Why didn't JFK fire McGeorge Bundy post-BOP?

[Greg Burnham]

Pretty pictures. So what?

[Scott Kaiser]

The Cuban Exile community, in general, rightfully tends to require respect before divulging information. The Cuban Study Group does for sure. Before you approach, DO YOUR HOMEWORK! You'll thank me in the end. A word to the wise...

I have NO idea what that means and I guess your now an expert on the Cuban committee, look at it like this, if someone took your freedom away, you political views, your family, your country and finally your life how would you feel?

Edited October 15, 2011 by Scott Kaiser

[Greg Burnham]

The Cuban Exile community, in general, rightfully tends to require respect before divulging information. The Cuban Study Group does for sure. Before you approach, DO YOUR HOMEWORK! You'll thank me in the end. A word to the wise...

I have NO idea what that means and I guess your now an expert on the Cuban committee, look at it like this, if someone too your freedom away, you political views, your family, your country and finally your life how would you feel?

Uhhh, DEAD?

[Scott Kaiser]

Pretty pictures. So what?

Not just pretty pictures that is Frank Pais, and the brother of Jose Pujol who's laying in the streets Raul Pujol and I think you should do your homework, those National Security Directive 5412 don't mean squat when they are thrown out the window and Bush who was down in Miami promised them American military support.

I don't care who your daddy worked for but I tend to beleive those who were in the action not someone who was preoperative to the facts. Sorry!

Edited October 15, 2011 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

Going to bed, so you may comment all you want to try and convince other's and me otherwise, and later I'll pick up on my thread then. Good nite!

[Greg Burnham]

So, getting back on topic, Scott: Why didn't JFK fire McGeorge Bundy?

[Karl Kinaski]

S Kaiser:

Not just pretty pictures that is Frank Pais, and the brother of Jose Pujol who's laying in the streets Raul Pujol and I think you should do your homework, those National Security Directive 5412 don't mean squat when they are thrown out the window and Bush who was down in Miami promised them American military support.

My two cents:

Yes. The Cubans were told: If you can't make it, we(US-marines) ll come and help you. Cabell said that, W King Harvey said that. But without the knowledge of Kennedy. Miro, therefore was convinced, there was a "plan" behind the Zapata-plan...(acc. to Schlesinger. A THOUSAND DAYS). The key figures of the BOP-plan took US-Help for granted, because they (Dulles/Bisell/Cabell) thought by creating a tar-baby for Kennedy by putting the brigade in a hopeless situation, the new man in the White House would sent US-planes...and troops...but Jack said Njet. He stood by the NSD 5412...This was the beginning of the end of the Kennedy administration. Since the BOP there were two administrations in the US: the Camelot Adm. and the IC-Adm.

There was a intra-administration war, and Dallas told us who won.

KK

Edited October 15, 2011 by Karl Kinaski

[Scott Kaiser]

S Kaiser:

Not just pretty pictures that is Frank Pais, and the brother of Jose Pujol who's laying in the streets Raul Pujol and I think you should do your homework, those National Security Directive 5412 don't mean squat when they are thrown out the window and Bush who was down in Miami promised them American military support.

My two cents:

Yes. The Cubans were told: If you can't make it, we(US-marines) ll come and help you. Cabell said that, W King Harvey said that. But without the knowledge of Kennedy. Miro, therefore was convinced, there was a "plan" behind the Zapata-plan...(acc. to Schlesinger. A THOUSAND DAYS). The key figures of the BOP-plan took US-Help for granted, because they (Dulles/Bisell/Cabell) thought by creating a tar-baby for Kennedy by putting the brigade in a hopeless situation, the new man in the White House would sent US-planes...and troops...but Jack said Njet. He stood by the NSD 5412...This was the beginning of the end of the Kennedy administration. Since the BOP there were two administrations in the US: the Camelot Adm. and the IC-Adm.

There was a intra-administration war, and Dallas told us who won.

KK

^^Exactly! Many of the Cubans that are still alive today all say the very same thing, "When you say your going to do something you do it". They were ALL told by Bush in Miami that Kennedy had their backs and he the (president) would provide US support, they took that statement "literary". THEY WERE TOLD THAT KENNEDY WOULD SEND IN TROOPS! You don't promise something then back out in the middle of a fight to the END. Now whether Kennedy ever made that statement or not the Cubans never heard him say it, but trusted Bush. (READ MY LIPS!)

Bambi tells me that these are the ones who were in Dallas, but before I start mentioning names, I then asked if he was in Dallas too? He says NO, I was in Ft. Benning Georgia. When I pulled out my father's phone book and showed him his name with the word "Dallas" written under it in my father's hand he chocked up and didn't know what to say. But he did say Bush was there.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

So, getting back on topic, Scott: Why didn't JFK fire McGeorge Bundy?

IDK! I wasn't there, thats a question you should ask Bundy? It would be completely ridiculous to speculate...

[Greg Burnham]

Scott,

I think we're on the same page now--or at least a lot closer than we were at first. I don't doubt that they may have been told they would get full operational US military support by members of the CIA and/or military. However, that they were told that and believed that does NOT mean that it was ever in the Official Plan, nor does it mean that same originated with Kennedy. The documentation as well as Oral Histories clearly refutes the notion that Kennedy: 1) originally authorized a plan involving direct US military intervention; 2) adopted Eisenhower's Plan, but modified it to EXCLUDE the US military; or 3) originally approved last ditch airstrikes if needed by the US military, but then chickened out on delivering them. All three of those ideas are revisionist histories promulgated by the Agency.

So, reality is different from perceptions in some cases. However, I understand that what one believes, even erroneously, tends to dominate reactions even if it is incorrect through no fault of their own. Many of the rebels no doubt were under some version of one or more of those erroneous conclusions because that's what they were told by those that they believed they could trust. When the sh*t hit the proverbial fan, the Agency blamed LANCER--and the rest is Revisionist History.

BTW: My comment about "Pretty Pictures" was sarcastic. I couldn't tell what those pictures depicted at all. I didn't intend to be insensitive. My apologies for that.

[Scott Kaiser]

Scott,

I think we're on the same page now--or at least a lot closer than we were at first. I don't doubt that they may have been told they would get full operational US military support by members of the CIA and/or military. However, that they were told that and believed that does NOT mean that it was ever in the Official Plan, nor does it mean that same originated with Kennedy. The documentation as well as Oral Histories clearly refutes the notion that Kennedy: 1) originally authorized a plan involving direct US military intervention; 2) adopted Eisenhower's Plan, but modified it to EXCLUDE the US military; or 3) originally approved last ditch airstrikes if needed by the US military, but then chickened out on delivering them. All three of those ideas are revisionist histories promulgated by the Agency.

So, reality is different from perceptions in some cases. However, I understand that what one believes, even erroneously, tends to dominate reactions even if it is incorrect through no fault of their own. Many of the rebels no doubt were under some version of one or more of those erroneous conclusions because that's what they were told by those that they believed they could trust. When the sh*t hit the proverbial fan, the Agency blamed LANCER--and the rest is Revisionist History.

BTW: My comment about "Pretty Pictures" was sarcastic. I couldn't tell what those pictures depicted at all. I didn't intend to be insensitive. My apologies for that.

Greg,

Yes, I would have to say that we are now inching ever so closer then before, I would like to share with you in a little antidote my father use to tell me when I was a little boy going back 35 years ago. When a man gives you his word and shakes your hand its as good as a written contract. So to say that "reality is different from perceptions in some cases." is irrelevant.

The CIA has not only adapted ways of deception, but also (misled) the Cuban people during the BOP's that's what they do to gain support whether it was from the government or the Cuban people. Another words, the CIA misled both the Cuban people and Kennedy and all for their own benefit for war and money.

I am in the process to make another trip back to Miami being a bit more prepared this time with several questions at hand before I confront them. I beleive that Felix Rodriguez will also talk to me, but I also beleive that he will be quite difficult, to get him to open up sense he has been good friends with Bush and Bush has paid him well.

I can only keep plugging away.

Scott

Edited October 15, 2011 by Scott Kaiser

[Karl Kinaski]

S Kaiser: Another words, the CIA misled both the Cuban people and Kennedy and all for their own benefit for war and money.

I would just add: the CIA is only the tail of the dog.

[Greg Burnham]

GB: The reason the bridges were not blown in advance was due to the downing of those B-26's.

My source says that this is not how they were to be destroyed.

They were to be blown by anti Castro Cubans on the island. But in fact, that order never came.

This is one of the things that has convinced me that the operation was meant to fail.

Jim,

I actually misspoke. What I meant to say was that the role of the B-26's was to destroy Castro's remaining T-33's ON THE GROUND, provide air support to the landing party, and prevent Castro's ground forces from engaging the Brigade by providing additional air cover for them in the event that the bridges were NOT successfully blown in advance. There were 16 B-26's involved in this attack--which should have been enough to cover those objectives. So, even if the bridges had not been blown the planes would have offered ample resistance to the tanks and artillery batteries in order to afford the Brigade an opportunity to secure the beachhead.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[Greg Burnham]

I would just add: the CIA is only the tail of the dog.

Exactly, Karl. Dulles didn't give orders--he took them.

[Scott Kaiser]

On April 16, 1961 Nino Diaz group failed in a second attempt while landing near Baracoa, following the air strikes. The CIA "planners" had failed to discover the US-supplied T-33 jets been armed with M-3 machine guns. No additional air strikes were planned before April 17, 1961 because the B-26 pilots lack of confidence failed in their success of the April 15th attacks. President Kennedy "ordered" the cancellation of further airfield strikes to attempt deniability of the US involvement. The first person to receive word of the cancellation by radio on the ship Babara was Osvaldo Coello.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20673422/Phone%20book%20osvaldo-coello-kaiser.jpg

Edited October 16, 2011 by Scott Kaiser