JFK's Foreign Policy: A Motive for Murder

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

You wanted to talk about the Bay of Pigs when you were pontificating.

When you're being critiqued you don't want to talk about the Bay of Pigs.

Sometimes things don't work out as planned.

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 on this thread, no.

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.

This is a contentless dismissal.

What data and logic is "so far out"?

The Bundy memo? Which you apparently didn't know existed?

What's so far out about that?

To the point that he will not even accept a confession from a perp when he himself writes it out.

No, the words of professional liars are not given the right of divine sacrament.

Think they were going to admit they got set up, if that's what happened?

This kind of thing does not elucidate the Operation Zapata episode..

Citing the Bundy memo doesn't elucidate the Operation Zapata episode?

Admit it, you didn't know the Bundy memo existed, did you?

It is done to further his own weird agenda. Namely that Harriman killed Kennedy.

As opposed to Jim DiEugenio's weird agenda. Namely that Dulles killed Kennedy.

The Dulles Brother's were Harriman's lawyers.

They were his employees for a long time.

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

Indeed, you don't seem to have processed how the Bay of Pigs operation changed over the time Dean Rusk and McGeorge Bundy came into office.

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 what they won't read is the Bundy memo, evidently.

But somehow, that is not enough for CV.

Why would it be enough?

You can't see the Rusk/Bundy tag-team at work in those March memos because it under-cuts your romanticizations of Dulles and Kennedy, with JFK as the hero-y heroic hero and Dulles as the villain-y villainous villain.

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

Not at all.

I'm arguing for an open question.

Did Robert Lovett have the motive, means and opportunity to sabotage the BOP for the express purpose of getting rid of Allen Dulles?

Yes, he did.

Doesn't mean he did it.

There could have been a simultaneous bureaucratic breakdown between the State Dept., the Pentagon, the CIA, the National Security Council, and the President himself.

Could have been a simultaneous cluster-quad-x.

But if Lovett wanted to get rid of Dulles, "It's a lucky thing they were found out early," as Joe Kennedy said.

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

Fruity.

Atta boy!

When the going gets rough the inept get nasty.

Let's review the source material:

"The Elusive Bruce/Lovett Report":

http://cryptome.org/0001/bruce-lovett.htm

Robert Kennedy and His Times, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., 1978.[pp.455-458

<quote on>

Eisenhower, reluctant to commit conventional armed force, used the CIA as the routine instrument of American intervention abroad. Covert-action operators, working on relatively small budgets, helped overthrow governments deemed pro-Communist in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954), failed to do so in Indonesia (1958), helped install supposedly pro-western governments in Egypt (1954) and Laos (1959) and planned the overthrow and murder of Castro in 1960.

Congress and the press looked on these activities, insofar as they knew about them, with complacency. Only one group had grave misgivings and informed criticism: expressed, however, in the deepest secrecy. This, improbably, was the President's Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities, created by Eisenhower in 1956 and composed of unimpeachably respectable private citizens.

Almost at once the board had appointed a panel, led by Robert Lovett and David Bruce, to take a look at CIA's covert operations. "Bruce was very much disturbed," Lovett told the Cuba board of inquiry in 1961. "He approached it from the standpoint of 'what right have we to go barging around into other countries buying newspapers and handing money to opposition parties or supporting a candidate for this, that or the other office?' He felt this was an outrogeous interference with friendly countries. . . . He got me alarmed, so instead of completing the report in thirty days we look two months or more"³⁸

The 1956 report, written in Bruce's spirited style, condemned

"the increased mingling in the internal affairs of other nations of bright, highly graded young men who must be doing something all the time to justify their reason for being. ... Busy, moneyed and privileged, [the CIA] likes its "King Making." responsibility (the intrigue is fascinating -- considerable self-satisfaction, sometimes with applause, derives from "successes" -- no charge is made for "failures" -- and the whole business is very much simpler than collecting covert intelligence on the USSR through the usual CIA methods!)."

Bruce and Lovett could discover no reliable system of control. "There are always, of course, on record the twin, well-born purposes of 'frustrating the Soviets' and keeping others 'pro-western' oriented. Under these almost any [covert] action can be and is being justified." Once having been conceived, the final approval given to any project (at informal lunch meetings of the OCB [Operations Coordinating Board] inner group, can, at best, be described as pro forma." One consequence was that "no one, other than those in the CIA immediately concerned with their day to day operation, has any detailed knowledge of what is going on," With "a horde of CIA representatives" swarming around the planet, CIA covert action was exerting "significant, almost unilateral influences . . . on the actual formulation of our foreign policies . . . sometimes completely unknown" to the local American ambassador. "We are sure," the report added, "that the supporters of the 1948 decision to launch this government on a positive [covert] program could not possibly have foreseen the ramifications of the operations which have resulted from it." Bruce and Lovett concluded with an exasperated plea:

"Should not someone, somewhere in an authoritative position in our government on a continuing basis, be . . . calculating . . . the long-range wisdom of activities which have entailed our virtual abandonment of the international "golden rule," and which, if successful to the degree claimed for them, are responsible in a great measure for stirring up the turmoil and raising the doubts about us that exist in many countries of the world today? . . . Where will we be tomorrow?^"

In December 1956 the full board passed on to Eisenhower its concern about "the extremely informal and somewhat exclusive methods" used in the handling of clandestine projects.⁴⁰ (Among those signing this statemem was another board member, Joseph P. Kennedy. "I know that outfit," the ambassador said after the Bay of Pigs, "and I wouldn't pay them a hundred bucks a week. It's a lucky thing they were found out early.")⁴¹ In February 1957 the board pointed out to the White House that clandestine operations absorbed more than 80 percent of the CIA budget and that few or the projects received the formal approval of the so-called 5412 Special Group, the National Security Council's review mechanism. The CIA's Directorate of Plans (i.e., covert action), the board said, "is operating for the most part on an autonomous and free-wheeling basis in highly critical areas." All too often the State Department knew "little or nothing" of what lhe CIA was doing. "In some quarters this leads to situations which are almost unbelievable because the operations being carried out by the Deputy Director of Plans are sometimes in direct conflict with the normal operations being carried out by the Department of State."

. . .

The board pressed its campaign in 1959 and 1960. Allen Dulles made minor organizational changes. In 1959 the 5412 Special Group began for the first time to meet regularly. The board was not satisfied, then or later. When Dulles, Bissell and J. D. Esterline briefed the board late in 1960 on the Cuban project, its members, Lovett particularly, registered dismay, especially over the manner in which the planning was being administered. In its last written report to Eisenhower, in January 1961, the board said grimly: "We have been unable to conclude that, on balance, all of the covert action programs undertaken by CIA up to this time have been worth the risk or the great expenditure of manpower, money and other resources involved. In addition. we believe that CIA's concentration on political, psychological and related covert action activities have tended to detract substantially from the execution of its primary intelligence-gathering mission. We suggest, accordingly, that there should be a total reassessment of our covert action policies." "I have never felt," Lovett told the Cuba board of inquiry, "that the Congress of the United States ever intended to give the United States Intelligence Agency authority to conduct operations all over the earth."

The Board of Consultants had no visible impact. Allen Dulles ignored its recommendations. Eisenhower gave it no support. But its testimony demolishes the myth that the CIA was a punctilious and docile organization. acting only in response to express instruction from higher authority. Like the FBI, it was a runaway agency. in this case endowed with men professionally trained in deception, a wide choice of weapons, reckless purposes, a global charter, maximum funds and minimum accountability.

<quote off>

"Lovett particularly registered dismay."

Lovett got Dean Rusk his job at State and McGeorge Bundy his job as National Security Adviser and these guys screwed the pooch on the BOP.

Maybe it was incompetence.

Maybe it was something else that needs further examination.

An open question.

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.

This is what happens when one gets busted doing sloppy research, you lash out.

[Cliff Varnell]

It is done to further his own weird agenda. Namely that Harriman killed Kennedy.

Can't say for certain but I'd suspect the Old Crocodile Averell Harriman conspired with John D. Rockefeller 3.

These guys were sovereign human beings.

Their American nationality was incidental, a technicality.

They were global entities with fingers in every pie.

Can't say for sure, but it looks like Ave and Johnny D3 were the top perps, MK/NAOMI took care of the killing.

All those other clowns people go on and on about look like back up patsies to me.

And that includes Allen Dulles.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

From Jim DiEugenio's presentation:

#2

<quote on>

JFK's Foreign Policy in Assassination Books

Cuba

CIA

Vietnam

Pentagon

Cuba

CIA

Vietnam

Pentagon

Cuba

<quote off>

I greatly respect this approach to the subject.

Apply the negative template.

What is left out?

A glaring omission: Laos.

#3 ibid

<quote on, emphasis in the original>

Does NOT EXPLAIN

Why JFK didn't commit troops in Vietnam in 1961.

Why JFK did not commit the Navy to bail out "Bay of Pigs" invasion.

Why JFK did not bomb the missile sites in Cuba.

<quote off>

Apply the neg temp: what is left out?

"Why JFK ended up with Averell Harriman managing US policy in Laos in late April, 1961."

#10 ibid

<quote on, emphasis in the original>

President Kennedy's foreign policy was pretty much formed by the time he was inaugurated in 1961.

If a real reporter or insider had been aware of it, he could have predicted that Kennedy was not going to

commit combat troops to Vietnam, or bail out the Bay of Pigs debacle or invade Cuba.

<quote off>

In regard to the Bay of Pigs this is pure Jack Kennedy fanboy fiction.

JFK didn't bail out the Bay of Pigs debacle because he respected US law, which forbid overt military intervention, and because he didn't think about breaking the policy established in mid-March which ruled out any US intervention under any circumstances.

March 15, McGeorge Bundy proposed the air operation appear separate from the invasion, which meant a day in between the false flag strikes and the landings.

16 planes would have done the trick, but Rusk protested and the fleet was cut to 8. The April 15 strikes failed to wipe out Castro's fleet, 4 planes were left intact, and that was the ball game.

The next day Allen Dulles beat it down to Puerto Rico, leaving Cabell to beg for another false flag sortie on April 16, and finally begging for US intervention around 4am on D-Day April 17.

Of course he got turned down.

But in order to make his case that JFK came into office with "a revolutionary foreign policy," Jim DiEugenio mis-represents Kennedy's actions on the weekend of the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

I'm not disputing that JFK came into office with a "neutralist" attitude, pushing Third World countries to pursue non-aligned status instead of becoming chips in the Cold War poker game.

There was one place in the world he was most hot to "neutralize" -- Laos.

Laos -- the tail that wagged the Vietnamese cat.

What does Jim DiEugenio have to say about Laos?

#48 ibid

<quote on>

Other Reversals

Within 18 months of JFK's death:

*American combat troops are in Vietnam

*Cuban exiles are flying missions to kill the last of Lumumba's followers.

*Sukarno is overthrown and the Communist Party of Indoneasia is decimated.

*The story is repeated in the Dominican Republic, Brazil, and Laos.

<quote off>

Talk about burying the lede!

Jim, the best example of your premise that JFK came into office with a revolutionary foreign policy -- which lead to his assassination -- is Laos.

Spanning the Century: The Life of W. Averell Harriman, Rudy Abramson, pgs 582-3:

<quote on>

The Congo and the nearly complete Bay of Pigs plan were not the worst of the problems the Eisenhower

administration left behind. Kennedy immediately faced the prospect of having to send American troops

into combat in Indochina. In Laos, the United States had set out to turn a remote mountain and jungle

kingdom inhabited by gentle Buddhists and illiterate farmers into a bastion of anti-communism bordering

mainland China and North Vietnam. It was, Kennedy concluded, no place to fight a war. Instead of

continuing a policy headed for confrontation, he opted for a course designed to create a neutral Laos

"tied to no outside power or group of powers, threatening no one, and free from any domination."

About the same time the Presient was privately settling on the new policy, Harriman was in New Delhi

on his long tour, having tea with Laotian Prince Souvanna Phouma, who had for years been trying to

establish a neutralist government in his country, incorporating representatives of both the Communists

and the U.S.-backed conservatives. The Eisenhower State Department had regarded him as much too cozy with

the Communists, if not Red himself, but Harriman came home with a different impression and encouraged

Kennedy to back him.

<quote off>

SE Asia was the most pressing region of the world when JFK came into office, and it was the most pressing when he left.

There was no other region of the world more coveted by the Rockefeller/Harriman oligarchy in 1963.

Not the Congo, not Egypt, not Indonesia, not Iran.

If foreign policy was the beef that killed Kennedy, it was over SE Asia.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

I figured CV would go off like Old Faithful when I replied. And he did. With his usual "contentless dismissal"", "your pontificating" and "your sloppy research" and " I "Called you on it." I have seen this many times.

I said: Cliff Varnell is solipsistic. As you can see from the above, he proved it again. The idea that Lovett was in on the capsizing of the Bay of Pigs is nothing but bizarre. I would like to see any other published author who advocates for this. Please show me one.

As Stevenson said, I will wait until hell freezes over.

And to say that my work has been "called out" is so ridiculous, that it again, proves his solipsistic views.

I wrote 24 pages on the Bay of Pigs in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. With over 120 footnotes. When Rex Bradford read it, he immediately contacted my publisher. He wanted to excerpt it at MFF. We allowed him to. He later contacted me and revealed that he had not even finished the book when he made that decision. That is how struck he was with it.

I will match those 24 pages with any other short treatment of Zapata in the literature. I stand by it. It is densely annotated, with completely credible sources. But most of all, it follows and builds on each piece of evidence in a logical and tenable way. No reaches. And I capped it with how Dulles, Hunt and Charles Murphy struck back against Kennedy preemptively when they realized Dulles was going to be fired. It was Dulles, through Murphy and Hunt, who began the whole myth of the D Day cancellation. Which did not exist in the final plans. And which Kennedy refused to countenance, since he said he had not signed off on it. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed p. 46) And which Hunt in his book says Cabell fully understood was not part of the plan. (Destiny Betrayed p. 54)

Now, how much evidence do you need on a point? Dulles was making crap up afterwards to do a bit of CYA and to transfer the blame to JFK. Cabell knew no such thing was on the agenda. But yet, CV is still arguing that this was somehow apart of a secret design and would have been decisive.

He is wrong on both counts. For as Lyman Kirkpatrick expressed so pungently in his report: What difference would the D Day air strikes have made? (Ibid,p. 45) What you would have had very shortly was maybe 1400 weakly supplied ( a supply ship had sunk on a reef), Cuban exiles against 32,00 regular army troops supported by Soviet Bloc tanks, cannon and mortar fire. With over a hundred thousand reserves being called out if necessary. And they were there in ten hours. (Dulles and Bissell had told Kennedy this wold take days to happen. Ibid, p. 40)

Why so soon? Because the CIA had lied about no police force being there. There was. (ibid, p. 37) But further, there was no secrecy. American media began to expose the training camps in Central America in November of 1961. This continued into January and then the NY Times predicted the landing on March 17th! (Ibid ) Plus, Castro had spies informing him of the training camps. (ibid) Therefore, Castro had his military on high alert at the time of the landing and had beefed up surveillance at probable landing sites. This is how the army got to the scene so quickly. In fact, Castro was informed when the last ship left Central America. (ibid) Therefore, as Kirkpatrick said, what difference would the D Day strikes have made in the military outcome? Unless one thinks that in an amphibious operation being outnumbered by 20 to 1, and maybe even 100 to 1, does not matter. Except that is contra everything that the study of amphibious invasion states.

As for being a false flag operation, how CV could say that in this day and age is really puzzling. Because of the media exposure, noted above, everyone knew the CIA was backing the landing. And in official terms this exposure happened even before the flotilla shipped out because of examination of the planes used in the early strafing. (ibid, p. 40)

Finally, the idea that the decrease in air strikes and sorties was anyone but Kennedy's is simply not tenable. Kennedy harangued Bissell on this point. At one time even asking him if he needed the air strikes at all. (ibid, p. 36) As I said, it was the White House, acting on Kennedy's orders, that refused the last minute request for D Day air strikes. Rusk even asked Bissell and Cabell if they wanted to see the president about this. They said no. (ibid, p. 44) As Talbot notes in his book, Burke tried the same thing, with JFK directly. No go. What most people get from this is that all these WH witnesses--which include McNamara--were telling the same story since they all knew and supported Kennedy's decision against D Day air strikes. (ibid, p. 46)

Both McNamara and Rusk told the Taylor Committee, that to their understanding the landing was to be largely reliant on defections. Rusk said he thought this was central to the enterprise. Marine Chief Shoup said the same thing. Except he went even further. He said that he thought defections were the absolute basis of the operation; the success of the operation relied on them. Or else why put 30,00 rifles on a barge. (ibid, p. 42) This was another Dulles deception.

Kennedy really had no choice but to terminate Dulles after he got the two reports back. But Cliff says Dulles' confession as discovered by Lucien Vandenbroucke should not be believed. Why? Because Dulles was a prevaricator.

To himself?

See, Dulles was working on a reply to the Schlesinger/ Sorenson view of the operation as excerpted in Life and Look when their books came out. He was going to write a reply in Harper's. But after working on it a few days, he gave up, but kept his notes. Which included his confession that he deliberately misled Kennedy thinking JFK would commit American power when the chips were down. ( ibid, p. 47 BTW, Kennedy himself said this was his conclusion after reading the reports. ibid, p. 48)

Vandenbroucke did not find these notes for almost 20 years. If he had not discovered them, God knows how long it would have taken to find them. Dulles did not want to commit them to a publication. That is why he gave up on the article. After once exploding in anger, "That little Kennedy, he thought he was a god." (ibid, p. 34) So therefore, in CV's world, Dulles lied to himself in his own personal coffee stained notes. Meanwhile thinking they would never be found. Which they were not for 20 years.

As anyone can see, almost every footnote here is from my book. Which, unlike what CV says, is quite defensible. Not only is it factual, each building block blends together and holds. And it is bolstered by direct testimony and evidence. This is where I am on this case today.

Edited December 1, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, even though I wrote a lot above, I did not reveal what I think Zapata was really about.

It was really about Operation Forty.

[Cliff Varnell]

I figured CV would go off like Old Faithful when I replied. And he did. With his usual "contentless dismissal"", "your pontificating" and "your sloppy research" and " I "Called you on it." I have seen this many times.

Right.

In response to all the material I put up on this thread we're gonna get a post from Jim insisting I'm a terrible guy and he's a great guy.

I said: Cliff Varnell is solipsistic.

This is the Charles Drago School of Discourse -- since defending your work is beneath you, insult away.

As you can see from the above, he proved it again.

The above where I take you to task for ignoring Kennedy's Laotian policy?

The idea that Lovett was in on the capsizing of the Bay of Pigs is nothing but bizarre.

Boomer academics lack street smarts.

I would like to see any other published author who advocates for this. Please show me one.

The same clowns who put the back wound at T1 and can't figure out that a study of the Oswald assassination isn't the same as a study of the Kennedy assassination?

Those hacks?

Who cares?

As Stevenson said, I will wait until hell freezes over.

And to say that my work has been "called out" is so ridiculous, that it again, proves his solipsistic views.

Called you out twice -- one, for misrepresenting US policy on Operation Zapata; two, ignoring US policy in Laos '61-'63.

I wrote 24 pages on the Bay of Pigs in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. With over 120 footnotes. When Rex Bradford read it, he immediately contacted my publisher. He wanted to excerpt it at MFF. We allowed him to. He later contacted me and revealed that he had not even finished the book when he made that decision. That is how struck he was with it.

The above is the regularly scheduled part about how great Jim DiEugenio is.

I will match those 24 pages with any other short treatment of Zapata in the literature.

We don't look at the literature we look at the evidence.

McGeorge Bundy was the architect of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

False flag strikes from Nicaragua on the 15th of April followed by the invasion two days later with one day in-between to give the appearance the air strikes and the invasion were separate operations.

That was the deal.

With only 8 planes the air mission failed.

Everyone knew there would be no US intervention.

I stand by it. It is densely annotated, with completely credible sources.

How many references to the Bundy memo, which totally revised the operation?

But most of all, it follows and builds on each piece of evidence in a logical and tenable way. No reaches. And I capped it with how Dulles, Hunt and Charles Murphy struck back against Kennedy preemptively when they realized Dulles was going to be fired. It was Dulles, through Murphy and Hunt, who began the whole myth of the D Day cancellation. Which did not exist in the final plans. And which Kennedy refused to countenance, since he said he had not signed off on it. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed p. 46) And which Hunt in his book says Cabell fully understood was not part of the plan. (Destiny Betrayed p. 54)

EVERYONE understood it was not part of the plan!

Acknowledging that, how can you claim Kennedy was being pushed by Dulles to militarily intervene?

That was his agenda, right?

To force Kennedy to intervene by having Cabell call him at 4 in the morning?

Now, how much evidence do you need on a point? Dulles was making crap up afterwards to do a bit of CYA and to transfer the blame to JFK. Cabell knew no such thing was on the agenda. But yet, CV is still arguing that this was somehow apart of a secret design and would have been decisive.

Excuse me?

I'm arguing what?

Talk about solipsistic!

The polite thing to do is quote people directly, Jim.

He is wrong on both counts.

What the hell are you talking about?

Quote me directly when you want to point out where I'm wrong.

You seem to be arguing with something in your own head, Jim, not with me.

For as Lyman Kirkpatrick expressed so pungently in his report: What difference would the D Day air strikes have made? (Ibid,p. 45)

There were no D-Day air strikes planned.

Only D-Day-2 false flag air strikes.

Castro's planes had to be taken out in one day. That was the plan.

What you would have had very shortly was maybe 1400 weakly supplied ( a supply ship had sunk on a reef), Cuban exiles against 32,00 regular army troops supported by Soviet Bloc tanks, cannon and mortar fire. With over a hundred thousand reserves being called out if necessary. And they were there in ten hours. (Dulles and Bissell had told Kennedy this wold take days to happen. Ibid, p. 40)

Well and good.

Why so soon? Because the CIA had lied about no police force being there. There was. (ibid, p. 37) But further, there was no secrecy. American media began to expose the training camps in Central America in November of 1961. This continued into January and then the NY Times predicted the landing on March 17th! (Ibid ) Plus, Castro had spies informing him of the training camps. (ibid) Therefore, Castro had his military on high alert at the time of the landing and had beefed up surveillance at probable landing sites. This is how the army got to the scene so quickly. In fact, Castro was informed when the last ship left Central America. (ibid) Therefore, as Kirkpatrick said, what difference would the D Day strikes have made in the military outcome? Unless one thinks that in an amphibious operation being outnumbered by 20 to 1, and maybe even 100 to 1, does not matter. Except that is contra everything that the study of amphibious invasion states.

As for being a false flag operation, how CV could say that in this day and age is really puzzling.

I was referring to the B-26s, which were disguised as Cuban.

That made the air strikes a false flag operation.

Because of the media exposure, noted above, everyone knew the CIA was backing the landing. And in official terms this exposure happened even before the flotilla shipped out because of examination of the planes used in the early strafing. (ibid, p. 40)

Bingo.

Examination of the planes revealed they were not Cuban, but American.

All the way around, the air operation was a failed false flag attack.

Finally, the idea that the decrease in air strikes and sorties was anyone but Kennedy's is simply not tenable. Kennedy harangued Bissell on this point.

And I asked you for a citation.

Did this harangue occur after Dean Rusk complained about the size of the false flag fleet?

At one time even asking him if he needed the air strikes at all. (ibid, p. 36) As I said, it was the White House, acting on Kennedy's orders, that refused the last minute request for D Day air strikes. Rusk even asked Bissell and Cabell if they wanted to see the president about this. They said no. (ibid, p. 44)

You're referring to D-Day-1 false flag strikes.

They wanted to get the other four planes.

But everyone knew that wasn't going to happen -- even Dulles knew it.

On D-Day Cabell was put thru to Kennedy at 4am asking for US military intervention and he got shot down.

All Kennedy did was follow established Administration policy and US law.

As Talbot notes in his book, Burke tried the same thing, with JFK directly. No go. What most people get from this is that all these WH witnesses--which include McNamara--were telling the same story since they all knew and supported Kennedy's decision against D Day air strikes. (ibid, p. 46)

Yes, the whole idea of D-Day airstrikes had been rejected by the entire national security establishment, and it was well understood by everyone that President Kennedy wasn't going to lose his mind and order the US military to salvage any debacle on the beach.

Cabell and Burke were trying to save face.

Both McNamara and Rusk told the Taylor Committee, that to their understanding the landing was to be largely reliant on defections.

EVERYONE understood the landing was largely reliant on defections!

It's right there in the memos:

<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>

Rusk said he thought this was central to the enterprise.

Yep. Everyone did.

And they understood that when the chips were down there would be no US military intervention.

The efforts to get Kennedy to change established policy were face-saving maneuvers and nothing else.

Marine Chief Shoup said the same thing. Except he went even further. He said that he thought defections were the absolute basis of the operation; the success of the operation relied on them. Or else why put 30,00 rifles on a barge. (ibid, p. 42) This was another Dulles deception.

How so?

Kennedy really had no choice but to terminate Dulles after he got the two reports back. But Cliff says Dulles' confession as discovered by Lucien Vandenbroucke should not be believed. Why? Because Dulles was a prevaricator.

Total pro.

To himself?

Among the all the vagaries of human nature lying to oneself ranks at the top.

See, Dulles was working on a reply to the Schlesinger/ Sorenson view of the operation as excerpted in Life and Look when their books came out. He was going to write a reply in Harper's. But after working on it a few days, he gave up, but kept his notes. Which included his confession that he deliberately misled Kennedy thinking JFK would commit American power when the chips were down.

Confession or self-serving cover story?

( ibid, p. 47 BTW, Kennedy himself said this was his conclusion after reading the reports. ibid, p. 48)

Wouldn't have been the first politician drawn to a self-serving explanation of things.

Vandenbroucke did not find these notes for almost 20 years. If he had not discovered them, God knows how long it would have taken to find them. Dulles did not want to commit them to a publication.

Were the notes a confession or a self-serving cover story he decided not to put out?

Please do the Vulcan mind-meld with old Allen and get back to us on which it was.

That is why he gave up on the article.

How the quad-x would you know?

After once exploding in anger, "That little Kennedy, he thought he was a god." (ibid, p. 34) So therefore, in CV's world, Dulles lied to himself in his own personal coffee stained notes.

Those notes were not written for himself.

They were written for an article he deep sixed.

Big difference.

Meanwhile thinking they would never be found.

Since the March memos contradict his "confession" he may not have wanted to embarrass himself by putting out such obvious nonsense.

Which they were not for 20 years.

As anyone can see, almost every footnote here is from my book. Which, unlike what CV says, is quite defensible.

You not knowing about the Bundy memo is indefensible.

You not citing Kennedy's policy in Laos is doubly indefensible.

Not only is it factual, each building block blends together and holds. And it is bolstered by direct testimony and evidence. This is where I am on this case today.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

"JFK, Obama, and the Unspeakable," by James Douglass:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15304-JFK-Obama-and-the-Unspeakable-James-Douglass#.Vl8tY79wvbA

<quote on, emphasis added>

How Kennedy Rebelled Against the Pentagon and CIA

President Kennedy rebelled against the "economic, political, even spiritual" influence that President Eisenhower
described. During JFK's two years and ten months in power, while that power pressured him relentlessly, he
compromised with it to survive a few months but in the end stood his ground and took the bullets. In fact both
he and his enemies saw the writing on the wall as early as the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, in the
first spring of his short presidency.

The CIA lied to Kennedy about the political and geographic conditions that premised his approval of the agency's
Cuban exile brigade landing at the Bay of Pigs. He realized afterward he had been set up -- he had to either
send U.S. combat troops into Cuba to supersede the CIA's futile exile brigade (as he said in advance he would
never do) or accept a huge defeat.

<quote off>

This is highly misleading.

It wasn't just Kennedy who said in advance that he'd never send in the US military.

It was established US policy, based on established US law, understood by all the principals in the national security
establishment.

Document 66

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

<quote on, emphasis added>

On March 16, 1961, CIA officials outlined for President Kennedy the revisions to the Zapata plan that the President
had called for on the previous day. The President's appointment book indicates that the meeting took place in the
White House from 4:15 to 5:23 p.m. The meeting was attended by Vice President Johnson, McNamara, Rusk, Mann, Berle,
Dulles, Bissell, McGeorge Bundy, William Bundy, and Gray. (Kennedy Library, President's Appointment Book) Although
not listed in the appointment book, it is clear from his subsequent debriefing on the meeting that Admiral Burke
also attended. According to Gray's notes on the meeting:

“At meeting with the President, CIA presented revised concepts for the landing at Zapata wherein there would be
air drops at first light with the landing at night and all of the ships away from the objective area by dawn.
The President decided to go ahead with the Zapata planning; to see what we could do about increasing support
to the guerrillas inside the country; to interrogate one member of the force to determine what he knows; and
he reserved the right to call off the plan even up to 24 hours prior to the landing.” (Summary notes prepared
on May 9, 1961, by General Gray; Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, Subjects,
Taylor Report)

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>

"It was decided..." It was a group decision, not just a Kennedy decision.

Kennedy knew there was only a 50-50 chance the operation would succeed, he knew it depended on a general uprising,
he knew that if the Cubans were trapped on the beach -- "Once they were landed they were there."

The Bay of Pigs fiasco had been game planned a month ahead of time.

So where was the CIA trap?

It was McGeorge Bundy who had the bright idea to base the false flag fleet out of Nicaragua and stage the strikes
long enough before the invasion to make it appear as separate operations.

It was Dean Rusk's bright idea to cut the false flag fleet from 16 to 8.

How did Allen Dulles put teeth in this trap by going down to Puerto Rico on D-Day-1?

Charles Cabell begging Rusk and Kennedy to violate US law and established US policy -- that was the trap?

Admiral Burke waving an aircraft carrier in front of JFK and begging him to violate established US policy and US law --
that was the teeth in the nefarious trap?

The myth that JFK did anything more than maintain his sanity and adhere to policy and law chiseled in granite
serves as an all-around cover-story.

That JFK stood up to a CIA power play makes Kennedy a hero, and for the hawk community Dulles and the CIA were heroes
for trying to get in there and take out that Commie Castro.

Everyone is happy.

And it's absolute rubbish.

Douglass, ibid:

<quote on>

After the revealing CIA documents were declassified, the way National Public Radio commentator Daniel Schorr put
it was: "In effect, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion
collapsed." JFK swallowed defeat instead of committing U.S. troops; in recognition of the CIA's trap, he said
he wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

<quote off>

How was this attitude toward Dulles and the CIA any different than Joe Kennedy's and Robert Lovett's?

Both of them fought for years to get Allen Dulles fired.

A month before JFK took office Robert Lovett registered his intense "dismay" about the planned Cuban operation.

http://cryptome.org/0001/bruce-lovett.htm

Joe Kennedy had put the President-elect under Robert Lovett's tender care as his top kitchen cabinet adviser,
and Lovett hand picked Dean Rusk for Sec. of State, C. Douglas Dillon for Sec. of Treasury, Robert McNamara for
Sec. of Defense, and McGeorge Bundy for National Security Adviser.

Kennedy was surrounded by men who owed their loyalties to others.

Joe Kennedy couldn't restrain his joy over the Bay of Pigs.

"I know that outfit, and I wouldn't pay them a hundred bucks a week. It's a lucky thing they were found out early."

Edited December 2, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

"JFK, Obama, and the Unspeakable," James Douglass:

<quote on>

In His Own Bay of Pigs Moment, Obama Backed Down

Just as John Kennedy did, Barack Obama had a Bay of Pigs early in his presidency. He became the target of a covert operation that trapped and compromised him as president. In Obama's case, the challenge to his authority as commander-in-chief came not from the CIA but from the Army, and not in Cuba but in Afghanistan. As in Kennedy's case, Obama's response to the entrapment established the pattern of his presidency, but in a direction opposite to Kennedy's. Obama has become an obedient servant to his national security state, and as a result, a source of despair to many of his supporters.

The critical background to President Obama's June 2010 firing of General Stanley McChrystal for his outlandish Rolling Stone interview was McChrystal's close relationship to the man Obama named to replace him. The president's newly appointed Afghan commander, David H. Petraeus, was McChrystal's boss and mentor. In September 2009, in a more significant subversion of Obama's authority than the later interview, McChrystal had been Petraeus's point man in a Pentagon threat of revolt unless the president escalated the Afghan War.

Heavily supported by Republican leaders, McChrystal pressured Obama publicly by a series of statements questioning the president's initial resistance to the general's recommendation of 40,000 more troops. Petraeus also went public, telling a columnist the United States would fail in the war unless the president gave them the troops they needed. Obama's generals were conducting a media war to force him into a decision they had chosen for him. As Secretary of State Colin Powell's former top aide, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, observed, "Petraeus and McChrystal have put Obama in a trick bag."

<quote off>

So how did Dulles and the CIA put Kennedy in a trick bag the way the US Army did Obama?

Did Dulles high-tailing it down to Puerto Rico following the failure of the false flag strikes equate with the Petraeus/McChrystal media campaign?

When Rusk put Cabell thru to JFK the wee hours of D-Day -- was that really pressure of any consequence?

Or when Burke said an aircraft carrier was available for US intervention?

Or were Cabell and Burke just trying to save face?

Who did Averell Harriman (a Dulles man) blame for the BOP failure, largely?

Spanning the Century: The Life of W. Averell Harriman, Rudy Abramson, pg 614:

<quote on>

Averell blamed Rusk in good measure for the Bay of Pigs debacle because the secretary had remained silent when the President had offered

his advisers a last opportunity to dissent.

<quote off>

Sec. of State Dean Rusk raised hell about the operation from the moment he got into office but when it came down to crunch time he didn't say anything.

The operation went forward, crippled, with the CIA waiting to be "patsified."

Edited December 2, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Brancato]

Jim - would you elaborate on Operation 40? Do you think Bush senior was a behind the scenes private funder? Also, do we know for sure that future CIA chief Porter Goss was in Operation 40?

[James DiEugenio]

The idea of Operation Forty is mentioned in Trumbull Higgins book, The Perfect Failure. Up until the declassification of the ARRB, that book was probably the best one on Zapata. Therefore when I encountered it there, I lodged it in the back of my head. Because although it seemed kind of outlandish to me, I had respect for Higgins' work.

First, I think we should define what we are talking about, since the phrase Operation Forty has been so loosely thrown around that it has attained almost mythological status in the critical community. This is how I understand it.

The CIA, and especially Hunt and Dulles, did not like what Kennedy and Schlesinger had done to Hunt's work in the political aspect of the CIA constructed government in exile. At first this was a rightward tilting body, due to Hunt's personal politics. And he controlled it in almost all aspects. Thinking too many members were too close to Batista, which is not what the USA wanted to do, JFK and Schlesinger used their WhIte House clout to alter its political spectrum. In fact, JFK personally called Bissell to demand it be altered.. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 40) Their most potent alteration was to add Manuel Ray to the CRC. Ray was a socialist opponent of Castro, a talented and charismatic guy on the left. Hunt despised him. But when the White House said Ray was staying, Hunt ostensibly left.

I say "ostensibly". Why? Because as Hunt revealed in his book, even though he was supposed to be gone, he was not. He was still scheduled to escort the CRC exile leaders into a liberated Havana and to stay on as an advisor, all the way to and after the first post Castro elections. (ibid, p. 39)

See, Dulles never left any of the plans at the White House for JFK to study overnight. Which I believe was part of his secret agenda. But beyond that, part of the planning was "off the books". Dulles and Hunt were not going to allow any chance that Ray was going to be the replacement for Fidel. To the nutty Hunt, that was "Castroism without Fidel". And, in fact, Ray was one of RFK's most potent witnesses against Dulles at the Taylor Commission hearings. There, he revealed that the CIA had recruited way too many former Batista soldiers as part of the invasion force! (ibid, p. 43) So who was going to run the new Cuba if the operation succeeded?

As time went on, I just ran across too much evidence that this almost diabolical piece of plotting was real. Two sources that confirmed it for me were Dan Hardway and John Newman. Because they had access to hidden documents.

I stumbled across a memo from Hardway at the HSCA where he said that Richard Helms commissioned Sam Halpern to write the Top Secret CIA after report on Operation Forty. Think about that for a moment. See, Helms cover story was that he was not really involved with Zapata. But then, how did he know about this Above Top Secret operation. And why did he give Halpern the job of writing the report? As most of us know, Halpern was the CIA's go to man to scrape up and create dirt on the Kennedys (see Sy Hersh and his sources.) But Hardway said he could not find the actual report. And to his knowledge only one person outside the CIA had ever seen it, Andrew St. George. That should tell you something also. Because, as Jim Hougan has noted, St. George was one of the very first writers that the Cubans involved in Watergate began to leak to i.e. that Watergate was really a CIA vs. Nixon operation.

When I talked to John Newman many years ago, when he was working on his under contract book Kennedy and Cuba--which was cancelled--he affirmed for me that Operation Forty was for real.

But if you read my book, you will see that Schlesinger himself knew about this conspiracy within a conspiracy. In his book he talks about Ray and the others being held under detention in Miami during the operation. How, when Kennedy heard of this, he ordered Schlesinger to see what was going on. Arthur was shocked when he got there since they were begin guarded by heavily armed Army troops on constant patrol. Ray then told him he was being held incommunicado with the outside world against his will. (ibid, p. 50) Again, neither Dulles nor Bissell told JFK about this house arrest. When Arthur told Kennedy, he ordered them released. (ibid)

But Schlesinger did not reveal all he knew in his book. For in June of 1961 he wrote a memo to Goodwin. Through a very well informed reporter, he found out about Operation Forty. This was a cover operation running parallel to but rolled inside Zapata. On the ground it was helmed by one Luis Sanjenis. (ibid) And it was made up of the forty earliest members of the brigade and also the most conservative ones. They were getting special training in interrogation, torture and general terrorism. Schlesinger noted that Ray and his allies now thought that this group was meant to kill off communists inside of Cuba and then eliminate followers of Ray and then Varona. They would end up being the new Praetorian Guard for Manuel Artime, Hunt's man. Because of this, Varona fired Sanjenis. But, no surprise, the CIA set up Sanjenis in his own office. (ibid, p. 51)

Now, what makes this even more interesting is something Larry Hancock wrote about: Sanjenis was a close associate of Morales. Morales was in charge of the counter intelligence operations against Cuba, and for Zapata, called AMOT. One of the Sanjenis/Morales functions was to create a new intelligence force for Artime's new government. But beyond that, Sanjenis had built files on all the members of the Brigade! And beyond that Sanjenis had been infiltrated into Cuba to check up on each aspect of Castro's government. (ibid)

How fearful was Ray about this? Ray had told J. C. King he had been fearful that if the invasion had gone off and succeeded, he and his followers would have been killed in the mop up operation, which he called Operation Forty. In his book, Hunt later admitted that the house arrest was aimed at Ray. (ibid)

(BTW, I have never read anything about Lovett or Harriman being a part of this secret agenda, which I now think was the real aim of Zapata.)

To answer your other two questions: the stuff about Porter Goss being part of Op 40 I think comes from Hopsicker. But to me its not really a for sure thing. It comes from a photo ID right? Let me know if that is correct.

Secondly, George HW Bush probably did have something minimal to do with some of the preparation for Zapata. But Operation 40? I have never seen anything solid to support that claim. IMO, Bush was not that high up in the food chain at that time. Again, if there is a counter argument, I would like to see it.

Anyway, I have come to think that the ultimate betrayal of the operation was not what Bissell and Dulles confessed to i.e. lying to JFK about the probable success of the operation;and then relying on him to cave on his pledge of no US involvement, rather than accept a humiliating defeat.

The really treacherous aspect was Operation Forty: under Hunt's leadership, decimating the Kennedy Cubans, and then serving up a neo Batista government to replace Fidel.

And we all know how JFK felt about Batista. So did Fidel.

Edited December 3, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

(BTW, I have never read anything about Lovett or Harriman being a part of this secret agenda, which I now think was the real aim of Zapata.)

Harriman was a Dulles ally.

Bissell was a flat-out Harrimanite.

A lot of Dulles' cowboy operators were part of Harriman's private army.

I don't think Harriman had a hand in the removal of Dulles; and I don't think Lovett had a hand in killing Kennedy.

Even though Lovett's day job was with Brown Brothers Harriman, he and his boss had far different views on Dulles and the CIA.

Harriman had a hand in the global drug market; Lovett didn't.

After all, when he was Governor of New York ('55-'59) Harriman appointed the mobbed up Carmine DeSapio as NY Sec. of State.

How many Operation 40 guys ended up running drugs?

Edited December 3, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

JD: To answer your other two questions: the stuff about Porter Goss being part of Op 40 I think comes from Hopsicker. But to me its not really a for sure thing. It comes from a photo ID right? Let me know if that is correct.

Secondly, George HW Bush probably did have something minimal to do with some of the preparation for Zapata. But Operation 40? I have never seen anything solid to support that claim. IMO, Bush was not that high up in the food chain at that time. Again, if there is a counter argument, I would like to see it.

I should qualify this.

John Newman's new series is expected to run four or five volumes long. It seems to be a transposition of his Kennedy and Cuba book, which was to be published by a major house, into a self published series.

The first volume is pre Bay of Pigs.

I expect the next volume to cover Zapata. And therefore, it will very likely have a lot about Operation Forty. John told me some really sensational stuff on the phone about Zapata and Operation Forty. So IMO, he will be able to define the Bush, Goss stuff.

Edited December 3, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

A couple of minor points.

William Attwood wrote an article on JFK in Look Magazine's first post assassination issue in which he noted the tremendous grief over Kennedy's death felt by the African contingent of the UN. This confirms Jim's point that JFK's African policies were seen as pro-African, and not pro-colonial.

Any discussion of the BOP is incomplete without a discussion of the fact JFK DID approve U.S air cover for air strikes in support of the invasion, but that the CIA and Navy somehow someway failed to coordinate watches and take into account that Nicaragua was in a different time zone. This led to the death of several Alabama Air National Guard pilots flying out of Nicaragua under contract to the CIA while pretending to be mercenaries flying for the anti-Castro force. This was a colossal screw-up, and turned the chances for success of the invasion force from highly unlikely to impossible. So who was responsible for this screw-up? Not JFK. Those blaming the failure of the BOP on Kennedy (or his advisers) rarely mention that he approved US cover but that the CIA and Navy dropped the ball.

[Paul Brancato]

Jim - Fabian Escalante mentions Bush (and I believe Jack Crichton) as being private funders of Operation 40. I don't know how much credibility he has, and never saw any corroborating evidence other than circumstantial. Very much looking forward to Newman's latest research.

[Cliff Varnell]

A couple of minor points.

William Attwood wrote an article on JFK in Look Magazine's first post assassination issue in which he noted the tremendous grief over Kennedy's death felt by the African contingent of the UN. This confirms Jim's point that JFK's African policies were seen as pro-African, and not pro-colonial.

Any discussion of the BOP is incomplete without a discussion of the fact JFK DID approve U.S air cover for air strikes in support of the invasion, but that the CIA and Navy somehow someway failed to coordinate watches and take into account that Nicaragua was in a different time zone. This led to the death of several Alabama Air National Guard pilots flying out of Nicaragua under contract to the CIA while pretending to be mercenaries flying for the anti-Castro force. This was a colossal screw-up, and turned the chances for success of the invasion force from highly unlikely to impossible. So who was responsible for this screw-up? Not JFK. Those blaming the failure of the BOP on Kennedy (or his advisers) rarely mention that he approved US cover but that the CIA and Navy dropped the ball.

This occurred on D-Day, April 17?