Ray McGovern (former-CIA) Interview

[Scott Kaiser]

With only one or two relatively minor clarifications, I concur, Jim.

You said:

"1.) The D Day air strikes were not part of the plan, they were only a contingency..."

To which airstrikes are you referring? The pre-dawn airstrikes were not a mere contingency, as they were central to the plan and, according to the Taylor Report, their having been delayed was the "proximate cause of the failure." That they were cancelled is public record. Who canceled them is generally not public knowledge, but by now it should be as it is documented well. Unbeknownst to JFK, McGeorge Bundy made the call to General Cabell on orders from Dean Rusk who had ostensibly deferred to Adlai Stevenson's objections. I wrote about this extensively in an article simply titled: Fiasco

The "other" D-Day airstrikes that are regularly conflated with the pre-dawn airstrikes, were not canceled by Kennedy because they were never ordered by him in the first place! Indeed, he specifically excluded any and all direct US intervention (in an emergency cable from J.C. King to Colonel Jack Hawkins in Nicaragua less than one week prior to D-Day) as they were outside the Rules of Engagement under the circumstances. The ONLY scenario legally allowing JFK to order direct US intervention would have necessarily hinged on the successful establishment of a new "Cuban Government in Exile." This would have been realized only if Brigade 2506 could have secured a beachhead and airstrip, at the very least, before declaring themselves as the new Government. But this never happened because of the cancelation, by McGeorge Bundy, of the pre-dawn airstrikes, which allowed Castro's remaining air force to become airborne, sinking supply vessels, and pinning the Brigade.

Under those circumstances, any direct intervention by the US would have been a violation of international law. So Kennedy did not cancel any promised airstrikes. However, JFK did refuse to launch direct US intervention the next morning, as it was already too late for the anti-Castro Cubans to declare a government in exile status.

What Greg says is true, with one small exception, the reason McBundy made that call was because of Ail Stevenson, I also get very detailed about all this and how George took matters into his own hands.

[Scott Kaiser]

Acting on the best interest of the president of course as his advisor.

[Greg Burnham]

What Greg says is true, with one small exception, the reason McBundy made that call was because of Ail Stevenson, I also get very detailed about all this and how George took matters into his own hands.

No Scott that is easily proved incorrect. Adlai Stevenson implored his own boss, Dean Rusk, to cancel the airstrikes as he (Stevenson) had already been embarrassed at the UN over the airstrikes that had been shown to originate from the US a couple of days prior to D-Day.

If you are getting "very detailed" about all of this as you say, please provide the documents to support your claims as I have done on my website and in my presentations.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

Acting on the best interest of the president of course as his advisor.

Now you're just making this up or you have failed to do your homework. Scott, the PROOF in documentation exists as it is now public record and declassified. You have the ability to correctly report the matter if you just do the work instead of stubbornly clinging to your ill conceived conclusions. Have you even read the Taylor Report from the Cuban Study Group? It is spelled out in detail there.

To wit: McGeorge Bundy, by tendering his own resignation letter shortly thereafter, admitted to JFK that he had failed to serve him (best interests) during the Bay of Pigs! I have a copy of that resignation letter. JFK did not accept the resignation probably because he was already getting rid of so many in his National Security apparatus: Cabell, Bissell and Dulles. If he had allowed Bundy to go, too, he would have appeared to have chosen his national security advisors very poorly.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Greg Burnham

[Tom Neal]

And he wrote an essay in 1984 for the peer reviewed historical journal Diplomatic History. It was titled "The Confessions of Allen Dulles". (ibid, p. 394) That journal gave Bissell an opportunity to reply and he wrote that he and Dulles "Had allowed Kennedy to persist in misunderstandings about the nature of the Cuban operation."

Scott,

Since you specifically mentioned me by name, I'll weigh in...

"The Confessions of Allen Dulles." (ibid, p. 394), "as if they truly exist." (ibid, p.1 Scott Kaiser)

Jim has cited a reference from someone other than himself that supports his statement. It is available for anyone to access. You OTOH, have cited yourself as a reference to support you own opinion. Additionally, you are citing a reference that is NOT accessible to the public.

I would love to see Bissell's reply, wouldn't you?

It's right there in Jim's post: "That journal gave Bissell an opportunity to reply and he wrote that he and Dulles "Had allowed Kennedy to persist in misunderstandings about the nature of the Cuban operation." And it's from a PEER-REVIEWED source which means every word must be authenticated by a panel of qualified experts or it is rejected for publication.

Tom, can I get some cheering too?

I'll let you know AFTER you respond to the above...

Tom

Edited February 10, 2016 by Tom Neal

[David Andrews]

Scott, put some ice in that, at least.

David, I like you, you don't seem like some others who would come out swing with their college degree vocabulary worded, intellectually printed, more nonsense crap. You don't strike me as such. Is there a difference of saying questioning what was written which we all already know cannot be proven, to say what JVB also mentions that cannot be proven? What's the difference?

I have no doubt that some folks may want to have a field day with my first book, I would say to them wait till my second comes out, it's just an update of my first, but with more than 70 pages added. I offer this challenge up to anyone, and everyone who discredits my book. I will provide proof of my father's workings and dealings in this covert establishment everyone seems to talk about, and go a step further. I will provide how my father turned on this establishment, discovered information that did link to Kennedy's assassination, [that part is specifically for you Stephen Roy.]

I know I'm not one to make friends easily when we're speaking JFK or Watergate, and I'm just going to be honest with you, when Roger Stone, St. John Hunt and I are sitting back sipping on a Martini and were shooting the crap, we can be best of friends, that is, until we start talking JFK. It's no offense to them, or me, however, I have always told St John I was sorry for my father having his father's photo, and according to many folks whom are still alive today say it was a photo of Hunt in Dealey Plaza. This, is one thing we all three agree on.

My father of course didn't just have Hunt's photos. And, there are a "chain of events" that I exploit in my update. It all starts at my father's childhood, after all, the story is fashioned around him. This is a true story, the challenge is, I will pay to the first person $10,000.00 that proves I'm lying.

We've gone through so many authors, JVB what I'm pointing out here, that I'm now icing, and so many more that you, yourselves have pointed out, what's one more?

Scott, I have no doubt, based on your past Forum posts, that you have valuable information and have done great research among people who remember your father. I don't doubt that this would appeal to a quality publisher. I've tried to give you the best free help I can to get there, without seeing the material, and not having read your Trine Day book. I just didn't what you were aggravated about, or why. I see better now from the posts above.

Edited February 10, 2016 by David Andrews

[Jon G. Tidd]

Jim Di @ post #26:

I believe JFK bears the blame for the BOP disaster.

Yes, there was a contingency plan. Yes, CIA officers misled JFK.

JFK knew of the plan to invade Cuba. Yes, he may have been misled by the CIA as to the chances of success.

JFK was the boss. He could have said, stop it. Instead he played wait and see. Nixon, IMO, would have insisted on a sure bet. JFK did not insist on a sure bet.

What does all of this have to do with the JFK assassination? IMO, nothing.

JFK, it's clear, wasn't killed over Cuba. Paul Trejo is correct that the CIA wasn't involved in the killing.

James Douglass is appealing. But JFK wasn't killed over a losing bet.

JFK was killed because he stood against history.

[Greg Burnham]

JFK was the boss. He could have said, stop it. Instead he played wait and see. Nixon, IMO, would have insisted on a sure bet. JFK did not insist on a sure bet.

Even Jake Esterline disagrees with this assessment and he wasn't particularly fond of JFK. Read his oral history of the event here.

In that oral interview, among other things, he tells CIA Historian, Jack B. Pfeiffer, the following regarding the Bay of Pigs:

“I am one of those who feel it is very wrong to pick too much on Jack Kennedy because it was Nixon who, if we had kicked off as we had hoped for, between November and January of 60-61, it might not have worked, but it would not have been a major disaster.” — Jake Esterline

​Remember that Nixon was in charge of this operation from the start. It was supposed to have taken place long before April of 1961. However, JFK embarrassed Nixon in the debate by having accused Eisenhower of "inaction" against Castro. Today we know that the action that was being planned--Trinidad and others--were so top secret that Nixon could not respond. Once the election was lost Nixon sought revenge against Kennedy and, apparently, in an act of pure spite, postponed action against Castro until after Ike left office. But, during the lame duck period, he ordered the CIA to build the operation up from about a 350 man affair to a more than 3,000 man amphibious assault invasion force!

That had never been Ike's plan. But it was Nixon's revenge. The CIA convinced Kennedy that the (Nixon) plan was actually Ike's plan, which it was not. Who was JFK to question the amphibious assault plan of the former president who had been a 4 Star Army General and the Supreme Commander during the largest successful amphibious assault in the history of the world at Normandy? Well, he was the new president and so he did question it. The Agency lied. The rest is distorted history.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Greg Burnham

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg,

JFK was boss once he became president.

In the 1,000 days JFK was president, he was the boss.

At the time, JFK relied on the "best and the brightest".

JFK had faith in guys like McGeorge Bundy, the Rostows, Rusk, McNamara.

JFK was boss but he relied upon advisers who were the "best and the brightest".

JFK bears fault for the mistakes made during his presidency. He also bears fault, IMO, for relying upon Ivy League advisers.

[David Andrews]

Does "stood against history" stand for, "refused to side with big money's interests"?

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

JFK was boss once he became president.

In the 1,000 days JFK was president, he was the boss.

At the time, JFK relied on the "best and the brightest".

JFK had faith in guys like McGeorge Bundy, the Rostows, Rusk, McNamara.

JFK was boss but he relied upon advisers who were the "best and the brightest".

JFK bears fault for the mistakes made during his presidency. He also bears fault, IMO, for relying upon Ivy League advisers.

Whatever you do don't consider any additional evidence, no matter how relevant, to the contrary.

[Scott Kaiser]

JFK was the boss. He could have said, stop it. Instead he played wait and see. Nixon, IMO, would have insisted on a sure bet. JFK did not insist on a sure bet.

Even Jake Esterline disagrees with this assessment and he wasn't particularly fond of JFK. Read his oral history of the event here.

In that oral interview, among other things, he tells CIA Historian, Jack B. Pfeiffer, the following regarding the Bay of Pigs:

“I am one of those who feel it is very wrong to pick too much on Jack Kennedy because it was Nixon who, if we had kicked off as we had hoped for, between November and January of 60-61, it might not have worked, but it would not have been a major disaster.” — Jake Esterline

​Remember that Nixon was in charge of this operation from the start. It was supposed to have taken place long before April of 1961. However, JFK embarrassed Nixon in the debate by having accused Eisenhower of "inaction" against Castro. Today we know that the action that was being planned--Trinidad and others--were so top secret that Nixon could not respond. Once the election was lost Nixon sought revenge against Kennedy and, apparently, in an act of pure spite, postponed action against Castro until after Ike left office. But, during the lame duck period, he ordered the CIA to build the operation up from about a 350 man affair to a more than 3,000 man amphibious assault invasion force!

That had never been Ike's plan. But it was Nixon's revenge. The CIA convinced Kennedy that the (Nixon) plan was actually Ike's plan, which it was not. Who was JFK to question the amphibious assault plan of the former president who had been a 4 Star Army General and the Supreme Commander during the largest successful amphibious assault in the history of the world at Normandy? Well, he was the new president and so he did question it. The Agency lied. The rest is distorted history.

The biggest problem with the overall Bay of Pigs is the "what if" game, he said, she said, had this not happened, this could've happened, should've, could've, would've, but didn't. Greg, you're not entirely wrong about Stevenson going to Rusk, but did you know he also went directly to Kennedy as well as McBundy, please folks, let's get our history straight it's no wonder it's all screwed up.

Jon, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you, there were compartmentalized groups formed from the CIA who were CIA that infiltrated Oswald, assisted the FBI in the story on Oswald in Mexico, fabricated photos, lied about a tape of Oswald, their objective was to invade Cuba, Jon, didn't you know that Nixon was taken out because of Cuba?

There is so much incorrect information here I don't even know where to begin. Greg, don't believe everything you read, if there are some living witnesses besides Hemming, follow up.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

Scott, put some ice in that, at least.

David, I like you, you don't seem like some others who would come out swing with their college degree vocabulary worded, intellectually printed, more nonsense crap. You don't strike me as such. Is there a difference of saying questioning what was written which we all already know cannot be proven, to say what JVB also mentions that cannot be proven? What's the difference?

I have no doubt that some folks may want to have a field day with my first book, I would say to them wait till my second comes out, it's just an update of my first, but with more than 70 pages added. I offer this challenge up to anyone, and everyone who discredits my book. I will provide proof of my father's workings and dealings in this covert establishment everyone seems to talk about, and go a step further. I will provide how my father turned on this establishment, discovered information that did link to Kennedy's assassination, [that part is specifically for you Stephen Roy.]

I know I'm not one to make friends easily when we're speaking JFK or Watergate, and I'm just going to be honest with you, when Roger Stone, St. John Hunt and I are sitting back sipping on a Martini and were shooting the crap, we can be best of friends, that is, until we start talking JFK. It's no offense to them, or me, however, I have always told St John I was sorry for my father having his father's photo, and according to many folks whom are still alive today say it was a photo of Hunt in Dealey Plaza. This, is one thing we all three agree on.

My father of course didn't just have Hunt's photos. And, there are a "chain of events" that I exploit in my update. It all starts at my father's childhood, after all, the story is fashioned around him. This is a true story, the challenge is, I will pay to the first person $10,000.00 that proves I'm lying.

We've gone through so many authors, JVB what I'm pointing out here, that I'm now icing, and so many more that you, yourselves have pointed out, what's one more?

Scott, I have no doubt, based on your past Forum posts, that you have valuable information and have done great research among people who remember your father. I don't doubt that this would appeal to a quality publisher. I've tried to give you the best free help I can to get there, without seeing the material, and not having read your Trine Day book. I just didn't what you were aggravated about, or why. I see better now from the posts above.

Thanks David, please forgive me for how I've reacted or my actions if I came off the wrong way, there are still somethings I get very upset about, very emotional, I can't explain it in a public forum or openly confess the reasons for the simple fact I want to remain sane. I've already had a nervous breakdown, and gone though a bad depression, my doctor has had me on lamotrigine 50mg and this is all due to the information I've been uncovering and writing in my second book. I just couldn't stop writing. I've been going through a depression state.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Greg Burnham]

There is so much incorrect information here I don't even know where to begin. Greg, don't believe everything you read, if there are some living witnesses besides Hemming, follow up.

Oh pleeeeze!

Scott, I have read everything that has been declassified on the subject. You don't seem to be familiar with the Cuban Study Group's report or the Inspector General, Lyman Kirkpatrick's report, either. There are dozens of oral histories by eyewitnesses to the event.

As for living witnesses, Hemming has been dead for nearly a decade.

As for those eyewitnesses that I have interviewed and /or knew very well, the list is rather long, but include, Colonel L Fletcher Prouty USAF (Chief of Special Operations Office of the JCS) who was responsible for obtaining and outfitting all of the Brigade's modified B-26 bombers, among other things. HIs office was literally two doors down the hall from the office used by the Cuban Study Group investigation. Many of the witnesses stopped by to chat with him about it both before and after they gave their testimony. I also spoke extensively to my own father, who was a Special Aid to Eisenhower. It took me decades to confirm what he and Prouty reported because the documents were classified top secret or higher for so long. Upon release, the documents bore out what these witnesses reported quite well.

Your witnesses are telling you what they believe to be true from their perspective. But, they were not on the inside of the US military intelligence apparatus like Colonel Prouty and my father were.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Greg Burnham

[Scott Kaiser]

There is so much incorrect information here I don't even know where to begin. Greg, don't believe everything you read, if there are some living witnesses besides Hemming, follow up.

Oh pleeeeze!

Scott, I have read everything that has been declassified on the subject. You don't seem to be familiar with the Cuban Study Group's report or the Inspector General, Lyman Kirkpatrick's report, either. There are dozens of oral histories by eyewitnesses to the event.

As for living witnesses, Hemming has been dead for nearly a decade.

As for those eyewitnesses that I have interviewed and /or knew very well, the list is rather long, but include, Colonel L Fletcher Prouty USAF (Chief of Special Operations Office of the JCS) who was responsible for obtaining and outfitting all of the Brigade's modified B-26 bombers, among other things. HIs office was literally two doors down the hall from the office used by the Cuban Study Group investigation. Many of the witnesses stopped by to chat with him about it both before and after they gave their testimony. I also spoke extensively to my own father, who was a Special Aid to Eisenhower. It took me decades to confirm what he and Prouty reported because the documents were classified top secret or higher for so long. Upon release, the documents bore out what these witnesses reported quite well.

Your witnesses are telling you what they believe to be true from their perspective. But, they were not on the inside of the US military intelligence apparatus like Colonel Prouty and my father were.

Very impressive resume Greg, I'm especially impressed that you were able to speak to your father. I was told my first words were da-da, what was yours?

Edited February 11, 2016 by Scott Kaiser