading Co." and you'll
learn alot.
tomnln
<billc...@live.com> wrote in message
news:8fca1991-c317-4c46...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Of course not! Just post the page that confirms what you claim. It
needs to say something about the CIA setting POLICY about the BOP.
The page you posted does not.
Bill Clarke
The page has been updated>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/i.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
billc...@live.com
> > > > BILL CLARKE WROTE;
>
> > > > So the CIA is the organ that determines U.S. foreign policy? I don’t
> > > > think so.
>
> > > > I write;
>
> > > > The CIA's own Inspector General's Report on the B O P "Specifically"
> > > > states
> > > > that the CIA did indeed "set policy" in the B O P Fiasco.
>
> > > > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/i.htm
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I appreciate your effort to produce more of this report and supporting
data. The IG report was to “identify and describe weaknesses within
the Agency”. Within the Agency is underlined in the original and I
think this causes our misunderstanding here.
When the IG report speaks of policy you take it as the grand overall
policy. I see it as internal decisions being made by the CIA for
planning and execution of a policy already approved by the “highest
level”. There are several times in the webpage where we see CIA plans
taken to both Ike and JFK for approval. These two are the ones
dictating policy (in my view at least).
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
In their long history no doubt the CIA has pulled some roguish crap.
In that history has also been some U.S. presidents pulling some
roughish crap. The fact of plausible denial often has kept the
president looking good (or at least not so bad) and the CIA looking
like the rogue elephant. I wouldn’t be so quick to give the
presidents a free pass here.
> > > that is why JFK had a problem with them.
>
> > JFK had a problem with them because they gave him shitty intelligence
> > that caused him to get much egg on his face.
>
> > > They wanted the BOP to fail so we would have to invade with the military.
>
> > Speculation without any evidence.
>
> Really? Then why invade with 1,500 men when you knew Castro had close
> to 200,000? Why did they want to invade during the CBC? There is a
> ton of evidence, you choose to igore it.
No, I don’t. I have often pointed out the foolishness of the BOP
plan. It was a pipe dream.
> > He should have avoided the BOP.
>
> Of course, but he was listening to the CIA and the Chiefs as he was
> new. I mean who would think these two groups would out-and-out lie to
> you if you were president?
Some say Ike should have known better and give JFK a pass on letting
it go forward. I agree to some extent but the buck stops at the
president. JFK stood up like a man and accepted full responsibility,
a courageous act I think.
> > There is ample testimony and interviews with those involved with the
> > Castro assassination plots. Try Helms for starters.
>
> Helms is a professional LIAR!!! It was a big part of his job, so why
> would I believe him?
You believe Billie Sol Estes. What the hell?
> Many document were faked after both JFK and RFK
> were dead to make it look this way, but the Kennedys were NOT for
> murder.
Note 187, page 588
The counterargument is that John Kennedy would never have done such a
thing, and that argument has worn very thin.”
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
We are discussing the BOP, not all of our history since 1952 (when the
CIA was formally created). JFK did NOT devise the BOP plan, this was
inherited from Eisenhowser and Nixon. It was really Nixon's baby since
he reported to the mob (they wanted their casinos back), oil men (they
wanted their businesses back) and the Bushes (Bush 41 was heavily
involved with the Cuban exiles and would be the rest of his life) so
he had a vested interest in taking Cuba back. All the crap about
Communism was a smoke screen fed to the American people as a lot of
money was lost when Castro kicked everyone out. Prove this was JFK's
plan if you can (I won't hold my breath). Why was the leader of the
CIA, Allen Dulles, not in Washington during the invasion?
> > > > that is why JFK had a problem with them.
>
> > > JFK had a problem with them because they gave him shitty intelligence
> > > that caused him to get much egg on his face.
>
> > > > They wanted the BOP to fail so we would have to invade with the military.
>
> > > Speculation without any evidence.
>
> > Really? Then why invade with 1,500 men when you knew Castro had close
> > to 200,000? Why did they want to invade during the CBC? There is a
> > ton of evidence, you choose to igore it.
>
> No, I don’t. I have often pointed out the foolishness of the BOP
> plan. It was a pipe dream.
It was a reason to cause an invasion! Once you grasp this, the true
nature of the plan, you will see it makes a ton of sense. It was
never designed to work on its own, but be the cause for American
troops being landed.
> > > He should have avoided the BOP.
>
> > Of course, but he was listening to the CIA and the Chiefs as he was
> > new. I mean who would think these two groups would out-and-out lie to
> > you if you were president?
>
> Some say Ike should have known better and give JFK a pass on letting
> it go forward. I agree to some extent but the buck stops at the
> president. JFK stood up like a man and accepted full responsibility,
> a courageous act I think.
Yes, he did, this was his style, but make NO bones about it, it was
NOT JFK's fault. He told them up front there would be NO American
armed forces used in this invasion as his whole tenure was about
avoiding WWIII. The CIA knew this but thought they good decieve and
bully him into invading, they were wrong.
> > > There is ample testimony and interviews with those involved with the
> > > Castro assassination plots. Try Helms for starters.
>
> > Helms is a professional LIAR!!! It was a big part of his job, so why
> > would I believe him?
>
> You believe Billie Sol Estes. What the hell?
He gave testimony under oath against the penalty of perjury, something
no one testifying before the WC ever had to worry about, so yes I
believe this testimony. Prove it false. RFK was also ready to move
against LBJ so there obviously had to be firm proof there.
> > Many document were faked after both JFK and RFK
> > were dead to make it look this way, but the Kennedys were NOT for
> > murder.
>
> Note 187, page 588
> The counterargument is that John Kennedy would never have done such a
> thing, and that argument has worn very thin.”
What is this source? JFK never ordered anyone to be murdered, this
was pure CIA stuff. Prove he ordered the murders of the Diem
brothers.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:20 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> We are discussing the BOP, not all of our history since 1952 (when the
> CIA was formally created). JFK did NOT devise the BOP plan, this was
> inherited from Eisenhowser and Nixon. It was really Nixon's baby since
> he reported to the mob (they wanted their casinos back), oil men (they
> wanted their businesses back) and the Bushes (Bush 41 was heavily
> involved with the Cuban exiles and would be the rest of his life) so
> he had a vested interest in taking Cuba back. All the crap about
> Communism was a smoke screen fed to the American people as a lot of
> money was lost when Castro kicked everyone out. Prove this was JFK's
> plan if you can (I won't hold my breath). Why was the leader of the
> CIA, Allen Dulles, not in Washington during the invasion?
Gee Cappie, I said it was a plan approved by Ike. Did you miss that?
However, JFK is the one that allowed it to move forward. He also
changed the invasion site for the worst. You can’t deny that.
Dulles was out of town as a ruse so the Cubans wouldn’t think anything
as major as the BOP would go down with him out of town. You have
something else?
> It was a reason to cause an invasion! Once you grasp this, the true
> nature of the plan, you will see it makes a ton of sense. It was
> never designed to work on its own, but be the cause for American
> troops being landed.
Speculation again. You have no evidence of this.
> > Some say Ike should have known better and give JFK a pass on letting
> > it go forward. I agree to some extent but the buck stops at the
> > president. JFK stood up like a man and accepted full responsibility,
> > a courageous act I think.
>
> Yes, he did, this was his style, but make NO bones about it, it was
> NOT JFK's fault. He told them up front there would be NO American
> armed forces used in this invasion as his whole tenure was about
> avoiding WWIII. The CIA knew this but thought they good decieve and
> bully him into invading, they were wrong.
Yes, as much as you wish it wasn’t so, it was JFK fault when he
allowed the operation to go forward.
> > You believe Billie Sol Estes. What the hell?
>
> He gave testimony under oath against the penalty of perjury, something
> no one testifying before the WC ever had to worry about, so yes I
> believe this testimony. Prove it false. RFK was also ready to move
> against LBJ so there obviously had to be firm proof there.
Then why didn’t RFK move on LBJ?
> > > Many document were faked after both JFK and RFK
> > > were dead to make it look this way, but the Kennedys were NOT for
> > > murder.
>
> > Note 187, page 588
> > The counterargument is that John Kennedy would never have done such a
> > thing, and that argument has worn very thin.”
>
> What is this source? JFK never ordered anyone to be murdered, this
> was pure CIA stuff. Prove he ordered the murders of the Diem
> brothers.- Hide quoted text -
I don’t think he ordered the murder of Diem but Castro would be
another deal. Castro made the mistake of making the Kennedy boys look
bad to the whole world. The fact that you believe the Castro
assassination attempts were not approved at the “highest level”
explains your belief in Billie Sol Estes.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Aug 25, 8:26 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 2:20 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > We are discussing the BOP, not all of our history since 1952 (when the
> > CIA was formally created). JFK did NOT devise the BOP plan, this was
> > inherited from Eisenhowser and Nixon. It was really Nixon's baby since
> > he reported to the mob (they wanted their casinos back), oil men (they
> > wanted their businesses back) and the Bushes (Bush 41 was heavily
> > involved with the Cuban exiles and would be the rest of his life) so
> > he had a vested interest in taking Cuba back. All the crap about
> > Communism was a smoke screen fed to the American people as a lot of
> > money was lost when Castro kicked everyone out. Prove this was JFK's
> > plan if you can (I won't hold my breath). Why was the leader of the
> > CIA, Allen Dulles, not in Washington during the invasion?
>
> Gee Cappie, I said it was a plan approved by Ike. Did you miss that?
> However, JFK is the one that allowed it to move forward. He also
> changed the invasion site for the worst. You can’t deny that.
I knew the nicities couldn't last. Of course he "allowed" it to go
forward as he was new and he was being told by the CIA, the Joint
Chiefs, and those in his inner circle (traitors like the Bundys,
Harriman, and Rusk to name a few) that this was the way to go. He set
boundaries up front, but they thought they could out manuveur him
later on. They underestimated him like Kruchev would do later on.
The landing site was picked based on advice from these same groups, do
you wonder why JFK never listened to them again?
> Dulles was out of town as a ruse so the Cubans wouldn’t think anything
> as major as the BOP would go down with him out of town. You have
> something else?
Was this before of after they (the CIA) learned of the leak of the
date of the invasion to Castro? You must be smoking some good stuff
if you think Castro didn't think the CIA was involved. He rounded up
all suspects who might have been working with the CIA and had them
shot. A very weak answer on your part.
The mere fact that the CIA knew the date was leaked, and did not
inform JFK, and went ahead anyway, shows they wanted it to fail so we
could invade.
> > It was a reason to cause an invasion! Once you grasp this, the true
> > nature of the plan, you will see it makes a ton of sense. It was
> > never designed to work on its own, but be the cause for American
> > troops being landed.
>
> Speculation again. You have no evidence of this.
Wrong. There is much proof, especially the fact the CIA knew of the
leaked date of the invasion.
http://www.autentico.org/oa09407.php
Notice they did NOT feel it necessary to inform JFK of this "leak"
either. They wanted it to fail for an invasion to ensue.
> > > Some say Ike should have known better and give JFK a pass on letting
> > > it go forward. I agree to some extent but the buck stops at the
> > > president. JFK stood up like a man and accepted full responsibility,
> > > a courageous act I think.
>
> > Yes, he did, this was his style, but make NO bones about it, it was
> > NOT JFK's fault. He told them up front there would be NO American
> > armed forces used in this invasion as his whole tenure was about
> > avoiding WWIII. The CIA knew this but thought they good decieve and
> > bully him into invading, they were wrong.
>
> Yes, as much as you wish it wasn’t so, it was JFK fault when he
> allowed the operation to go forward.
You are making stuff up. He was not told of the leaked date to the
Soviets/Castro, he was told Castro would be eliminated, etc... he was
told a lot of things that were lies, this is why he went along with
it. You can lie all you want, but you CAN'T change the truth.
> > > You believe Billie Sol Estes. What the hell?
>
> > He gave testimony under oath against the penalty of perjury, something
> > no one testifying before the WC ever had to worry about, so yes I
> > believe this testimony. Prove it false. RFK was also ready to move
> > against LBJ so there obviously had to be firm proof there.
>
> Then why didn’t RFK move on LBJ?
They were getting ready to, but the events in Dallas intervened. Do a
search, you will see the day of the assassination Time, Life and
several other magazines were reporting on LBJ's demise due to this and
the Baker mess. All of these were quickly pulled after JFK was dead.
> > > > Many document were faked after both JFK and RFK
> > > > were dead to make it look this way, but the Kennedys were NOT for
> > > > murder.
>
> > > Note 187, page 588
> > > The counterargument is that John Kennedy would never have done such a
> > > thing, and that argument has worn very thin.”
>
> > What is this source? JFK never ordered anyone to be murdered, this
> > was pure CIA stuff. Prove he ordered the murders of the Diem
> > brothers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I don’t think he ordered the murder of Diem but Castro would be
> another deal. Castro made the mistake of making the Kennedy boys look
> bad to the whole world. The fact that you believe the Castro
> assassination attempts were not approved at the “highest level”
> explains your belief in Billie Sol Estes.
More made up crap. JFK and RFK NEVER condoned murder, this is the
area of the CIA. Their track record shows they use it quite often.
The CIA's use of the mob went way back, it did not start with the JFK
administration. The day JFK was killed you had the CIA meeting in
Paris giving a "poisoned pen" to Cubela to kill Castro with. Helms
would blame RFK for this when the truth is RFK told them numerous
times to stop this. JFK had a very good back channel working with
Castro to make peace. In fact, the day of the assassination a French
journalist was delivering JFK's peace message to Castro. It was the
CIA who wanted Castro dead.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Aug 25, 9:33 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 8:26 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 23, 2:20 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
>
> I knew the nicities couldn't last. Of course he "allowed" it to go
> forward as he was new and he was being told by the CIA, the Joint
> Chiefs, and those in his inner circle (traitors like the Bundys,
> Harriman, and Rusk to name a few) that this was the way to go. He set
> boundaries up front, but they thought they could out manuveur him
> later on. They underestimated him like Kruchev would do later on.
> The landing site was picked based on advice from these same groups, do
> you wonder why JFK never listened to them again?
Sorry Cappie, I thought I was being pretty damn nice. The cold hard
fact remains that JFK allowed the operation to go forward. The buck
stops with him and he took responsibility for it.
Why do you call the Bundy brothers, Rusk and Harriman “traitors”?
They made mistakes but all were men that devoted much of their lives
to America. I believe you mistake these honest mistakes as
“traitorous actions”.
The original landing site was disapproved by JFK. Period.
> > Dulles was out of town as a ruse so the Cubans wouldn’t think anything
> > as major as the BOP would go down with him out of town. You have
> > something else?
>
> Was this before of after they (the CIA) learned of the leak of the
> date of the invasion to Castro? You must be smoking some good stuff
> if you think Castro didn't think the CIA was involved. He rounded up
> all suspects who might have been working with the CIA and had them
> shot. A very weak answer on your part.
Now who isn’t being nice?
> The mere fact that the CIA knew the date was leaked, and did not
> inform JFK, and went ahead anyway, shows they wanted it to fail so we
> could invade.
The operation had long lost any hope of surprise long before the
actual invasion. JFK was well aware of this.
> > Speculation again. You have no evidence of this.
>
> Wrong. There is much proof, especially the fact the CIA knew of the
> leaked date of the invasion.
>
> http://www.autentico.org/oa09407.php
>
> Notice they did NOT feel it necessary to inform JFK of this "leak"
> either. They wanted it to fail for an invasion to ensue.
>
> > > Yes, he did, this was his style, but make NO bones about it, it was
> > > NOT JFK's fault. He told them up front there would be NO American
> > > armed forces used in this invasion as his whole tenure was about
> > > avoiding WWIII. The CIA knew this but thought they good decieve and
> > > bully him into invading, they were wrong.
>
> > Yes, as much as you wish it wasn’t so, it was JFK fault when he
> > allowed the operation to go forward.
>
> You are making stuff up. He was not told of the leaked date to the
> Soviets/Castro, he was told Castro would be eliminated, etc... he was
> told a lot of things that were lies, this is why he went along with
> it. You can lie all you want, but you CAN'T change the truth.
The truth is, Cappie that JFK was the man that allowed the operation
to go forward. This is a historical fact that you can in no way call
a lie.
> > Then why didn’t RFK move on LBJ?
>
> They were getting ready to, but the events in Dallas intervened. Do a
> search, you will see the day of the assassination Time, Life and
> several other magazines were reporting on LBJ's demise due to this and
> the Baker mess. All of these were quickly pulled after JFK was dead.
Who pulled it? Bobby? Bobby was a grown man with a lot of power as
the AG. He could have moved forward if he had wanted to. Or if he
really had the goods on LBJ that is.
> > > > > Many document were faked after both JFK and RFK
> > > > > were dead to make it look this way, but the Kennedys were NOT for
> > > > > murder.
>
> > > > Note 187, page 588
> > > > The counterargument is that John Kennedy would never have done such a
> > > > thing, and that argument has worn very thin.”
>
> > > What is this source? JFK never ordered anyone to be murdered, this
> > > was pure CIA stuff. Prove he ordered the murders of the Diem
> > > brothers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I don’t think he ordered the murder of Diem but Castro would be
> > another deal. Castro made the mistake of making the Kennedy boys look
> > bad to the whole world. The fact that you believe the Castro
> > assassination attempts were not approved at the “highest level”
> > explains your belief in Billie Sol Estes.
>
> More made up crap. JFK and RFK NEVER condoned murder, this is the
> area of the CIA. Their track record shows they use it quite often.
> The CIA's use of the mob went way back, it did not start with the JFK
> administration. The day JFK was killed you had the CIA meeting in
> Paris giving a "poisoned pen" to Cubela to kill Castro with. Helms
> would blame RFK for this when the truth is RFK told them numerous
> times to stop this. JFK had a very good back channel working with
> Castro to make peace. In fact, the day of the assassination a French
> journalist was delivering JFK's peace message to Castro. It was the
> CIA who wanted Castro dead.
Anthony Marsh says the same thing. I’m waiting for him to furnish
evidence that Bobby ordered the assassination attempts on Castro
stopped. Now I’m waiting for you.
You assist an invasion of his country, you try to kill him and then
you send Castro a note saying let us be buddies. This back channel
doesn’t seem so good to me.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Aug 25, 10:20 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 9:33 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 25, 8:26 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 23, 2:20 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > I knew the nicities couldn't last. Of course he "allowed" it to go
> > forward as he was new and he was being told by the CIA, the Joint
> > Chiefs, and those in his inner circle (traitors like the Bundys,
> > Harriman, and Rusk to name a few) that this was the way to go. He set
> > boundaries up front, but they thought they could out manuveur him
> > later on. They underestimated him like Kruchev would do later on.
> > The landing site was picked based on advice from these same groups, do
> > you wonder why JFK never listened to them again?
>
> Sorry Cappie, I thought I was being pretty damn nice. The cold hard
> fact remains that JFK allowed the operation to go forward. The buck
> stops with him and he took responsibility for it.
So what? It doesn't exclude the culpability of others, and they led
it into the disaster it became.
> Why do you call the Bundy brothers, Rusk and Harriman “traitors”?
> They made mistakes but all were men that devoted much of their lives
> to America. I believe you mistake these honest mistakes as
> “traitorous actions”.
This tells me all I need to know about you knowledge of the men who
actually work in our government. If you don't understand their
actions and who they work for that is you problem.
>
> The original landing site was disapproved by JFK. Period.
Trinidad was to obvious so he asked for another, but the point is the
CIA chose the Zapata spot, NOT JFK. He again approved it on the
advice of the CIA. Don't take my word for it:
"BAY OF PIGS PLANNER: Retired Col. Jack Hawkins.
The interview with The Herald was the first Hawkins has given to a
daily newspaper journalist since the Bay of Pigs, although he wrote a
first-person article in the year-end edition of The National Review, a
conservative journal published by William Buckley.
In the wide-ranging December interview at his home in Fredericksburg,
Va., Hawkins also:
Questioned Kennedy's commitment to the Cuba project initiated under
President Eisenhower, based in part on Hawkins' own observations at
Oval Office meetings.
Speculated that the lack of commitment may have been partially due
to parallel assassination plots against Castro, utilizing the Mafia,
that had been undertaken by the CIA in 1960 separately from the Bay of
Pigs and accelerated by the Kennedy administration. Bay of Pigs
planners -- with the exception of the late Richard Bissell, the CIA's
director of clandestine services and the man in charge of the invasion
-- were unaware of the plots until they became public knowledge years
later.
Said that he and project director Esterline learned only recently
from declassified documents that Bissell had agreed with Kennedy to
cut the number of CIA-supplied B-26 planes from 16 -- considered the
minimum necessary to knock out Castro's air force on the ground -- to
eight, but he did not tell them of the decision until days later, on
the eve of the first air attack before the landing.
Placed the primary fault for the effort's failure "at Bissell's
door. . . . It was really Bissell's operation.''
Said that the State Department and Secretary of State Dean Rusk
never received their share of the blame for failure of the operation
by its continued obstruction."
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/bay-of-pigs/site.htm
> > > Dulles was out of town as a ruse so the Cubans wouldn’t think anything
> > > as major as the BOP would go down with him out of town. You have
> > > something else?
>
> > Was this before of after they (the CIA) learned of the leak of the
> > date of the invasion to Castro? You must be smoking some good stuff
> > if you think Castro didn't think the CIA was involved. He rounded up
> > all suspects who might have been working with the CIA and had them
> > shot. A very weak answer on your part.
>
> Now who isn’t being nice?
You started it. :-)
> > The mere fact that the CIA knew the date was leaked, and did not
> > inform JFK, and went ahead anyway, shows they wanted it to fail so we
> > could invade.
>
> The operation had long lost any hope of surprise long before the
> actual invasion. JFK was well aware of this.
I am not so sure of that, do you have anything to prove this statement
with?
> > > Speculation again. You have no evidence of this.
>
> > Wrong. There is much proof, especially the fact the CIA knew of the
> > leaked date of the invasion.
>
> >http://www.autentico.org/oa09407.php
>
> > Notice they did NOT feel it necessary to inform JFK of this "leak"
> > either. They wanted it to fail for an invasion to ensue.
>
> > > > Yes, he did, this was his style, but make NO bones about it, it was
> > > > NOT JFK's fault. He told them up front there would be NO American
> > > > armed forces used in this invasion as his whole tenure was about
> > > > avoiding WWIII. The CIA knew this but thought they good decieve and
> > > > bully him into invading, they were wrong.
>
> > > Yes, as much as you wish it wasn’t so, it was JFK fault when he
> > > allowed the operation to go forward.
>
> > You are making stuff up. He was not told of the leaked date to the
> > Soviets/Castro, he was told Castro would be eliminated, etc... he was
> > told a lot of things that were lies, this is why he went along with
> > it. You can lie all you want, but you CAN'T change the truth.
>
> The truth is, Cappie that JFK was the man that allowed the operation
> to go forward. This is a historical fact that you can in no way call
> a lie.
Who is arguing this? Why do you keep saying this? I am saying it was
DESIGNED TO FAIL so JFK would have to use the U.S. military to
invade. Why do all LNers never stay on topic?
> > > Then why didn’t RFK move on LBJ?
>
> > They were getting ready to, but the events in Dallas intervened. Do a
> > search, you will see the day of the assassination Time, Life and
> > several other magazines were reporting on LBJ's demise due to this and
> > the Baker mess. All of these were quickly pulled after JFK was dead.
>
> Who pulled it? Bobby? Bobby was a grown man with a lot of power as
> the AG. He could have moved forward if he had wanted to. Or if he
> really had the goods on LBJ that is.
As of 1:00 PM CST Bobby was no longer very powerful, and we saw this
with Katzenbach usurping his power over the weekend, no the magazines
themselves pulled them. Certainly you know about the Luces, right?
Are you this naive or is it an act? RFK knew of the power behind his
brother's death, do you really think he could proceed against LBJ as
the chosen successor? Please. And he was CHOSEN as they could have
easily shot him too if they wanted to.
He never ordered them to start, they started under Eisenhower, surely
you know this? He made it clear that the JFK administration was not
for assassination.
> You assist an invasion of his country, you try to kill him and then
> you send Castro a note saying let us be buddies. This back channel
> doesn’t seem so good to me.
JFK grew up a lot after the BOP and by November 1963 he knew way more
than the gullible president he was in early 1961. Castro expected an
invasion, but the detente with Kruschev and the American University
speech made him realize JFK was a man who wanted a peaceful co-
existence. Without the missles, what harm could Cuba do to the U.S.
anyway? You are a war hawk, so of course any "peaceful option"
doesn't sound good to you.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Aug 26, 11:27 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry Cappie, I thought I was being pretty damn nice. The cold hard
> > fact remains that JFK allowed the operation to go forward. The buck
> > stops with him and he took responsibility for it.
>
> So what? It doesn't exclude the culpability of others, and they led
> it into the disaster it became.
True and a couple of high ranking people got fired over it. As they
should have been.
> > Why do you call the Bundy brothers, Rusk and Harriman “traitors”?
> > They made mistakes but all were men that devoted much of their lives
> > to America. I believe you mistake these honest mistakes as
> > “traitorous actions”.
>
> This tells me all I need to know about you knowledge of the men who
> actually work in our government. If you don't understand their
> actions and who they work for that is you problem.
Earth to Cappie….come in, over!
> > The original landing site was disapproved by JFK. Period.
>
> Trinidad was to obvious so he asked for another, but the point is the
> CIA chose the Zapata spot, NOT JFK. He again approved it on the
> advice of the CIA. Don't take my word for it:
I don’t have to take your word for it. The CIA planned on Trinidad,
JFK rejected it. The CIA then planned on the BOP and JFK accepted
it. The key word here being “JFK accepted it”.
> "BAY OF PIGS PLANNER: Retired Col. Jack Hawkins.
>
> The interview with The Herald was the first Hawkins has given to a
> daily newspaper journalist since the Bay of Pigs, although he wrote a
> first-person article in the year-end edition of The National Review, a
> conservative journal published by William Buckley.
>
> In the wide-ranging December interview at his home in Fredericksburg,
> Va., Hawkins also:
>
> Questioned Kennedy's commitment to the Cuba project initiated under
> President Eisenhower, based in part on Hawkins' own observations at
> Oval Office meetings.
>
> Speculated that the lack of commitment may have been partially due
> to parallel assassination plots against Castro, utilizing the Mafia,
> that had been undertaken by the CIA in 1960 separately from the Bay of
> Pigs and accelerated by the Kennedy administration.
Gee Cappie, isn’t this saying that the Kennedy administration
accelerated the assassination plots against Castro?
> Said that he and project director Esterline learned only recently
> from declassified documents that Bissell had agreed with Kennedy to
> cut the number of CIA-supplied B-26 planes from 16 -- considered the
> minimum necessary to knock out Castro's air force on the ground -- to
> eight, but he did not tell them of the decision until days later, on
> the eve of the first air attack before the landing.
>
> Placed the primary fault for the effort's failure "at Bissell's
> door. . . . It was really Bissell's operation.''
True.
> Said that the State Department and Secretary of State Dean Rusk
> never received their share of the blame for failure of the operation
> by its continued obstruction."
Perhaps.
> http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/bay-of-pigs/site.htm
>
> > > > Dulles was out of town as a ruse so the Cubans wouldn’t think anything
> > > > as major as the BOP would go down with him out of town. You have
> > > > something else?
>
> > > Was this before of after they (the CIA) learned of the leak of the
> > > date of the invasion to Castro? You must be smoking some good stuff
> > > if you think Castro didn't think the CIA was involved. He rounded up
> > > all suspects who might have been working with the CIA and had them
> > > shot. A very weak answer on your part.
>
> > Now who isn’t being nice?
>
> You started it. :-)
>
> > > The mere fact that the CIA knew the date was leaked, and did not
> > > inform JFK, and went ahead anyway, shows they wanted it to fail so we
> > > could invade.
>
> > The operation had long lost any hope of surprise long before the
> > actual invasion. JFK was well aware of this.
>
> I am not so sure of that, do you have anything to prove this statement
> with?
John Prados, “Presidents Secret Wars” pages 188 and 196.
On October 30 the Guatemala City daily La Hora published an article
revealing the existence of Camp Trak and the Cuban exile training
there. This report was picked up by Hispanic American Report, a
regional studies newsletter published by Dr. Ronald Hilton of Stanford
University. The Stanford piece, in turn, led to an editorial in the
November 19, 1960, issue of The Nation.
In yet another demonstration of the rapidly eroding secrecy
surrounding Operation Pluto, in its January 27,, 1961, issue, Time
magazine printed a photograph of Cuban rebel aircraft sitting on the
ground at the Retalhuleu base.
> > > > Speculation again. You have no evidence of this.
>
> > > Wrong. There is much proof, especially the fact the CIA knew of the
> > > leaked date of the invasion.
>
> > >http://www.autentico.org/oa09407.php
>
> > > Notice they did NOT feel it necessary to inform JFK of this "leak"
> > > either. They wanted it to fail for an invasion to ensue.
>
> > > > > Yes, he did, this was his style, but make NO bones about it, it was
> > > > > NOT JFK's fault. He told them up front there would be NO American
> > > > > armed forces used in this invasion as his whole tenure was about
> > > > > avoiding WWIII. The CIA knew this but thought they good decieve and
> > > > > bully him into invading, they were wrong.
>
> > > > Yes, as much as you wish it wasn’t so, it was JFK fault when he
> > > > allowed the operation to go forward.
>
> > > You are making stuff up. He was not told of the leaked date to the
> > > Soviets/Castro, he was told Castro would be eliminated, etc... he was
> > > told a lot of things that were lies, this is why he went along with
> > > it. You can lie all you want, but you CAN'T change the truth.
>
> > The truth is, Cappie that JFK was the man that allowed the operation
> > to go forward. This is a historical fact that you can in no way call
> > a lie.
>
> Who is arguing this? Why do you keep saying this? I am saying it was
> DESIGNED TO FAIL so JFK would have to use the U.S. military to
> invade. Why do all LNers never stay on topic?
Several in the CIA reported that the BOP plan was a no win situation.
Bissell wouldn’t hear of it and proceeded with great gusto and belief
in the mission. Dulles told JFK it was a sure thing and told JFK he
had told Ike the same thing. This was a lie; Dulles had told Ike it
didn’t have much of a chance. This doesn’t mean that they planned for
its failure, they hoped for the best.
See your own quote from Jack Hawking article. "Speculated that the
lack of commitment may have been partially due to parallel
assassination plots against Castro, utilizing the Mafia, that had been
undertaken by the CIA in 1960 separately from the Bay of Pigs and
accelerated under the Kennedy Administration."
> > You assist an invasion of his country, you try to kill him and then
> > you send Castro a note saying let us be buddies. This back channel
> > doesn’t seem so good to me.
>
> JFK grew up a lot after the BOP and by November 1963 he knew way more
> than the gullible president he was in early 1961. Castro expected an
> invasion, but the detente with Kruschev and the American University
> speech made him realize JFK was a man who wanted a peaceful co-
> existence. Without the missles, what harm could Cuba do to the U.S.
> anyway? You are a war hawk, so of course any "peaceful option"
> doesn't sound good to you.- Hide quoted text -
Both Castro and Khrushchev thought the U.S. intended on invading
Cuba. They had ample reason to believe this by the actions the U.S.
had and were taking.
Believe me; I much prefer a peaceful solution.
Bill Clarke