JFK's Foreign Policy: A Motive for Murder

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

You and I have gone round and round on this topic many times.

Yes, over at that little rigged game called AssassinationofJFK.net. a/k/a the Cult of the False Mystery.

Yeah?

What about it, Greg?

By that I mean: "Round and round on the circular logic Ferris Wheel."

Yes, you made this phony accusation on your Forum, and I rhetorically kicked the xxxx out of you.

In order to save face you kicked me off your Forum and xxxx-canned all my posts.

A study in courage,

To accuse me of "circular logic" is an egregious cheap shot -- since you can't link to my disappeared posts, right?

The last time you tried to give me a logic lesson it got shoved up your xxx.

That's why all my posts were deep-sixed.

Remember?

As Jim noted, you seem to want to argue for its own sake.

You guys are good with the insults but weak on actual argument.

It doesn't work that way, Greg.

If you can't put forth reasoned, fact-based arguments -- your insults boomerang.

Although Jim and I don't see 100% eye-to-eye on this topic, the differences are mostly negligible.

Having said that, you are correct that there was never any contingency plan for the BOP that would have involved direct US military intervention as far as JFK was concerned. Not at the end. Not at its inception. Not during the middle planning phases. Never. Direct US intervention was NEVER a fall back position. However, within the "power structure" of the National Security State there was a "contingency plan" that attempted to usurp the authority of the President of the United States.

Which involved Allen Dulles going to Puerto Rico, thus depriving the operation of its chief operator?

It is also true that at least one aircraft carrier had been moved (without proper authorization) into a strike force position to support the landing at the BOP.

So what?

They didn't support the landing at the BOP.

That had been explicitly ruled out not just by Kennedy but the entire foreign policy team at the March 15 meeting.

This is a smoking gun, as well as an indication of what was being attempted.

And what was being attempted, Greg?

The original BOP Operation was successfully sabotaged (by canceling the pre-dawn airstrikes) for a reason. Was it simply for the purpose of "failure for its own sake?" Nope.

So you say.

But you can't argue to the point to save your life.

Dean Rusk cancelled the D-Day-1 air strikes.

Dean Rusk cut the false flag air force from 16 planes to 8.

We can attribute this to bureaucratic incompetence and interference, I suppose, but there appears to be more to the story of Dulles v. Kennedy.

The purpose of the sabotage was to place the young, new POTUS in a double-bind; between a rock and a hard place: the Scylla and Charybdis. It was anticipated that he would refuse introducing US military into the operation as it was both a violation of International Law and there was no contingency plan for it. However, once he was made aware of the desperate plight of Brigade 2506, the conspirators hoped he would cave with respect to International Law.

They did?

Thank you for the Vulcan mind-meld with the BOP conspirators, Greg, but your act is a little less than convincing.

Did Dulles and Bissell sleep thru those March meetings?

From Document 66:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v10/d66

<quote on, emphasis added>

On March 17 Admiral Burke provided the JCS with additional details about the discussion of the revised Zapata plan. According to Burke, the President wanted to know what the consequences would be if the operation failed. He asked Burke how he viewed the operation's chance of success. Burke indicated that he had given the President a probability figure of about 50 percent. President Kennedy also inquired what would happen if it developed after the invasion that the Cuban exile force were pinned down and being slaughtered on the beach. If they were to be re-embarked, the President wanted to know where they could be taken. According to Burke's account of the meeting: “It was decided they would not be re-embarked because there was no place to go. Once they were landed they were there.” In the course of the discussion, it was emphasized that the plan was dependent on a general uprising in Cuba, and that the entire operation would fail without such an uprising. (Review of Record of Proceedings Related to Cuban Situation, May 5; Naval Historical Center, Area Files, Bumpy Road Materials)

<quote off>

Greg, what part of -- "Once they were landed they were there" -- do you fail to grasp?

Burke and the JCS knew there would be no US intervention under any circumstances; Dulles, Bissell and the CIA knew there would be no US intervention under any circumstances; Dean Rusk and the State Department knew there would be...wait for it...no US military intervention under any circumstances; President Kennedy and McGeorge Bundy knew there would be no US military intervention under any circumstances.

Hell, Fidel Castro probably knew there would be no US military intervention.

If so, there would only be two things lacking to motivate JFK to send in US air support. First, lack of a contingency plan remained as a huge obstacle to US intervention. And second, but most importantly: As far as JFK knew, no assets were within range to offer support.

So JFK was so eager to invade Cuba all he needed was an aircraft carrier to stray close enough and that opportunity alone would set off the mad-dog President into invading Cuba.

That's your story.

Are we talking about the same Jack Kennedy?

However, since the needed aircraft had been unexpectedly maneuvered into position, the necessary assets were, in fact, available. This would therefore clear a path for JFK to order direct US military action.

In direct violation of US law.

Against his own instincts.

In spite of no contingency planning.

Allen Dulles was betting that the young JFK would be an unhinged madman who would order the invasion of a neighboring country just because there was an opportunity to do so.

Wow.

Like I say, you guys are pushing a crock.

And, it would have worked, had JFK been a lesser man.

It would have worked if JFK were insane.

And it's utterly insane to think any of this treacle-speculation of yours reflected the thinking of Allen Dulles.

So Cabell made the case from Dean Rusk's home on the morning of the BOP after it was too late to hope for success without direct US intervention.

As it turned out, the Agency's contingency plan to force the hand of an autonomous Commander-in-Chief failed.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Greg:

You have the patience of a saint.

I could never deal with such matters, which to me seem rather obvious.

Bu thanks anyway.

Adieu. Again.

It isn't patience you lack for, Jim, it's facts and logic.

This is our JFK Expert Class in action!

Good with the contentless dismissals and declarations of authoritahh -- not so hot on the facts of the case.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Burnham]

Cliff,

I didn't mention your dismissal from my forum out of respect for your feelings. But now that you broached the subject, let me simply say that your penchant for hijacking threads by commandeering them to your own pet theory was not something I could continue to allow on my forum. That, coupled with recalcitrance and your stubborn refusal to admit error earned you the boot.

I see that has not dissuaded you from disrupting and hijacking threads elsewhere. No problem, as I don't make the rules here. However, it's times like this when I remember why I don't visit too often. But that's just me.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

Greg:

You have the patience of a saint.

It just ran out...

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I didn't mention your dismissal from my forum out of respect for your feelings. But now that you broached the subject, let me simply say that your penchant for hijacking threads by commandeering them to your own pet theory was not something I could continue to allow on my forum.

You never said a word about that.

Not once did you ever call me out for hijacking a thread.

Not once.

The first time you asked me to leave was because I cited Z186-255 too many times.

It is against the rules of your forum to cite the Zap in any context other than alteration.

The real reason you asked me to leave was because I was kicking Charles Drago's pocked marked xxx. Rhetorically speaking.

The second time you asked me to leave when you committed a non-sequitur by accusing me of begging the question.

I did not beg the question.

I gave my arguments for why Robert Lovett had the motive, means and opportunity to sabotage the BOP.

That was my argument -- not that he actually did it for fact, but that he had the motive, means and opportunity to do so.

I kicked you ever loving xxx not once but twice and got deep-sixed.

Gutless.

That, coupled with recalcitrance and your stubborn refusal to admit error earned you the boot.

Admit error about what?

Your cheap shot artistry exceeds your ability for deep political analysis.

I see that has not dissuaded you from disrupting and hijacking thread.

This thread is about JFK's foreign policy.

I responded to what the guy who started the thread said about the BOP.

So because you guys can't stand the heat you insist I leave the kitchen?

Xxxx you.

No problem, as I don't make the rules here. However, it's times like this when I remember why I don't visit too often. But that's just me.

That's rich coming from a guy who runs a forum which consists of a 4-man daisy chain and little else.

I see you have no rebuttal to my critique.

Your silence says every thing.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Greg:

You have the patience of a saint.

It just ran out...

Your command of the facts of the case ran out.

Greg, I don't have a problem with you and Charles D huffing the "ether of your imaginations" -- just don't expect every one else to share the bag.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Jon G. Tidd]

It appears to me the standard interpretation of the BOP debacle, in all possible variations, is this: palace intrigue beyond JFK's control or comprehension both doomed the mission and laid failure for the mission at JFK's doorstep.

If I'm wrong about this, please tell me how.

Assuming I'm correct, what does the standard interpretation expect of a U.S. president?

Here's what I expect: better leadership, both here and abroad, than has been exhibited for many, many years.

Yes, I know. JFK had enemies. So what? Under the Constitution, the President has enormous power. JFK, IMO, was loath to use that power. He chose words, persuasion, which is leadership. He was a great president. But he failed to wield the power of his office.

[Cliff Varnell]

It appears to me the standard interpretation of the BOP debacle, in all possible variations, is this: palace intrigue beyond JFK's control or comprehension both doomed the mission and laid failure for the mission at JFK's doorstep.

If I'm wrong about this, please tell me how.

Assuming I'm correct, what does the standard interpretation expect of a U.S. president?

Here's what I expect: better leadership, both here and abroad, than has been exhibited for many, many years.

Yes, I know. JFK had enemies. So what? Under the Constitution, the President has enormous power. JFK, IMO, was loath to use that power. He chose words, persuasion, which is leadership. He was a great president. But he failed to wield the power of his office.

I gotta give the guy a mulligan on the BOP.

He'd only been in office less than two months and he was relying on two guys -- Rusk and Bundy -- who owed their loyalties to others.

[Cliff Varnell]

FInally, also on page 46:

"On April 16th, when the idea of a D Day air strike from Nicaragua came up with UN Representative Adlai Stevenson and Dean Rusk, Kennedy specifically said he was not signed onto that decision. It was his understanding that any further air strikes would come from inside the beachhead. So, with these declassified reports, the evidence on this issue is compelling."

I've been accused of arguing for arguments' sake by folks who lose arguments.

I'm seeking accuracy and clarity in these historical issues.

Jim speaks of the "superhumanly complex" nature of the JFK murder case; Greg Burnham is drawn to the mysterioso.

Dead ends, gentle reader.

Back when Jim DiEugenio was more than happy to discuss the Bay of Pigs on this thread he started, he cited the above from his book, Destiny Betrayed.

Jim D. gets an "incomplete" on this one.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v10/d64

He leaves out the crucial Bundy memo of March 15 (above) which praised the CIA BOP revision of March 15 while fundamentally revising it himself, moving the false flag air strikes to Nicaragua ahead of the invasion.

Dean Rusk raised hell over the size of the false flag fleet and it was cut from 16 planes to 8.

16 planes would have knocked out the Cuban air force in one day, D-Day-2.

According to the Bundy memo the false flag attack and the invasion would have been touted as separate events.

This Bundy/Rusk one-two punch doomed the operation, events which Jim DiEugenio ignores or is ignorant of.

There was never any plan for a D-Day air strike of any sort. The Bundy plan trumped Bissell's.

To claim that Kennedy stood up to a power play by Dulles is absurd.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I didn't mention your dismissal from my forum out of respect for your feelings.

What makes Greg think I don't regard it as a badge of honor to get kicked out of his Forum?

He and Charles Drago are among the worst Pet Theorists of all.

Z186-Z255 shows JFK reacting to a throat shot in a manner consistent with a MK/NAOMI dart weapon strike but Greg Burnham forbids his Forum from viewing it as such.

The Evica Drago Model is a false mystery ploy. I never use that language for the perps, ever.

As long as legitimate researchers like Larry Hancock and David Lifton post on this Education Forum, we're gold.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

CV: This thread is about JFK's foreign policy.

I responded to what the guy who started the thread said about the BOP.

So because you guys can't stand the heat you insist I leave the kitchen?

Xxxx you.

As Greg notes, the above is why its not possible to argue with Varnell. In some ways its like arguing with Fetzer.

See, if you go back to my initial post, that PP is not at all about the Bay of Pigs, or Cuba or Vietnam.

And I say so explicitly at the beginning.

Its about JFK's foreign policy everywhere else, e.g.. Congo, Algeria, Indonesia, Angola, Mozambique, Iran, Egypt etc. And how Cuba and Vietnam are constant with it.

I deal with places that no one else ever talks about. And I got some good responses on it at first.

Until CV struck.....

I have no interest in arguing the Bay of Pigs with Varnell. That is why I left.

And then he says he did not hijack the thread. Which is a good example of why you can't argue with him.

[Cliff Varnell]

CV: This thread is about JFK's foreign policy.

I responded to what the guy who started the thread said about the BOP.

So because you guys can't stand the heat you insist I leave the kitchen?

Xxxx you.

As Greg notes, the above is why its not possible to argue with Varnell. In some ways its like arguing with Fetzer.

Who's got the brittle ego here, Jim?

Self-reflect a sec before answering...

See, if you go back to my initial post, that PP is not at all about the Bay of Pigs, or Cuba or Vietnam.

Go to post #14

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22457&p=319222

Jim DiEugenio was happy to talk about the Bay of Pigs.

Instead of standing up for his sloppy work he has to bitch about someone pointing out his errors.

Life's tough...

And I say so explicitly at the beginning.

Its about JFK's foreign policy everywhere else, e.g.. Congo, Algeria, Indonesia, Angola, Mozambique, Iran, Egypt etc. And how Cuba and Vietnam are constant with it.

Your work on the Bay of Pigs is sloppy at best, journalistic malpractice at worst.

I deal with places that no one else ever talks about.

Me too. Like how all the standard accounts of the Bay of Pigs don't square with the facts.

Like how the JFK physical evidence leads to Persons of Interest (defined as potential suspects).

And I got some good responses on it at first.

That sort of thing is more important to some, than to others. I notice you're always bragging about your popularity, Jim...

Until CV struck.....

I responded to Jon Tidd concerning Diem.

So did you.

You and Jon started the discussion on the Bay of Pigs and I chimed in.

You can't take critiques of your work, Jim.

You love to critique everyone else-- but you can't take it when your work is on the hot seat.

I have no interest in arguing the Bay of Pigs with Varnell.

You did at first.

You quoted from your book.

You revealed the sloppiness of your research when you made it clear you're not familiar with the March 15 Bundy memo.

That is why I left.

You didn't leave. Here you are. How many posts have you made complaining about me instead of standing up for your work?

3, at least.

And then he says he did not hijack the thread.

You can't defend your work on the Bay of Pigs in Destiny Betrayed.

That is the crux of it.

Which is a good example of why you can't argue with him.

I've had sharp disagreements with Larry Hancock and David Lifton without anyone getting bent out of shape.

You love to dish it out but you sure as hell can't take it.

[Cliff Varnell]

In which JimDiEugenio hijacks his own thread and makes a mistake about the Bay of Pigs.

Jon:

The White House is not a military unit.

You don't get court martialed and placed in the brig, or worse, for not following orders.

There are many instances where these kinds of things happened, e.g. with Nixon and the Moorer/Radford affair.

I would say that there were more instances of it happening here because of Kennedy's reformist agenda, which was not just Vietnam, but in several places throughout the world. Including favoring Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic.

BTW, after the Bay of Pigs, not only were the top three at CIA moved out, later on so were Burke and Lemnitzer.

As per the D Day Air Raids, in Destiny Betrayed, second edition, I spent a lot of time on this issue. And in fact one whole chapter on Operation Zapata.

I came to the conclusion, from various sources, including both Kennedy and the CIA, that the air raids were to be launched when an air strip was secured on the island. This is one of the reasons why the ultimate landing site was chosen.

McGeorge Bundy proposed false flag attacks from Nicaragua which would appear separate from the invasion.

All of Castro's planes had to be taken out on D-Day -2 (April 15). That was the plan.

Dean Rusk griped about the size of the false flag fleet and it was cut in half.

The false flag attacks left 4 Castro planes intact.

The anti-Castro Cubans were slaughtered on the beach, just as Burke said there was a 50-50 chance of happening.

Jim DiEugenio presents a slanted version of events and deserves to get called out for it.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Its about JFK's foreign policy everywhere else, e.g.. Congo, Algeria, Indonesia, Angola, Mozambique, Iran, Egypt etc. And how Cuba and Vietnam are constant with it.

Nelson Rockefeller proposed nuking North Vietnam.

Averell Harriman blew his chance for the long-coveted Secretary of State slot when he conspired with George Ball and a couple of nobodies to

ramrod Cable 243 past Kennedy, August 24 '63, to green-light the coup against Diem.

Chase Manhattan Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation, Brown Brothers Harriman -- the WASP banking elite.

The cream of the Eastern Establishment.

They wanted Diem gone.

No other region of the world commanded such a savage concern from that level of the ruling elite.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

As I repeated above, see my post at 21.

I repeated there, I did not want to talk about the Bay of Pigs since it has little or nothing to do with my initial post.

But again, CV insisted on bringing it up over and over.--and at length. And then he blames it on Jon!

Incredible.

Then he says, that somehow I cannot tolerate a critique of my work on the Bay of Pigs.

Not at all, as anyone can see from that very valuable discussion of the matter by myself, Greg and Larry Hancock. Which was actually admired at other forums as a model of what can be done at a JFK forum with informed people.

But one cannot argue with someone who uses data and logic that is so far out. To the point that he will not even accept a confession from a perp when he himself writes it out. This kind of thing does not elucidate the Operation Zapata episode.. It is done to further his own weird agenda. Namely that Harriman killed Kennedy.

And then he says that its me who has a slanted version. LOL

When in fact, my chapter on Zapata is based largely on the Kirkpatrick Report! Which is the CIA's own internal chronicle of what went wrong. Kirkpatrick spent months on it and interviewed dozens of people and went over hundreds of documents. Anyone can see that by reading Kornbluh's book.

But somehow, that is not enough for CV. You have to agree that somehow Robert Lovett was responsible for capsizing the Bay of Pigs. If not, you are not defending your work.

When, in fact, that concept is so fruity that no responsible author would argue such an unfounded and unsound assertion.

This is what happens when one argues with a guy who just likes to argue. Knowing that his tenets will never be accepted since they are solipsistic.

Edited November 29, 2015 by James DiEugenio