Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Greg Burnham

COPA 2013 Presentation

Recommended Posts

Thank You Greg!

Great intro speech and very moving.

I know I've said this before but ...the meeting, where the the CIA tries to prevail on Rusk the need for the air strikes, happened well before the assault force started disembarking and even before the frogmen made their recon-in-force. Had it been explained to the Anti-Castro Cuban Officers at that early time that they would NOT enjoy air supremacy over the beachhead, I wonder if their course of action would have been different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

Thank you very much. It was probably the most difficult speech I've ever given...emotionally, that is. The feelings were generated not so much from the death of a great president,

but more from the death of a great nation that was once governed "of, by and for" We The People. Without a fully functional Executive Branch the balance of power as envisioned

by our Founding Fathers no longer exists. The murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was tragic on so many levels, but none compare to the handicap that has haunted every Chief

Executive since. Under the circumstances of a failed protective detail, a deliberately botched investigation, and a bogus "Official Report" which allowed the perpetrators to escape

with impunity, how can We The People possibly imagine that ANY president since JFK could feel safe? In order to fulfill his oath to Protect, Preserve and Defend the Constitution, a

president may be REQUIRED to "step on toes" as a normal function of his job description and his loyalty to We The People. When the system to keep him or her alive is operational

there need not be any concern for "whose toes" are being stepped on so long as the president is doing the right thing for the right reasons in the best interest of the people of this

country. But when that system fails to keep a president alive and the perpetrators are teflon coated, then he becomes an example of "what will happen to successors" who dare to

defy the shadow government.

As for the Bay of Pigs, according to every source, including those who later blamed Kennedy for the failure, the timeline happened thusly:

At 9:30pm, after being so instructed by Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy called General Cabell to inform him that the pre-dawn airstrikes scheduled for D-Day were cancelled AND that

any further discussion of the subject must be taken up with Secretary Rusk. Cabell called Rusk and requested a meeting at the Secretary's office. Accompanied by Richard Bissell,

Cabell went to Rusk's office arriving at 10:15pm. Colonel Jack Hawkins was in the Command Center and had already heard (from Jake Esterline) that the airstrikes had been cancelled.

He called Rusk's office and personally spoke with Bissell, going through all the talking points that should be argued in favor of the airstrikes. The arguments Cabell and Bissell made to

Rusk apparently did not persuade. Rusk asked them to describe in detail the implications of the decision. They first informed him that by now (almost 11:00pm) it was already too late to

stop the overall landing operation. Then they detailed the four most dramatic impacts of failing to provide the airstrikes. Rusk capitulated regarding air support over the immediate beach

head, but refused to authorize the destruction of all of the remaining T-33's (jets) at the airfields while they were still on the ground, a harbor, and a radio station. Rusk offered Cabell and

Bissell the "privilege" of calling the president to make their case. Cabell and Bissell chose to pass. By now the pilots were already in their cockpits at the CIA airbase at Puerta Cabezas,

Nicaragua ready to take off. The abort signal barely reached them in time or they would have been airborne and on their way. As it was, the delayed launch allowed Castro's T-33's and

a few Sea Fury's to get airborne prior to the arrival of the rebel B-26's. When the B-26's finally did arrive they were all shot down because Castro's planes had not been destroyed on the

ground as originally planned and ordered by Kennedy. Out of a total of 16 rebel B-26's, twelve were shot down by T-33's, one was flying low enough to be shot down by artillery, and the

remaining three were shot down by Sea Fury's.

So it does appear (at least from the above) that by the time the "case was made" to Rusk and a final decision was reached it was too late to call off the landing. However, there is some

conflicting data that was recently declassified that tends to challenge Cabell's assertion that "it was already too late" to call off the overall landing operation. I will eventually get through

it and get back to this aspect of the "Sabotage at the Bay of Pigs" ongoing investigation.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks, Barry.

Your tribute speaks to the heart of the issue, as well:

The continued cover up of the truth by successive United States governments with their unwillingness to face the unpalatable truth of John Kennedy’s death perpetuates the aura of mistrust in all governments, a situation that has existed ever since that terrible day in 1963. We need to return to the, at least perceived, faith in our leadership. In short we need true leaders like John F. Kennedy not the petty puppets we have had to endure! -- Barry Keane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg

We must not let this event be forgotten. John F.Kennedy was a great man, of that there is no doubt in my mind. October 1962 was the turning point in history and we have JFK to thank for our lives, it's as simply as that. God bless the memory of that man!

Edited by Barry Keane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to point out that the continued distortion of the facts regarding the Bay of Pigs is part of the ongoing effort to assassinate his character insomuch as the blame is, more often than not,

still erroneously placed on him. This persists despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. So, I agree with what you said in your speech quoted below.

Barry Keane said:

It is true that John Kennedy was not a perfect man; he had his faults. But here was a wealthy man who did not have to choose public service as a career or to run for the US Presidency and by extension the leadership of the free world; he did so because of a desire to make the world a better place for all. So I believe we should say to those who continue to strive to assassinate his character; remember the peaceful outcome of the events of October 1962. Kennedy was an advocate of the Greek definition of happiness: “The full use of your powers along lines of excellence.” He was indeed a perfect example of that belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry,

I can send one to you via email in PDF format if you would like. Let me know. I am hoping to build a webpage or perhaps someone can assist me getting it all online. I need to lay out the relevant Bay of Pigs documents all in one place so that anyone can access them without having to sift through the mountains of extraneous information. I'm still recovering from my surgery and can only work a little at a time still. Send me an email: JFKresearch@cox.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

That is an excellent presentation. " We the people" is a fitting reminder of what the coup d'etat changed.

Your Bay of Pigs material clearly shows that the "failure" of the enterprise had nothing to do with JFK breaking

a promise or abandoning people to their doom. It is unfortunate that 51 years later people continue to falsely cast

JFK as the villain of this CIA fiasco.

All the best on your further recovery!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken,

I am very glad that the message I hoped to convey was not lost in the "hype" created by the media and officialdom. The pomp and

circumstance associated with their pseudo "celebration" of his life was grossly inappropriate to the day memorializing the 50th year

since his barbaric murder took place in their city. Indeed, any and all local celebrations of his life and legacy should take place yearly

on any day (or weekend) EXCEPT November 22 and in a more fitting location OUTSIDE of Dealey Plaza, but within the city of Dallas

fully sponsored by the Texas Historical Society.

November 22nd 1963 should forever remain a day that lives in infamy, much as December 7th 1941 so remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg

I agree entirely with what you say here.

"I am very glad that the message I hoped to convey was not lost in the "hype" created by the media and officialdom. The pomp and

circumstance associated with their pseudo "celebration" of his life was grossly inappropriate to the day memorializing the 50th year

since his barbaric murder took place in their city. Indeed, any and all local celebrations of his life and legacy should take place yearly

on any day (or weekend) EXCEPT November 22 and in a more fitting location OUTSIDE of Dealey Plaza, but within the city of Dallas

fully sponsored by the Texas Historical Society.

November 22nd 1963 should forever remain a day that lives in infamy, much as December 7th 1941 so remains."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still of the belief that eventually an official admission will be made, which will state that: "Yes, there was a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy."

Unfortunately, the operative word in the admission will be the word: "was" -- as in past tense. "Move along, there is nothing to see here folks." Yet, it is

the ongoing conspiracy to cover up the crime that has become more the burden than the deed itself.

There may even be an admission that: "Yes, there was an effort to cover it up." However, the latter will be portrayed as an act of necessity, employed only in

order to prevent World War III. And of course, there will again be the same sense of "That was then and this is now, so move along, nothing to see here, folks."

It is much more important to realize that understanding "what this means" is relevant, whereas knowing "what this is" (i.e., the exact details) is irrelevant.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Very well done. I too believe Bay of Pigs is essential to understand as one of the historical backdrops central to the murder of the President. I'm not a historian nor am I schooled in covert action, but BOP is a precipitating factor or root cause (imho) of JFK's death. It was one of many pretext (i.e. false flag) operations - before and since - designed to escalate conflict for political purposes. I can't help but think that John Kennedy considered such actions as ill-advised (even insane) and that he was incensed at CIA's duplicity. I'm reminded of what a knowledgeable investigator once told me, when I asked him about the incredulous act of conspiring to kill the president ...his considered reply was "what makes you think that's the worst thing that they've ever done?" That notion has remained convincing in my thoughts ever since.

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gene,

Thank you for the kind words.

It's interesting to note that the necessity for complete air supremacy over the Bay of Pigs was considered essential to success all the way from day one of the planning stages. And

although Dean Rusk's concern for sustained plausible deniability also emerged from the beginning, the absolute operational imperative for air supremacy to be at all times maintained

was NEVER discussed in a fashion that would have kept him out of the loop on its being sine qua non for success. That he became the "go to" man OPERATIONALLY when it was

crunch time for decision making is indicative of a darker agenda. That his intervention was sought by Stevenson is possibly innocuous due purely to egotistical considerations on the

part of the Ambassador. However, that Stevenson was placed in such an embarrassing position because the "defector" B-26 that landed in Miami was obviously not a Castro Air Force

plane should not have happened to begin with. The CIA either was or SHOULD have been fully aware that such an outfitted plane (opaque versus plexiglass noses, eight 50 caliber

machine guns, and incorrect insignias, etc.) did not closely enough resemble Castro's planes to pass muster as one of his own. This blunder became the initial breakdown of the covert

nature of the operation--and was owned entirely by the CIA 2 days prior to the invasion--intentional or not. When Stevenson persuaded Rusk (and the Secretary by-passed the president

and the military opting instead to instruct McGeorge Bundy to direct the CIA) to cancel the MOST CRITICAL element for success of the mission in direct opposition to the president's

last standing order of the night before, the fate of the Brigade was sealed.

Another point worth noting is that although the size of the operation had grown to one of military scope, it was still a CIA covert operation that did NOT involve our military. Under these

conditions the Joint Chiefs need not have even been consulted for their approval of such a cancellation as they were not and could not be involved in the actual operation itself as per

NSC Directive 5412 /2. In other words, the CIA managed to keep the US military out of a military sized operation in order for them (CIA) to maintain complete control of its outcome. Once

it was evident to our military leaders (during the initial planning phase) that success hinged on the destruction of Castro's air force while his planes were still on the ground, they rightly

communicated this to the president. However, the CIA apparently needed the plan to fail in order to compromise the young president into violating international law by launching airstrikes

from the USS Essex. Thus the well planned, high probability of success, operation was indeed SABOTAGED from the inside in an attempt to force Kennedy's hand. JFK did not buckle

under the pressure of their subterfuge. Rightly. And he took the Truman-esque high road by accepting responsibility, as the buck stopped with him.

This was a very untenable aftermath for the president. In order to regain the helm fully he would have needed to fire Dulles, Bissell, Cabell, Rusk, Bundy and others--which would have

made him appear either incompetent at recruiting the proper talent from the beginning or as if he was having a temper tantrum. There was no good solution.

A secondary benefit to the cabalists was the creation of the first false patsies--Anti-Castro Cubans--with whom to begin muddying the waters by sprinkling the field with suspects.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×