Castro talks of the Bay of Pigs invasion in 2016 article!

[Terry Adams]

Referring to the 1961 failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs, Castro wrote of the U.S.' "mercenary force with cannons and armored infantry, equipped with aircraft ... trained and accompanied by warships and aircraft carriers in the U.S. raiding our country. Nothing can justify this premeditated attack that cost our country hundreds of killed and wounded."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/fidel-castro-obama-221279#ixzz44FO5gsKr

[Terry Adams]

The reason that I posted this was the fact that Castro indicated that 'hundreds' of his soldiers were killed and that the invaders had U.S. plane support as well as an aircraft carrier. This just was not the case. I just don't understand him bringing this up, at all, in 2016.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Terry Adams

[Larry Hancock]

Terry, Castro personally still hates the US for its actions against Cuba and I suspect would have preferred to be isolated forever - and at his age he is also living in the past - but to your point, yes there were numbers of American funded and at the end American piloted aircraft involved in the attacks which took out much of his air force and did indeed kill hundreds of his soldiers. There were some highly effective bombing and strafing runs even after the landing that chewed up a good number of the early reacting Cuban forces on the way to the beaches. And yes there was a carrier off shore and flew jets over the beach during the evacuation. even though they did not engage. There was also a significant Navy task group off shore. The Navy / Marine commitment to the operation was quite substantial but that's another story, as a footnote to the point about the Carrier, the Navy commander in charge had all operational documents and ship records destroyed before the ship even left the area.

[Terry Adams]

Larry, thanks for that information. I was under the obviously mistaken impression that President Kennedy called off any support, very early, after he concluded that he had been duped into the Bay of Pigs fiasco by the CIA. This was my reasoning on thinking that Castro was playing it up to be a much more involved USA.

[Michael Walton]

Terry,

I agree with Larry Hancock that Castro is probably old and embittered about what happened 54 years ago, much like people don't forget what happened at Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

You may find this article interesting:

http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/01/opinion-sabotaging-u-s-cuba-detente-in-the-kennedy-era/

And though the BOP should have never been launched in the first place, President Kennedy was reaching out through back channels to Castro before he was murdered.

You might find this interesting as well:

Kennedy assassination aborted U.S. reconciliation with Cuba

Sierra Leone Times Wednesday 13th May, 2015

In October 1963 Kennedy met with the editor of the Socialist newsweekly L'Observateur, Jean Daniel, knowing he was visiting Cuba in early November 1963 and was hoping to interview Castro. "I believe there is no country in the world, including all the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation are worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my own country's policies during the Batista regime," Kennedy told an amazed Daniel.

"I believe that we created, built and manufactured the Castro movement out of whole cloth and without realizing it I believe that the accumulation of these mistakes has jeopardized all of Latin America."

"I can assure you that I have understood the Cubans. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra when he justifiably called for justice and specially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption," Kennedy said. "I will go even further to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear," Kennedy told the reporter.

[Larry Hancock]

Terry, I suspect Castro would not differentiate between the early B-26's flown by the exiles or the one flown at the very end by American National Guard pilots on detached assignment. He certainly was aware even at the time that there were a number of large American Navy ships off shore, doing everything from diversions to providing protection for the exile ships ....if they original Eisenhower plan had been followed the rules of engagement would have allowed the destroyers to come all the way in shore to the original site and provide air cover for the ships as they docked. No doubt that would have led to full scale combat with US forces since Cuban forces would have been unlikely not to fire on covering destroyers or aircraft. If you want a fuller picture of what was supposed to happen before JFK really began to force people to put things in writing, you might want to check the Bay of Pigs post on my blog.

[David Andrews]

Terry,

I agree with Larry Hancock that Castro is probably old and embittered about what happened 54 years ago, much like people don't forget what happened at Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

You may find this article interesting:

http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/01/opinion-sabotaging-u-s-cuba-detente-in-the-kennedy-era/

And though the BOP should have never been launched in the first place, President Kennedy was reaching out through back channels to Castro before he was murdered.

You might find this interesting as well:

Kennedy assassination aborted U.S. reconciliation with Cuba

Sierra Leone Times Wednesday 13th May, 2015

In October 1963 Kennedy met with the editor of the Socialist newsweekly L'Observateur, Jean Daniel, knowing he was visiting Cuba in early November 1963 and was hoping to interview Castro. "I believe there is no country in the world, including all the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation are worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my own country's policies during the Batista regime," Kennedy told an amazed Daniel.

"I believe that we created, built and manufactured the Castro movement out of whole cloth and without realizing it I believe that the accumulation of these mistakes has jeopardized all of Latin America."

"I can assure you that I have understood the Cubans. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra when he justifiably called for justice and specially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption," Kennedy said. "I will go even further to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear," Kennedy told the reporter.

Did we not do more than this? Castro was of the landowner class, educated, well-spoken, and made a darling of US society when he was a pre-revolution freedom fighter. Did our government and CIA not back his revolution, only to demonize him when, once in government, he refused the terms of a US alliance and turned (like Lumumba) to the Soviets? Did we not advise Batista to flee Havana, as US help would not be forthcoming at the end of 1959?

[Michael Walton]

David, my impression is I think it was a sign of the times with the Eisenhower administration with Red-baiting Dick Nixon there, as well as Dulles. I also think that they wanted to maintain the status quo down there. After all, there was quite a bit of (U.S.) industry, including gambling, and they wanted to keep those dollars flowing out of Cuba and into the U.S.

[Larry Hancock]

There is a lot of good, relatively new information on this subject in documents at the National Security Archive. Actually Ike tried to get Batista to step down and walk away from the corruption - Pawley was used as an envoy which

was pretty high risk because he was privy to a good deal of highly secret, strategic dialogs under the Eisenhower administration. When that failed Ike was going to give Castro a pass for a year or so to see

which way he might move but J.C. King as head of West Hemisphere CIA quickly started pushing for removal of Castro, including via assassination....and with Nixon jumping in on that Ike was quickly persuaded

to begin a regime change operation. Debate will go on for decades as to which direction he might have turned but if nothing else its clear that our early actions after the revolution pushed him towards the Soviets.

Interestingly, over the follow years he often sounded pro Communist but also conducted a series of internal communist purges inside Cuba. But before JFK (and after) our leaders had a very poor ability

to differentiate nationalism from communism...

[Douglas Caddy]

Joseph McBride wrote on Facebook yesterday:

Donald Trump and George W. Bush cannot admit error, but John F. Kennedy did. As I write in INTO THE NIGHTMARE, "While historians, with their longer perspective, have even less of an excuse to overlook the truth than journalists do, it may not be surprising that many journalists still cling so stubbornly to the disproven lies and myths of a story [JFK's assassination] the media blew so badly fifty years ago; admitting to grave errors is no more common in the media than it is in government. President Kennedy, a former journalist himself, did not labor under that deficiency: He told the American Newspaper Publishers Association after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in April 1961, 'This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.' (The wise man Kennedy quoted was the chemist and author Orlando A. Battista.)"

[John Dolva]

Perhaps a factor is a difference between the President and the Presidency and the possibility of suing one or the other.

Is the president as a person responsible for acts while occupying the presidency?

[David Andrews]

David, my impression is I think it was a sign of the times with the Eisenhower administration with Red-baiting Dick Nixon there, as well as Dulles. I also think that they wanted to maintain the status quo down there. After all, there was quite a bit of (U.S.) industry, including gambling, and they wanted to keep those dollars flowing out of Cuba and into the U.S.

I think they wanted to maintain the status quo, but were dissatisfied with Batista and had hoped Castro could be co-opted. Notice all coup plans afterward did not involve reinstating Batista.

[John Dolva]

OFFICIAL VOICE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CUBA CENTRAL COMMITTEE

The “good” Obama?

Much more is revealed by what Obama didn’t say in Havana, than the little he did, no matter how choice his words. This is the same Obama who could do much more given his Presidential powers and yet has not.

Author: dario machado | internet@granma.cu

march 30, 2016 09:03:35

LIKE many others, I followed the visit by Barack Obama to our country and experienced mixed feelings: on the one hand, the healthy patriotic and revolutionary pride of witnessing a U.S. president rectifying the policy toward Cuba and repeating on our own soil that the blockade must be ended, reaffirming respect for our sovereignty and independence, which we Cubans have earned with our sacrifice, our sweat, our blood, our history; and on the other hand, the danger posed by those who believe that with these lukewarm changes, the contradiction between the interests of U.S. imperialism and the Cuban nation has disappeared. But it was only after listening to his speech that Tuesday morning that I decided to write this, because, as Fidel warned over half a century ago, from now on everything will be more difficult.

Who could doubt the enormous complexity of U.S. society, where black and white analysis is of little value?

A turbulent history in which battles for independence against British colonialism and genocidal onslaughts against the indigenous population intermingle; an impetuous industrial development and a cruel internecine war that killed more than 600,000 human beings; paradigmatic creativity and inventiveness in science and technology and a warmongering and expansionist military apparatus of which Mexico and Cuba – to take just two examples from our region – have been nearby victims; a society with extraordinary cultural expressions in music, literature and film along with a messianism that does not honor those assets; industrious and enterprising citizens over whom, however, an imperialist state machinery rests heavy; the richest and the most indebted country in the world; the country that demands human rights of others and least respects them itself, as evidenced by over half a century of economic blockade against Cuba; a society in which violence serves as the guiding principle throughout its history.

In short, a country full of contractions in which it would be naive to think that the current rapprochement with Cuba is simply the result of the thinking, will and resourcefulness of Obama, and not an integral part of the interests of the real power in the U.S. - that of big business.

If Barack Hussein Obama had proven impractical to the powers that govern the U.S., it would have been very difficult for him to have been elected president in 2008 and reelected in 2011, and the change of policy toward Cuba would not have initiated.

This is the same Obama who just two months after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, sent tens of thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan; the same who has authorized hundreds of drone attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians in several countries across the world; the same who participated in the plot that destroyed Libya; he who has armed the so-called Syrian opposition strengthening the self-named Islamic State; he who approved the supply of arms to Kiev after the coup; the President behind the “Arab spring” of fatal consequences in that area of the world. This is the same Obama, as the poet would say, who could do nothing to surprise you.

In effect, there are two Obamas, a “good” one and a “bad” one. We’re not talking about a bipolar personality, but a single person, a career politician, who beyond his personal characteristics and history, his way of doing domestic politics, and even his individual inclinations, and his likely aim of leaving a legacy as the U.S. President who changed policy toward Cuba, he has always been and continues to be functional to the strategic interests of the powers that govern the U.S.

It must be recognized that he is a politician with charisma, stage presence, a sense of media opportunity, communication skills - probably the best and most capable at hand today to disguise the strategic objectives of U.S. imperialism toward Cuba, Latin America and the Caribbean.

During this visit to our country, President Obama did not miss any opportunity to call for an end to the blockade, which ultimately are the words of someone who will soon disappear from the U.S. government, phrases that he can state now, that he can claim responsibility for, as he does not aspire to, nor could he, run for another Presidential term. He can make this call as the formalities of the northern country's political system allow him to present himself as someone with no responsibility* whatsoever for the blockade, as someone opposed to the blockade, as the advocate of a new policy, when for almost all of his term he endorsed the blockade with his inertia.

But back to his deficient speech. Since a thorough analysis can not be undertaken in a short article [1], I will only highlight some aspects that stand out at first glance while, as expressed by various analysts, much more is revealed by what he didn’t say, than the little he did, no matter how choice his words. This is the same Obama who could do much more given his Presidential powers and yet has not.

This is precisely the point, to read between the lines of his statements, which is important especially for young people whose lived experiences of this northern neighbor do not include criminal sabotage, Playa Girón, the October crisis, counterrevolutionary groups, attacks against our leaders, biological aggression, and so on, and for whom the effects of the blockade have been mitigated by the protection offered by society and their families.

There is no doubt: Obama is the gentle and seductive face of the same danger. He made no apology for crimes against Cuba, he did not mention the Guantánamo Naval Base, he did not speak of the Cuban Adjustment Act, he did not explain why he hasn’t done more to dismantle the blockade, given the powers he possesses to do so, and there were many other incredible omissions.

Meanwhile, it was clear that he does not want to cooperate with Cuba, but rather with that part of our society which offers the best conditions for the strategic interests he represents. He hoped to seduce youth, encourage selfishness and the thirst for purely individual improvement, presenting capitalist growth as a universal panacea and not the cause of the crises, or the danger of the destruction of the environment and the disappearance of the human species. He hoped to contribute to the fragmentation of Cuban society in order to recover U.S. hegemony here and in our region. In his speech the conceited tone of someone who “grants us the right” – that no one need grant us – “to solve our own problems” was evident. We must now explain and demonstrate this.

Obama's visit is a victory of the Cuban people and all peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, as it demonstrates that the United States of America has been forced to recognize that it was thwarted by our dignity, and has now chosen to concoct a detour. As such, we should recall the words of Julius Fučík at the end of its historical Report from the gallows and “be vigilant”.

Obama concluded his visit to Cuba. He was – along with his beautiful family for whom Cubans have a natural affection – welcomed, treated and bid farewell politely by a people and authorities who are proud of their hospitality, respect and willingness to dialogue without impositions, but whose majorities are well aware of the land on which they stand, and are bursting with the sovereign spirit of Martí and Fidel, that spirit which was evident as the entire Latinoamericano Stadium chanted: “Raúl, Raúl, Raúl…”

[1] In a book due to be published by the Editorial de La Mujer de La Habana, I dedicate an entire chapter to analysis of Obama’s speech at the White House on December 17, 2014, aspects of which I take up again here.

Edited April 2, 2016 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

A book of significance

A book by Elier Ramírez and Esteban Morales analyzes attempts to normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba during the administrations of Gerald Ford (1974-1977) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)

Author: Piero Gleijeses | informacion@granma.cu

march 29, 2016 17:03:50

The book analyzes attempts at normalization during the Presidencies of Gerald Ford (1974-1977) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981).

On a certain occasion President Raúl Castro stated, “We have been capable of making history but not of writing it.” The excellent book by Elier Ramírez and Esteban Morales, De la confrontación a los intentos de “normalización” (From confrontation to attempts at “normalization”) published by Editorial de Ciencias Sociales in 2014, constitutes an important step in filling this void.

The book, based on knowledge of U.S. and Cuban secondary sources, as well as a rich sample of U.S. documents and, exclusively, numerous Cuban documents, analyzes the attempts at normalization during the Presidencies of Gerald Ford (1974-1977) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). Both were the only episodes – prior to Obama’s Presidency – in which there was a serious attempt to normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba. There was also an incipient attempt under Kennedy, which Ra­mírez and Morales describe in the first chapter of the book.

Under both Ford and Carter, Africa was, as the authors well explain, “the insurmountable obstacle” preventing normalization between the U.S. and Cuba. Negotiations were advancing in 1975, when Cuban troops arrived in Angola in defiance of the USSR – opposed to such a move – and challenged South Africa, which had invaded Angola and whose troops were approaching Luanda, Challenging, at the same time, the U.S. which was in shameless cahoots with Pretoria. Fidel decided to intervene because he knew that the victory of the Axis of Evil - Washington and Pretoria - would have meant the victory of apartheid and the strengthening of white rule over the peoples of Southern Africa. Fifteen years later, in an unusual outburst of honesty, Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State in 1975, recognized in the last volume of his memoirs that Cuba had acted on her own initiative, presenting the USSR with a fait accompli. Fidel, Kissinger said, “was probably the most genuine revolutionary leader then in power.”

Cuba saved Angola and the U.S. retaliated by stopping short the talks on normalizing relations. These were later resumed by Carter. Ramírez and Morales skillfully outline the talks between U.S. and Cuban officials in 1977-1978, using both Cuban and U.S. documents of the time, an exceptional feat that no other historian studying this episode has achieved, including the author of this article.

..."