Nixon Operative Roger Stone on JFK Assassination: "LBJ had it done. Mob, CIA, Hoover, all in on it. RFK knew. So did Nixon."

[Scott Kaiser]

How can anyone have any serious doubt that JFK was set up for the Bay of Pigs?

Nixon was the point man in the Eisenhower administration, working with Dulles

in constructing a plan for the landing that could not possibly have succeeded.

The CIA was tightly controlling information in the American press and about to

confront the young, inexperienced president with an unpalatable choice between

embarrassment and sending in the Marines. They were stunned by his decision.

The Soviets had learned the date and shared it with Casto. Everyone knew except

for JFK. When he investigated the fiasco, he discovered that Dulles, Cabell, and

Bissell had played a "bait and switch", which is why he sacked them from the CIA.

How can anyone have any serious doubt that JFK was set up for the Bay of Pigs? Nixon was the point man in the Eisenhower administration, working with Dulles in constructing a plan for the landing that could not possibly have succeeded.

^^Please don't give me hearsay or theory! TRIED! Let me remind you that Nixon while Vice President to Eisenhower WANTED the Bay of Pigs to kick off in November of 1960 while he was facing Kennedy in the primaries, because he thought that if the CIA would have overthrown Castro while running for presidency he would have won by a landslide, but the CIA could NOT pull it off in time, and Nixon lost the election. So please STOP feeding people that crap that JFK was set up for the BOP... NOT TRUE!

[Scott Kaiser]

Harry J.Dean

Sadly it is so that at least the CIA/FBI people I dealt with knew

what Cuban people would or would not do in the event of a U.S.

invasion of the Island.

Upon return from Cuba a few months prior to the April action against

Castro, I was debriefed by U.S. Intelligence. Here is the information

from the 1990 manuscript/book, CROSSTRAILS...

" At a later debriefing with Central Intelligence and my usual Internal

Security contact agent, when ask if I believed that the Cuban people

would rise against Castro during an invasion by the U.S.; I stated " It

is my sad duty to inform you that they will not attempt to aid in

overthrowing that government." Giving the reasons, and apologizing for

having to make such an unpopular report that suggested my relatively

dangerous and uncomfortable mission was unsuccessful."

It was a sad day indeed, the people of Cuba were underestimated. I think more research should have gone into the invasion "BEFORE" invading, such as communication with the locals on the island as to how they would feel if their island would have been invaded by other Cubans to FREE them of a Communist regime, how would they feel if it were controlled by a democratic government and not by a police state. I bet the answer would be different today. What do you suppose will happen to Cuba when both Fidel and Raul are gone? What government will be forced upon them then? Will Russia claim Cuba? I tell you now is the time to move in with a controlled democratic government for Cuba before its to late.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Scott,

Give this just a little more thought. It would never have worked anyway, so it could not have enhanced Nixon's prospect of assuming the nation's highest office. The failure would obviously have worked against him politically. ONCE JFK WAS IN OFFICE, HE WAS SET UP TO CONFRONT A CLASSIC "BAIT AND SWITCH". It was a win/win from the point of view of the CIA, since if the invasion was a success, they won; and if it was not, JFK would confront the unpalatable choice between sending in the Marines or having egg on his face. I am not quite sure where you are coming from, but JFK was clearly "set up" in this instance, even if things might have worked out differently had Nixon been elected instead. He wasn't and JFK was played by Dulles, Bissell, and Cabell. My view is faithful to history, while yours is hypothetical and theoretical. You are the one who has this bass-akwards. Egad! They even knew that Castro knew when we were coming but did not tell JFK, the Commander-in-Chief!

Jim

How can anyone have any serious doubt that JFK was set up for the Bay of Pigs?

Nixon was the point man in the Eisenhower administration, working with Dulles

in constructing a plan for the landing that could not possibly have succeeded.

The CIA was tightly controlling information in the American press and about to

confront the young, inexperienced president with an unpalatable choice between

embarrassment and sending in the Marines. They were stunned by his decision.

The Soviets had learned the date and shared it with Casto. Everyone knew except

for JFK. When he investigated the fiasco, he discovered that Dulles, Cabell, and

Bissell had played a "bait and switch", which is why he sacked them from the CIA.

How can anyone have any serious doubt that JFK was set up for the Bay of Pigs? Nixon was the point man in the Eisenhower administration, working with Dulles in constructing a plan for the landing that could not possibly have succeeded.

^^Please don't give me hearsay or theory! TRIED! Let me remind you that Nixon while Vice President to Eisenhower WANTED the Bay of Pigs to kick off in November of 1960 while he was facing Kennedy in the primaries, because he thought that if the CIA would have overthrown Castro while running for presidency he would have won by a landslide, but the CIA could NOT pull it off in time, and Nixon lost the election. So please STOP feeding people that crap that JFK was set up for the BOP... NOT TRUE!

Edited January 22, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Scott Kaiser]

Scott,

Give this just a little more thought. It would never have worked anyway, so it could not have enhanced Nixon's prospect of assuming the nation's highest office. The failure would obviously have worked against him politically. ONCE JFK WAS IN OFFICE, HE WAS SET UP TO CONFRONT A CLASSIC "BAIT AND SWITCH". It was a win/win from the point of view of the CIA, since if the invasion was a success, they won; and if it was not, JFK would confront the unpalatable choice between sending in the Marines or having egg on his face. I am not quite sure where you are coming from, but JFK was clearly "set up" in this instance, even if things might have worked out differently had Nixon been elected instead. He wasn't and JFK was played by Dulles, Bissell, and Cabell. My view is faithful to history, while yours is hypothetical and theoretical. You are the one who has this bass-akwards. Egad! They even knew that Castro knew when we were coming but did not tell JFK, the Commander-in-Chief!

Jim

How can anyone have any serious doubt that JFK was set up for the Bay of Pigs?

Nixon was the point man in the Eisenhower administration, working with Dulles

in constructing a plan for the landing that could not possibly have succeeded.

The CIA was tightly controlling information in the American press and about to

confront the young, inexperienced president with an unpalatable choice between

embarrassment and sending in the Marines. They were stunned by his decision.

The Soviets had learned the date and shared it with Casto. Everyone knew except

for JFK. When he investigated the fiasco, he discovered that Dulles, Cabell, and

Bissell had played a "bait and switch", which is why he sacked them from the CIA.

How can anyone have any serious doubt that JFK was set up for the Bay of Pigs? Nixon was the point man in the Eisenhower administration, working with Dulles in constructing a plan for the landing that could not possibly have succeeded.

^^Please don't give me hearsay or theory! TRIED! Let me remind you that Nixon while Vice President to Eisenhower WANTED the Bay of Pigs to kick off in November of 1960 while he was facing Kennedy in the primaries, because he thought that if the CIA would have overthrown Castro while running for presidency he would have won by a landslide, but the CIA could NOT pull it off in time, and Nixon lost the election. So please STOP feeding people that crap that JFK was set up for the BOP... NOT TRUE!

Okay, sense you're basing the Bay of Pigs off of hearsay and theory, lets assume it did work, lets assume that Batista's onetime government who is now under Fidel Castro turned on Castro along with the people of Cuba. Kennedy wanted to avoid war with Russia, but at the same time did not want Communism so close to US shores, so the people of Cuba worked with those in the Brigade during the Bay of Pigs. Fidel Castro is overthrown and Manuel Airtime is president, and free elections are now held without the interference of American military would your thoughts still remain the same?

How many CIA invasion of other countries were successful and how many were proven disastrous? I can only think of two the Guatemalan coup of 1954 and the fall of president Saddam Hussein. Oh and now the killing of Osama Bin Laden. What about all the other unsuccessful false flag attempts to overthrow the Head of State who joined a Communist regime? We can just chalk the Bay of Pigs up to another unsuccessful attempt due to poor planning, it had nothing to due with setting up Kennedy. I think Kennedy if anything should have postponed the invasion and think it through thoroughly, three months of planning and advising Kennedy of the invasion was not enough time, however, the members of the Brigade were inpatient, the CIA "assumed" there would be uprising in Cuba, just as my father assumed they would be an uprising in Haiti if the people in Haiti would fight for their freedom and revolt against Papa Doc, he learned that it would not be so, he had been plotting the assassination of Papa Doc sense 1969 with the Haitians where he worked closely with, the Haitian exile community in New York and Canada.

It doesn't always turn out the way you plan it to be, and I'm sure the BOP's totally screwed up the CIA plans, however, Kennedy's plans avoided WWIII. But you can't say US military wasn't involved, they were! They were just called the CIA.

Scott

[Guest Robert Morrow]

The CIA was NOT setting up the Bay of Pigs to fail. But what they were counting on, assuming, was that if it did become bogged down that John Kennedy would crumple to their will and send in the full force of the US military.

It bogged down. Failed. Castro was waiting with plenty of troops; he had penetrated the invasion plans.

I believe that Nixon advised Kennedy to send in the full force of the US military. Kennedy would not do it. CIA/military was furious at JFK.

A lot more folks would have died. The USA would have eventually "won" and paid for it with a lot of blood on both sides.

Kennedy did not send in the full force of the military. He was enraged at the CIA.

The CIA was enraged at him. And the anti-Castro Cubans quickly grew to hate Kennedy as much as Castro. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and its aftereffects played a big role in the JFK assassination.

Evelyn Lincoln (JFK's personal assistant of 12 years), in the plane trip back from Dallas, put down Lyndon Johnson at the top of her list of suspects. Another one was CIA anger over Bay of Pigs.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Cliff Varnell]

Perhaps you are right to a degree about it being “a power play by W. Averell Harriman” but you contradict yourself a bit, Dillion AFAIK had nothing to do with the coup, you cited Hammer who said Rusk and McNamara were against it and JFK confirmed this regarding the latter.

Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon was a member of Kennedy's Executive Committee of the National Security Council during the Cuban Missile Crisis and attended a number of high-level meetings on the Vietnam crisis in '63. In this August 28 meeting he advocated for decisiveness -- one way or the other.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn07.pdf

But Kennedy was playing for indecisiveness at that point, as indicated in the cable sent to Lodge the next day and the comments he made during the 8/28 conference.

Len, check out the above and compare Kennedy's comments with both former Ambassador Nolting's and RFK's -- they seem to be stalling for time.

Ultimately however JFK cannot be absolved of responsibility, though perhaps manipulated he was fully aware of the cable’s contents and implications before approving it and did nothing to reverse course or fire those responsible over the course of the next 10 – 13 weeks respectively.

I'd argue that JFK didn't grasp the full implications of 8/24 "Hilsman" cable -- "he passed it off too quickly," as his brother Robert put it. "Major mistake."

From then on Harriman and his allies had the upper hand. And that's my knock on Kennedy -- he should have known better. Gilpatric smelled a rat -- why didn't JFK?

So why didn't he fire Harriman?

Fire the guy who'd just negotiated an arms control treaty with the Soviets, landing him on the cover of Time mag? Fire the guy who financed both the Soviets and the Nazis in the 20's and 30's and who -- I'd argue -- was more responsible for the outbreak of WW2 than any other single individual? Fire the guy who was put in charge of implementing the Marshall Plan so that Europe could recover from the carnage Harriman played a major role in unleashing?

Proteges of Harriman (or his wife Pamela) occupied the White House for 20 years -- after he was dead!

Mess with someone with as much juice as Harriman, why, a guy could end up getting shot!...oh, uh...well, yeah...

My interpretation of the Aug. 29 cable is 180 degrees from yours how him saying “I have approved all the messages you are receiving from others today, and I emphasize that everything in these messages has my full support” help your case?

It fits perfectly with my case that JFK was struggling to re-gain control over Viet policy in the wake of Cable 243. What else was he going to tell Lodge? "I've been out-maneuvered by your allies in my Administration and I want to take a mulligan on 243"?

No, he owned it thoroughly and reserved the right to reverse course. But it was soon too late.

Take it away, James W. Douglass -- JFK and the Unspeakable, pg 192:

Kennedy was losing control of his government. In early September, he discovered that another key decision related to the coup had been made without his knowledge.

A White House meeting with the President was discussing whether or not to cut off the Commodity Import Program that propped up South Vietnam's economy. It was a far-reaching decision. For the United States to withdraw the AID program could prompt a coup against Diem.

David Bell, head of AID, made a casual comment that stopped the discussion. He said, "There's no point in talking about cutting off commodity aid. I've already cut it off."

"You've done what?" said John Kennedy.

"Cut off commodity aid," said Bell.

Kennedy shook his head in dismay.

"My God, do you know what you've done?" said the president.

He was staring at David Bell, but seeing a deeper reality. Kennedy knew Bell's agency, AID, functioned as a CIA front. AID administrator David Bell would not have carried out his "automatic" cutoff without CIA approval. "We do it whenever we have differences with a client government" could serve as a statement of CIA policy. By cutting South Vietnam's purse strings, the CIA was sending a message to its upstart client ruler, Diem, as well as to the plotting generals waiting in the wings for such a signal. Most of all, the message was meant for the man staring at David Bell in disbelief. He was being told who was in control. It was not the President.

By having AID cut off the Commodity Import Program, the CIA had made it impossible for Kennedy to avoid a coup in South Vietnam. The aid cutoff was a designated signal for a coup. In late August, the CIA had agreed with the plotting South Vietnamese generals that just such a cut in economic aid would be the U.S. government's green light to the generals for a coup.

And what about him telling Lodge “Until the very moment of the go signal for the operation by the Generals, I must reserve a contingent right to change course and reverse previous instructions.” But never revers[ing] previous instructions”?

See above. Kennedy's bureaucratic strategy of "indecisiveness" created a vacuum the pro-coup forces in his administration happily filled.

JFK got lots of thing right, especially towards the end of his administration, but he was human and sometimes made mistakes, put politics ahead of principles or otherwise didn’t conform to the progressive image of him that he normally deserved.

At least you, unlike Jim D., acknowledge that JFK was aware of the cable an OKed the coup, he and a few other members seem to be unable to accept that 'St. Kennedy' could have done anything wrong.

He surrounded himself with vipers whose agendas ran contrary to his own.

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5:

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert,

Don't you claim to be some kind of AN HISTORIAN? There are multiple lines of proof that show JFK

was being set up. I am surprised you are unaware. How can you get something so simple so wrong?

(1) The CIA assured JFK that the invading force would be met with cheers and a popular uprising.

(2) But Fidel was immensely popular and there was no possibility that there would actually be one.

(3) The plan included assassinating Fidel coincident with the invasion, but that was fantasizing.

(4) If they did not succeed, the force would head into the mountains and conduct guerrilla warfare.

(5) But the ragtag force of anti-Castro Cubans and mercenaries was not trained for guerrilla warfare.

(6) The Soviets had learned the date of the invasion and Castro was ready and was waiting for them.

(7) The CIA knew the Soviets had learned the date but did not inform the young Commander-in-Chief.

(8) They were landed in a swamp, where it was easy to predict that they had no chance of success.

(9) He would have to chose between embarrassment and sending in the Marines, which they expected.

How can you have ANY DOUBT that he was being set-up? This was a classic "bait and switch". Why do

you think JFK was pissed with the CIA and sacked Dulles, Bissell and Cabell? How wrong can you be?

Jim

P.S. An historical IQ test for Robert Morrow. In post #29 and repeated in #33, #35, and #36, I put up:

If all you knew was that the CIA knew that the Soviets had learned the date of the attack, but that JFK

had not been informed, HOW COULD YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT HE WAS BEING SET UP TO FAIL?

The CIA was NOT setting up the Bay of Pigs to fail. But what they were counting on, assuming, was that if it did become bogged down that John Kennedy would crumple to their will and send in the full force of the US military.

It bogged down. Failed. Castro was waiting with plenty of troops; he had penetrated the invasion plans.

I believe that Nixon advised Kennedy to send in the full force of the US military. Kennedy would not do it. CIA/military was furious at JFK.

A lot more folks would have died. The USA would have eventually "won" and paid for it with a lot of blood on both sides.

Kennedy did not send in the full force of the military. He was enraged at the CIA.

The CIA was enraged at him. And the anti-Castro Cubans quickly grew to hate Kennedy as much as Castro. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and its aftereffects played a big role in the JFK assassination.

Evelyn Lincoln (JFK's personal assistant of 12 years), in the plane trip back from Dallas, put down Lyndon Johnson at the top of her list of suspects. Another one was CIA anger over Bay of Pigs.

Edited January 23, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Scott Kaiser]

The CIA was NOT setting up the Bay of Pigs to fail. But what they were counting on, assuming, was that if it did become bogged down that John Kennedy would crumple to their will and send in the full force of the US military.

It bogged down. Failed. Castro was waiting with plenty of troops; he had penetrated the invasion plans.

I believe that Nixon advised Kennedy to send in the full force of the US military. Kennedy would not do it. CIA/military was furious at JFK.

A lot more folks would have died. The USA would have eventually "won" and paid for it with a lot of blood on both sides.

Kennedy did not send in the full force of the military. He was enraged at the CIA.

The CIA was enraged at him. And the anti-Castro Cubans quickly grew to hate Kennedy as much as Castro. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and its aftereffects played a big role in the JFK assassination.

Evelyn Lincoln (JFK's personal assistant of 12 years), in the plane trip back from Dallas, put down Lyndon Johnson at the top of her list of suspects. Another one was CIA anger over Bay of Pigs.

The CIA was enraged at him. And the anti-Castro Cubans quickly grew to hate Kennedy as much as Castro. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and its aftereffects played a big role in the JFK assassination.

Exactly Robert!

You don't have to call yourself an "historian" in order to make yourself or others believe you're right, all you need to do is go down to Miami and talk to all the survivors of the Bay of Pigs without imposing your own theory, then you'll get it.

Secondly, I always wondered why Kennedy said after the Bay of Pigs, "well, if anyone is going to shoot me its going to happen now".

The End!

[Scott Kaiser]

[David Andrews]

Is there any relation between Eisenhower's health and the BOP not being launched under that administration? Len Osanic has Fletcher Prouty on video saying that Ike's health reduced him to s figurehead in the last year of his term, and that Nixon was running foreign affairs. Where is Ike's before-the-fact endorsement of the BOP or equivalent operation? Other than his sentiments to the incumbent, Kennedy, after the BOP failure?

[Scott Kaiser]

Is there any relation between Eisenhower's health and the BOP not being launched under that administration? Len Osanic has Fletcher Prouty on video saying that Ike's health reduced him to s figurehead in the last year of his term, and that Nixon was running foreign affairs. Where is Ike's before-the-fact endorsement of the BOP or equivalent operation? Other than his sentiments to the incumbent, Kennedy, after the BOP failure?

Here are the facts:

Ike knew, Nixon knew, Nixon helped form Operation 40, did Ike ever endorse the Bay of Pigs? If he didn't, why didn't he? Did Nixon want to endorse the Bay of Pigs during his VP term with Ike? Why did Nixon want to kick off the BOP's during November of 1960? Would it be because it would catapult him into securing a landslide win over Kennedy if Nixon were to send in the US military and oust communism and Castro 90 miles away from the shores of Florida? Well, if we don't have the answers to the above then can anyone answer this:

Why did Kennedy allow the Bay of Pigs to follow through if he had no intention in sending US military? I mean after all he did know about the Bay of Pigs didn't he? I wouldn't suppose that Kennedy just talked a good talk, but wouldn't walk the walk just to be president would he?

Edited January 23, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

Kennedy had every intention to send in the US Military to oust Castro, Kennedy knew along with the CIA that if he hadn't the Brigade members didn't stand a chance, BUT! as soon as Nikita Khrushchev said, "If you do something to Cuba we will retaliate"!... Kennedy got cold feet!.!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

There is an enormous difference between the CIA having set up JFK to take a fall and the anti-Castro Cubans having resented him when it failed. The agency passed the buck to Jack and transferred animus that should have been theirs to the young president. Your loyalty to Robert Morrow is admirable, but your reasoning ability with logic and evidence are not. Even he, I think, would instead agree with me.

The CIA was NOT setting up the Bay of Pigs to fail. But what they were counting on, assuming, was that if it did become bogged down that John Kennedy would crumple to their will and send in the full force of the US military.

It bogged down. Failed. Castro was waiting with plenty of troops; he had penetrated the invasion plans.

I believe that Nixon advised Kennedy to send in the full force of the US military. Kennedy would not do it. CIA/military was furious at JFK.

A lot more folks would have died. The USA would have eventually "won" and paid for it with a lot of blood on both sides.

Kennedy did not send in the full force of the military. He was enraged at the CIA.

The CIA was enraged at him. And the anti-Castro Cubans quickly grew to hate Kennedy as much as Castro. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and its aftereffects played a big role in the JFK assassination.

Evelyn Lincoln (JFK's personal assistant of 12 years), in the plane trip back from Dallas, put down Lyndon Johnson at the top of her list of suspects. Another one was CIA anger over Bay of Pigs.

The CIA was enraged at him. And the anti-Castro Cubans quickly grew to hate Kennedy as much as Castro. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and its aftereffects played a big role in the JFK assassination.

Exactly Robert!

You don't have to call yourself an "historian" in order to make yourself or others believe you're right, all you need to do is go down to Miami and talk to all the survivors of the Bay of Pigs without imposing your own theory, then you'll get it.

Secondly, I always wondered why Kennedy said after the Bay of Pigs, "well, if anyone is going to shoot me its going to happen now".

The End!

Edited January 24, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Scott Kaiser]

There is an enormous difference between the CIA having set up JFK to take a fall and the anti-Castro Cubans having resented him when it failed. The agency passed the buck to Jack and transferred animus that should have been theirs to the young president. Your loyalty to Robert Morrow is admirable, but your reasoning ability with logic and evidence are not. Even he, I think, would instead agree with me.

The CIA was NOT setting up the Bay of Pigs to fail. But what they were counting on, assuming, was that if it did become bogged down that John Kennedy would crumple to their will and send in the full force of the US military.

It bogged down. Failed. Castro was waiting with plenty of troops; he had penetrated the invasion plans.

I believe that Nixon advised Kennedy to send in the full force of the US military. Kennedy would not do it. CIA/military was furious at JFK.

A lot more folks would have died. The USA would have eventually "won" and paid for it with a lot of blood on both sides.

Kennedy did not send in the full force of the military. He was enraged at the CIA.

The CIA was enraged at him. And the anti-Castro Cubans quickly grew to hate Kennedy as much as Castro. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and its aftereffects played a big role in the JFK assassination.

Evelyn Lincoln (JFK's personal assistant of 12 years), in the plane trip back from Dallas, put down Lyndon Johnson at the top of her list of suspects. Another one was CIA anger over Bay of Pigs.

The CIA was enraged at him. And the anti-Castro Cubans quickly grew to hate Kennedy as much as Castro. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and its aftereffects played a big role in the JFK assassination.

Exactly Robert!

You don't have to call yourself an "historian" in order to make yourself or others believe you're right, all you need to do is go down to Miami and talk to all the survivors of the Bay of Pigs without imposing your own theory, then you'll get it.

Secondly, I always wondered why Kennedy said after the Bay of Pigs, "well, if anyone is going to shoot me its going to happen now".

The End!

There is an enormous difference between the CIA having set up JFK to take a fall and the anti-Castro Cubans having resented him when it failed.

Okay! For some reason there are a few people that BELEIVE that the CIA set up JFK to take the fall! Let me just say that is not true. <period> Kennedy at any time could have called it off, at anytime he could have not endorsed the invasion, at anytime could have broken it up just as he did with the anti-Castro groups, but he didn't! He allowed the invasion to play through while at the last minute calling off the airstrikes. Osvaldo Coello was the first person who received word on the radio on the ship Barbara that Kennedy called off the airstrikes. THEY WERE STRANDED!!!

You don't say your going to do something then not do it! You don't play with people lives! You either fight or you don't, but you better have a damn good reason not to fight when you're telling the Cuban people they can't fight for their freedom. Tell me Mr. Fitzer, have you ever gone down to Miami and talked to any one Cuban who gave their life for freedom? Consider yourself lucky living where you live, in a free country, but consider yourself having to leave your country, your job, your family, your freedom. How the hell would you feel?

You read documents, books, and come up with your own understanding and theory, you call yourself an historian, THEN GET IT RIGHT! I'm not downing Kennedy and lifting up the Cubans. I have listen to both sides of the story, why would I myself go against my own American President as an American? On the contrary, I should be proud of Kennedy and where I live. But do you think that Kennedy was this perfect man that could not make any mistakes? He did, while Kennedy was in his office sitting at his desk instead of writing decisions, decisions, decisions all over his writing tablet he should have just made a DECISION! Oh that's right he did! He called off the airstrikes. So who set up who?

The agency passed the buck to Jack and transferred animus that should have been theirs to the young president.

The agency passed nothing to NO ONE, it was created during the Eisenhower administration and Nixon helped found Operation 40. Instigated by Nixon who wanted to see this get kicked off sooner then passing the buck <so to say> to Kennedy, however, the CIA as much as they wanted to they couldn't get the invasion to land in Cuba due to preparations. But! What if they would have and the same circumstances happen? Would you have said that the CIA also set up Eisenhower? Properly not! Why? Because the outcome would have been different, Eisenhower and Nixon would have used American military. Castro would have been gone, they knew in order to oust Castro American military would have HAD to been used, there would have been NO other way. The CIA and Kennedy both knew that, that small brigade of 1,500 was no match for Castro's 10,000 men, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, but Kennedy reigned on his word.

Your loyalty to Robert Morrow is admirable, but your reasoning ability with logic and evidence are not. Even he, I think, would instead agree with me.

My loyalty is freely given to whom ever I choose Mr. Fetzer, if this is all about getting people to agree with you or me then I don't want any part of it. You're a big boy Mr. Fetzer, you should be able to make up your own mind. If you want to turn this into some sort of popularity contest go ahead, be my guess, but I think you have another 30 years of reading my friend.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Scott Kaiser

[Len Colby]

LEN 1/24: My latest

Perhaps you are right to a degree about it being “a power play by W. Averell Harriman” but you contradict yourself a bit, Dillion AFAIK had nothing to do with the coup, you cited Hammer who said Rusk and McNamara were against it and JFK confirmed this regarding the latter.

Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon was a member of Kennedy's Executive Committee of the National Security Council during the Cuban Missile Crisis and attended a number of high-level meetings on the Vietnam crisis in '63. In this August 28 meeting he advocated for decisiveness -- one way or the other.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn07.pdf

LEN 1/24: At best then you’d have only one of the three pushing for a coup and the other two opposed, but as you noted he didn’t really support the coup.

But Kennedy was playing for indecisiveness at that point, as indicated in the cable sent to Lodge the next day and the comments he made during the 8/28 conference.

Len, check out the above and compare Kennedy's comments with both former Ambassador Nolting's and RFK's -- they seem to be stalling for time.

LEN 1/24: Yes they opposed the idea, apparently that was one of the reasons Nolting was pushed out. As for JFK:

The President said we should decide what we can do here or suggest things that can be done in the field which would maximize the chances of the rebel generals. We should ask Ambassador Lodge and General Harkins how we can build up military forces which would carry out a coup. At present, it does not look as if the coup forces could defeat Diem.

Secretary Dillon interrupted to say, “Then don't go.”

The President asked the Defense Department to come up with ways of building up the anti-Diem forces in Saigon.

So JFK was pushing for a coup but speculated the general’s might not be ready and Dillion the Republican ‘Harrimanite’ advised him “Then don't go” [down that road?]. But go ahead and rationalize that as JFK “playing for indecisiveness” and Dillion push for the opposite.

Ultimately however JFK cannot be absolved of responsibility, though perhaps manipulated he was fully aware of the cable’s contents and implications before approving it and did nothing to reverse course or fire those responsible over the course of the next 10 – 13 weeks respectively.

I'd argue that JFK didn't grasp the full implications of 8/24 "Hilsman" cable -- "he passed it off too quickly," as his brother Robert put it. "Major mistake."

LEN 1/24: I think “Bobby” was trying to rationalize away his brother’s mistake, he knew that it would incite a coup, normal cables to ambassadors don’t need to be cleared with the leaders of three departments.

From then on Harriman and his allies had the upper hand. And that's my knock on Kennedy -- he should have known better. Gilpatric smelled a rat -- why didn't JFK?

LEN 1/24: “Gilpatric smelled a rat”? Please elaborate.

So why didn't he fire Harriman?

Fire the guy who'd just negotiated an arms control treaty with the Soviets, landing him on the cover of Time mag? Fire the guy who financed both the Soviets and the Nazis in the 20's and 30's and who -- I'd argue -- was more responsible for the outbreak of WW2 than any other single individual? Fire the guy who was put in charge of implementing the Marshall Plan so that Europe could recover from the carnage Harriman played a major role in unleashing?

LEN 1/24: Hmmmm, the underlined part is a novel theory, worthy of its own thread. I guess you know better than:

- FDR, HST and JFK because they appointed him to various senior posts

- Churchill who negotiated with him at Yalta AND

- The good people of the state of NY (a good number of them Jews) who elected him governor in 1954 (the only Democrat elected between 1938 and 1974)

Proteges of Harriman (or his wife Pamela) occupied the White House for 20 years -- after he was dead!

LEN 1/24: ??? So every POTUS till Bush jr. was a Harrimanite?

Mess with someone with as much juice as Harriman, why, a guy could end up getting shot!...oh, uh...well, yeah...

LEN 1/24: So you think Averil was “in on it”?

My interpretation of the Aug. 29 cable is 180 degrees from yours how him saying “I have approved all the messages you are receiving from others today, and I emphasize that everything in these messages has my full support” help your case?

It fits perfectly with my case that JFK was struggling to re-gain control over Viet policy in the wake of Cable 243. What else was he going to tell Lodge? "I've been out-maneuvered by your allies in my Administration and I want to take a mulligan on 243"?

LEN 1/24: 1ST I don’t so underestimate JFK so much as to buy the notion he was so naïve as to not understand what he had approved. Why say it had his “full support” if he didn’t mean it? Why say reserved the right to reverse course if he didn’t mean it?

No, he owned it thoroughly and reserved the right to reverse course. But it was soon too late.

Take it away, James W. Douglass -- JFK and the Unspeakable, pg 192:

Kennedy was losing control of his government. In early September, he discovered that another key decision related to the coup had been made without his knowledge.

A White House meeting with the President was discussing whether or not to cut off the Commodity Import Program that propped up South Vietnam's economy. It was a far-reaching decision. For the United States to withdraw the AID program could prompt a coup against Diem.

David Bell, head of AID, made a casual comment that stopped the discussion. He said, "There's no point in talking about cutting off commodity aid. I've already cut it off."

"You've done what?" said John Kennedy.

"Cut off commodity aid," said Bell.

Kennedy shook his head in dismay.

"My God, do you know what you've done?" said the president.

He was staring at David Bell, but seeing a deeper reality. Kennedy knew Bell's agency, AID, functioned as a CIA front. AID administrator David Bell would not have carried out his "automatic" cutoff without CIA approval. "We do it whenever we have differences with a client government" could serve as a statement of CIA policy. By cutting South Vietnam's purse strings, the CIA was sending a message to its upstart client ruler, Diem, as well as to the plotting generals waiting in the wings for such a signal. Most of all, the message was meant for the man staring at David Bell in disbelief. He was being told who was in control. It was not the President.

By having AID cut off the Commodity Import Program, the CIA had made it impossible for Kennedy to avoid a coup in South Vietnam. The aid cutoff was a designated signal for a coup. In late August, the CIA had agreed with the plotting South Vietnamese generals that just such a cut in economic aid would be the U.S. government's green light to the generals for a coup.

LEN 1/24: Douglas of course mixed a lot of his own speculation in along with the facts obviously JFK could have overridden Bell. What was the source for this supposed dialogue?

And what about him telling Lodge “Until the very moment of the go signal for the operation by the Generals, I must reserve a contingent right to change course and reverse previous instructions.” But never revers[ing] previous instructions”?

See above. Kennedy's bureaucratic strategy of "indecisiveness" created a vacuum the pro-coup forces in his administration happily filled.

LEN 1/24: Does anyone besides a certain [Clark?] Clifford Varnell back this ‘bureaucratic strategy of "indecisiveness"’ theory?

JFK got lots of thing right, especially towards the end of his administration, but he was human and sometimes made mistakes, put politics ahead of principles or otherwise didn’t conform to the progressive image of him that he normally deserved.

At least you, unlike Jim D., acknowledge that JFK was aware of the cable an OKed the coup, he and a few other members seem to be unable to accept that 'St. Kennedy' could have done anything wrong.

He surrounded himself with vipers whose agendas ran contrary to his own.

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5:

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.

LEN 1/24: Did O’Donnell ever raise his concerns with his boss? How many years (decades) after the fact did he first make such claims?