Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ray McGovern (former-CIA) Interview


Recommended Posts

Does it matter? I didn't want to "re-enlist".

You brought it up, so it is a reasonable request. You could have said you were in the Navy and nothing further. However, the way you phrased your statement indicates you either didn't want to re-up because you didn't like it, you were not given the opportunity to re-enlist, or you got the boot. This could explain the rather LARGE chip on your shoulder.

What you did and where you did it, indicates what you are familiar with. You could have served on a carrier for example, which would be relevant.

If Castro shot down 5 US jets who were violating international law, he would hardly have keep silent all these years.

Who said he was?

Then show me a quote from one of his speeches were he castigates the US for violating international law. You certainly don't think I meant he said something behind closed doors, do you? He certainly had no problem getting press regarding the false flag B-26s he discovered. Did he not keep the dead body of one of the National Guard pilots, which was eventually released to his family? He didn't keep silent when the U-2 was downed, and his body was returned also. So why would he not do this for any of the 5 Navy pilots you say were shot down?

Your post #109 is a website for the Essex. I responded that I was already communicating with Essex and VA-34 personnel.

Tom,

I really don't have the time to play these games with you, I'm off to my brothers sons birthday party, have a good day.

I'm not playing games -- if you choose to view it that way, it's your loss, not mine.

Nevertheless I DO hope you enjoy your nephew's party.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With all the declassified docs we have today, we now know this is pure horse manure. Because:

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

US airstrikes were a D-Day contingency?

Not after Dean Rusk took over at State and began hassling the CIA over many aspects of the Cuban project.

Not after McGeorge Bundy revised the plan the CIA revised in answer to Rusk's criticisms.

False flag airstrikes based in Nicaragua were supposed to wipe out Castro's air force on D-Day -2.

That was Bundy's big idea.

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

16 B-26s outfitted to look like Cuban planes piloted by Cuban deserters.

It was a group decision to go forward.

From memo #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>

"It was decided."

Group decision not to commit US troops.

Then Rusk bitched to Kennedy about the size of the false flag fleet and it was cut from 16 to 8, insuring it's ultimate failure to wipe out Castro's planes in one day.

Which doomed the mission.

Just because Burke, and Cabell & Bissell, tried to save face by urging Kennedy to commit US troops, it wasn't going to happen.

There was no CIA attempt to coerce Kennedy to commit troops.

Such claims are myth.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no CIA attempt to coerce Kennedy to commit troops.
  • Translated: The notion to "push propaganda" the CIA tried to force Kennedy's hand into committing military troops is BS!
Then Rusk bitched to Kennedy about the size of the false flag fleet and it was cut from 16 to 8

However, we already know MORE than 16 planes were destroyed, under the watch of the CIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no CIA attempt to coerce Kennedy to commit troops.
  • Translated: The notion to "push propaganda" the CIA tried to force Kennedy's hand into committing military troops is BS!
Then Rusk bitched to Kennedy about the size of the false flag fleet and it was cut from 16 to 8

However, we already know MORE than 16 planes were destroyed, under the watch of the CIA.

The powers-that-be in the early weeks of the Kennedy Admin. -- Robert Lovett and Joe Kennedy -- wanted Dulles OUT in the worst way.

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

Dean Rusk and McGeorge Bundy owed their jobs to Lovett and the elder Kennedy, the principal architects of the mission's guaranteed failure.

After the BOP Joe crowed -- "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."

Lucky thing.

What was the major consequence of the failure of the BOP?

The dismissal of Dulles, Cabell and Bissell -- and the promotion of Richard Helms as head of covert operations.

Could that have been the intended consequence all along, once Rusk and Bundy took office?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the major consequence of the failure of the BOP?

Bundy, calling the CIA and informing them to "standdown" as well as the time difference whereas the Skyhawks and B-26s could've worked hand in hand. The company did consider the people in Cuba would have revolted against Castro, however, the CIA underestimated the people's allegiance to Castro.

Could that have been the intended consequence all along, once Rusk and Bundy took office?

Good question.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen Dulles high-tailin' it to Puerto Rico on D-Day-1 after the D-Day-2 fiasco man oh man was that some heavy "push propaganda"!

More like this..."Allen, this ain't yer night. We're goin' for the price on Helms."

Dulles ally W. Averell Harriman largely blamed the BOP fiasco on Rusk because the Sec. of State could have convinced Kennedy to cancel it at any time prior to D-Day-1.

Dulles had to go, so the show went on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sec. of State could have convinced Kennedy to cancel it at any time prior to D-Day-1.

Oh....My....God, do you mean to tell me, stupid me, who knows nothing, that Kennedy could have cancelled the Bay of Pigs, or at the very least postponed it until they had a sure thing, or felt like there was a real bet?

Lord, where did I ever hear that before! Slaps my forehead!

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean Rusk and McGeorge Bundy owed their jobs to Lovett and the elder Kennedy, the principal architects of the mission's guaranteed failure.

Was it because of the call Bundy made? Was it because Rusk wanted to cut the size down in false flag attacks? No matter the reason, what they DID certainly doomed what little chance of success the Brigade had.

Did, Dulles leave for Puerto Rico before DDay-1 starts so he could cry out "plausible deniability" as the president would have also done had the landing been a success? However, in this case, it wasn't, which meant the president had no other choice but to accept public responsibility.

The CIA wanting to take matters into their own hands wanted retribution, the president accepted responsibility, the Cubans were still screaming for a free Cuba, some Bay of Pigs prisoners were still locked up after Kennedy's assassination.

Two years went by, and according to members of JURE and DRE Oswald was their delivering grace.

Kennedy gets assassinated, Dulles [who had nothing to do with the assassination] sits on the Warren Commission on behalf of LBJs request to help in the cover-up, the cover-up begins.

However, some compartmentalised groups still want to invade Cuba, and are blaming the assassination on Fidel Castro and the KGB.

In order to prevent WWIII LBJ wants the Warren Commission to quickly come up with a alone assassin, sell it to America and the rest of the world, and hope they buy it. If not, you guys, who sat at that table pounding for evidence no matter who you discovered that had any connections to Oswald will always have the definitive answer why? Because, your names are signed at the bottom of this document.

The End,

Scott Kaiser

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott - you commandeered this thread. In my opinion you should confine your posts about your BOP theory to an appropriate thread, such as the ones you started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott - you commandeered this thread. In my opinion you should confine your posts about your BOP theory to an appropriate thread, such as the ones you started.

"scott - you commandeered this thread."

Everyone speaks about the Bay of Pigs, it's okay, Scott speaks he "commandeered" the thread, lol....

Paul, don't hate the player, hate the game.

" In my opinion"

Tell me, why should yours matter, and mine doesn't?

When Scott speaks, even EF Hutton listens.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, some compartmentalised groups still want to invade Cuba, and are blaming the assassination on Fidel Castro and the KGB.

Any of these "compartmentalised groups" candidates for running dope while ostensibly battling Castro, before or after the assassination of JFK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, some compartmentalised groups still want to invade Cuba, and are blaming the assassination on Fidel Castro and the KGB.

Any of these "compartmentalised groups" candidates for running dope while ostensibly battling Castro, before or after the assassination of JFK?

I can clearly see, your not anything like those who believe the ignoring policy, is the best policy, Cliff if I had a Cuban cigar to hand you I would. I also touch on this very subject in my update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of these "compartmentalised groups" candidates for running dope while ostensibly battling Castro, before or after the assassination of JFK

​My God man! You can't possibly suggest that Castro was a two edged sword, promising or, making suggestions at how wealthy some of these anti-Castro Cubans could actually be if they'd allow him to run a country while he provided backdoor channels into the underground drug world.

Edwin Kaiser - asked Richard Poyle if he knew about a shipment if drugs coming from Cuba.

Let's blow up a plane, we'll make some noise, but you won't get expedited because you also knew what the Bush's have been into since 1960. Let's get caught at the 2000 summit, we won't really kill Castro, he knows that there must be some casualties, it's called "collateral damage". But, don't you worry Fidel, you keep supplying us with the much needed drugs which has already built Brickell Avenue, most of downtown Miami and South Beach, and you'll live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...