Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ray McGovern (former-CIA) Interview


Recommended Posts

First, let me elaborate on my comments about the CIA and Princeton and the whole Lucien V affair.

When I first got to know John Newman, he came to California because he was going to do some research at the Hoover Institute.

So, me him and a friend flew up there from LA.

He was there because he was thinking of doing a book on Lansdale. And he wanted to see what was there, since their holdings listing said there were some interesting docs on hand.

Well, once we got there, as we started going through the folders, we saw that many were surprisingly empty. So I asked John, "What is going on here?"

He replied that he had the same experience when he was working on his first book JFK and Vietnam. After he had been working on it for awhile, he said that he would visit certain repositories and mysteriously, things would be gone. Almost like they knew he was coming. He finally concluded that the CIA was calling gin their dibs with various universities, or with the Hoover Institute, since that was a hard right establishment, they had to do very little.

At the end of the day, John asked the archivist about this arrangement. And he confirmed that they did those things, cooperated with Washington about their holdings.

So, you can imagine what its like in the Ivy League.

I bet you went to college too, see Jim, I just called the Library of Congress became friends with the people over there, [over the phone], don't want to mention any names, within five minutes, and presto they were sending me emails of what I was looking for, what's the moral of this story? No airplane ticket, no reservations, no out of pocket expenses, and I still got what I wanted. Gee, with all that money I'm now thinking I saved myself, think I'll go out and buy me a new TV.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jon:

Excuse me if I say once again, you are factually challenged. Yet, you repeat these myths as often as you can. No matter how many times they are shown to be wrong.

To say the BOP and the Saigon coup should be laid at the foot of Kennedy, that is not an intellectual, or historical judgment. Its a political one. In that it does not align with the facts as we have them today.

Greg, Larry Hancock, and myself have proven--with documentation from the latest archival releases--that there is no question today that Kennedy was lied to on just about every aspect of Zapata. This is not opinion, it is fact.

Ergo, if we put our thinking caps on--not our red or blue caps, (Sanders or Cruz)--then we come to the conclusion that Dulles and Bissell knew they had to lie in order to get Kennedy to go along with their wacky scheme.

Which means, that they knew if they told him the truth he would have vetoed it.

I mean what part of that tautology do you fail to comprehend?

What further proof do you need now that we have the actual notes Dulles made from this article. Which the CIA tried to make disappear, and had to be imported back into the country from Africa? Why do you think the article was entitled 'The Confessions of Allen Dulles". Why do you think Dulles abandoned the article? Why do you think he blurted out "That little Kennedy, he thought he was a god!" as he was writing it? Why do you think Bissell concurred with the article when he replied?

So who is the culpable party here? In the law there is a doctrine called promissory estoppel. This roughly means that if one party accepts a premise as true, and it results in detrimental damage to the party who accepts it, one can sue for damages. In this case, with the actual documents on hand, the jury would take about 15 minutes to decide the verdict. Dulles would be held culpable for fostering a false premise.

Now, if you need any further proof, what did Kennedy do after? He launched his own inquiry into the affair as the CIA did their own. Right after both were in, he fired the top level of the CIA. Had anyone ever down that before, or since? Please answer.

(Sound of crickets)

Does that not mean he was pretty upset? And then Bobby fired Eleanor Dulles, who had nothing to do with this, but she did have a last name RFK did not like. The reason, according to him: I don't want any member of that family around anymore. Does that not tell you a little something? Like he was really upset.

What more proof does one need? How about Kennedy's plan to redesign the CIA, and not even use that name for it anymore? That is in Talbot's book--oh but you know everything that is in there right? So you didn't need to read it. Like fun you didn't .

Allen Dulles lied to his president three times in four months: on Lumumba, on the OAS rebellion, and on Zapata. Kennedy had no other choice but to fire him. Very few civil servants ever deserved it more.

Here's the players involved behind a desk, the only one in this forum I know of who has more insight than anyone I know on David Morales is James Richards, he must know every square inch of David. I'm sure he even knew David was in Saigon the day of the assassination. Three weeks later David was back in the United States, but heck, ya'll already knew that didn'tcha?

http://millercenter.org/presidentialclassroom/exhibits/jfks-memoir-dictation-on-the-assassination-of-diem

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was President Kennedy's first "public announcement" made about the Bay of Pigs

QUESTION: Mr. President, has a decision been reached on how far this country would be willing to go in helping an anti-Castro uprising or invasion in Cuba? And what could you say with respect to recent developments as far as the anti-Castro movements in Cuba are concerned?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first I want to say that there will not be, under any conditions, be an intervention in Cuba by United States armed forces, and this government will do everything it possibly can, and I think it can meet its responsibilities, to make sure that there are no Americans involved in any actions inside Cuba.

Scott Kaiser - However, three Americans were shot down, only two were reported, the rest of the statement is what's called [plausible deniability] after [some] of these men were brought back from Cuba, although, there was no American military involved in "their" fight, Kennedy, approved [operation Mongoose] and appointed Robert Kennedy in-charge, but no one wants to talk about that.

Secondly, the Justice Department's recent indictment of Mr. Masferrer, of Florida, on the grounds that he was plotting an invasion of Cuba, from Florida, in order to establish a Batista-like regime, should indicate the feelings of this country towards those who wish to reestablish that kind of administration inside Cuba.

Scott Kaiser - Openly blaming Masferrer was a huge mistake.

Kennedy - Third, we do not intend to take any action with respect to the property or other economic interests which American citizens formerly held in Cuba, other than formal and normal negotiations with a free and independent Cuba.

Scott Kaiser - Meanwhile, after president Kennedy's assassination, president Johnson was again facing a ransom demand by Fidel Castro. Apparently on the basis of the precedent-setting Bay of Pigs prisoner-exchange deal during the Kennedy Administration. You see, they didn't all come back home, and this was grounds for getting even. I really don't want to give away to much, I do want you to buy my book after all, hell why should I give it away for free?

Kennedy - The basic issue in Cuba is not one between the United States and Cuba; it is between the Cubans themselves. And I intend to see that we adhere to that principle. And as I understand it, this Administration's attitude is so understood and shared by the anti-Castro exiles from Cuba in this country.

QUESTION: Are we barred by our own neutrality acts or the OAS treaty from giving any aid or arms to anti-Castro elements in this country?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there are, of course, as I stated -- there is a revolutionary committee here which is of course extremely anxious to see a change in government in that country. I am sure that they are very interested in associating with all those who feel the same way. Mr. Castro enjoyed some support here in the United States, and received some assistance, when he was attempting to carry out his revolution. In fact, some Americans were involved in the military actions with him. That latter is what we are particularly anxious to ---

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So on the evening before D-Day, when he was "read in" to the plans for pre-dawn (pre-landing) air strikes, he was livid and adamantly opposed any air strikes because of what had just happened. He contacted his boss, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and raised hell about it until he basically got his way. Rusk in turn called Bundy, who called Cabell with the cancellation order.

Greg,

Thanks for the thorough response.

I've read so many contradictory stories that my memory is muddled regarding the following...

  • Did Bundy actually cancel the dawn raid outright or did he require a successful beachhead prior to allowing the B-26 attack?
  • Did Arleigh Burke order Essex with its sanitized A-4D Skyhawks on station on his own initiative?

Now here's the speculation part:

Did the CIA deliberately botch disguising the planes for the first raid so that Castro could easily humiliate Stevenson? If we give Rusk the benefit of the doubt, which I'm not certain he deserves...but for the sake of discussion, it would have allowed a Secretary of State who was inexperienced in military matters, to grossly under appreciate the devastating consequences of the stand down order.

I will definitely do some thinking on this idea.

Thanks,

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So on the evening before D-Day, when he was "read in" to the plans for pre-dawn (pre-landing) air strikes, he was livid and adamantly opposed any air strikes because of what had just happened. He contacted his boss, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and raised hell about it until he basically got his way. Rusk in turn called Bundy, who called Cabell with the cancellation order.

Greg,

Thanks for the thorough response.

I've read so many contradictory stories that my memory is muddled regarding the following...

  • Did Bundy actually cancel the dawn raid outright or did he require a successful beachhead prior to allowing the B-26 attack?
  • Did Arleigh Burke order Essex with its sanitized A-4D Skyhawks on station on his own initiative?

Tom,

The answer to your first question isn't as straight forward as one might expect. The air strikes were both canceled and delayed. Here's what I mean: The B-26's did in fact arrive, but they had been delayed far too long to have accomplished the goal of destroying Castro's planes on the ground. So in terms of "pre-dawn" and "pre-Brigade-landing" air strikes...they were canceled. But since they were eventually allowed to go, they were "delayed" rather than canceled. Adlai Stevenson's argument was indeed that an airstrip needed to be secured in order to promote the notion that the airstrikes originated from within Cuba. Thus the reason to delay their arrival until after a "minimum" amount of real estate could be held. He did not grasp the idea that the Brigade would be unable to capture and hold any territory if Castro controlled the air.

However, by the time the 16 B-26's arrived, Castro's air force was alerted to the Brigade's having landed on the beach and were airborne. All 16 of the rebel planes were shot down. If memory serves, 14 were downed by T-33 jets, 1 by a Sea Fury, and one by triple A.

The answer to your second question is very elusive. I do not know the answer definitively. However, I suspect that it was part of the "support" forces that were ready to go if--and only if--the Brigade succeeded in accomplishing the minimum requirements to obtain recognition as an interim government from a member of the UN Security Council. Had that occurred the US could have supported the new government legally.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So on the evening before D-Day, when he was "read in" to the plans for pre-dawn (pre-landing) air strikes, he was livid and adamantly opposed any air strikes because of what had just happened. He contacted his boss, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and raised hell about it until he basically got his way. Rusk in turn called Bundy, who called Cabell with the cancellation order.

Greg,

Thanks for the thorough response.

I've read so many contradictory stories that my memory is muddled regarding the following...

  • Did Bundy actually cancel the dawn raid outright or did he require a successful beachhead prior to allowing the B-26 attack?
  • Did Arleigh Burke order Essex with its sanitized A-4D Skyhawks on station on his own initiative?

Tom,

The answer to your first question isn't as straight forward as one might expect. The air strikes were both canceled and delayed. Here's what I mean: The B-26's did in fact arrive, but they had been delayed far too long to have accomplished the goal of destroying Castro's planes on the ground. So in terms of "pre-dawn" and "pre-Brigade-landing" air strikes...they were canceled. But since they were eventually allowed to go, they were "delayed" rather than canceled. Adlai Stevenson's argument was indeed that an airstrip needed to be secured in order to promote the notion that the airstrikes originated from within Cuba. Thus the reason to delay their arrival until after a "minimum" amount of real estate could be held. He did not grasp the idea that the Brigade would be unable to capture and hold any territory if Castro controlled the air.

However, by the time the 16 B-26's arrived, Castro's air force was alerted to the Brigade's having landed on the beach and were airborne. All 16 of the rebel planes were shot down. If memory serves, 14 were downed by T-33 jets, 1 by a Sea Fury, and one by triple A.

The answer to your second question is very elusive. I do not know the answer definitively. However, I suspect that it was part of the "support" forces that were ready to go if--and only if--the Brigade succeeded in accomplishing the minimum requirements to obtain recognition as an interim government from a member of the UN Security Council. Had that occurred the US could have supported the new government legally.

Again, I have to disagree, and here's my argument, did anyone hear me ask Jose Molina on my youtube video if there were a difference in "timezones"? between Washington and Nigaraga? His answer was no, there's no time difference. But, there is, and the reason the "cover planes" approved by Kennedy were shot down is because there was this two hour window.

President Kennedy [authorized] an "air-umbrella," but, wait a minute folks, didn't Jack just get through saying no American military or American intervention what-so-ever? This is how you define "plausible deniability." At dawn of April 19th six unmarked American fighter planes took off to help defend the brigade's B-26 aircraft which were flying, no one wants to talk about that. But! The B-26s arrived an hour late, [due to the change in time zones], this is what played the factor between Jim's theory of it was "designed to fail" to it could had been successful.

Please, let's keep history correct.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read so many contradictory stories that my memory is muddled regarding the following...

  • Did Bundy actually cancel the dawn raid outright or did he require a successful beachhead prior to allowing the B-26 attack?
  • Did Arleigh Burke order Essex with its sanitized A-4D Skyhawks on station on his own initiative?

The answer to your first question isn't as straight forward as one might expect. The air strikes were both canceled and delayed. Here's what I mean: The B-26's did in fact arrive, but they had been delayed far too long to have accomplished the goal of destroying Castro's planes on the ground. So in terms of "pre-dawn" and "pre-Brigade-landing" air strikes...they were canceled. But since they were eventually allowed to go, they were "delayed" rather than canceled.

Well said. IMO the delayed v. cancelled language accounts for a number misconceptions in the various accounts of what "really" happened.

Adlai Stevenson's argument was indeed that an airstrip needed to be secured in order to promote the notion that the airstrikes originated from within Cuba. Thus the reason to delay their arrival until after a "minimum" amount of real estate could be held. He did not grasp the idea that the Brigade would be unable to capture and hold any territory if Castro controlled the air.

To me this statement is vital to an understanding of both Stevenson's motivation for going to Rusk, and Rusk's reason for delaying the dawn airstrike of the B-26s. It is frequently mentioned that the airstrip had to be taken, but the reason why is rarely, if ever, stated. Stevenson was definitely embarrassed by the unmasking of the earlier B-26 raid by "defecting Cubans," but it seems unlikely that this factor alone would be an adequate reason for Rusk to delay the B-26 raid.

The answer to your second question is very elusive. I do not know the answer definitively. However, I suspect that it was part of the "support" forces that were ready to go if--and only if--the Brigade succeeded in accomplishing the minimum requirements to obtain recognition as an interim government from a member of the UN Security Council. Had that occurred the US could have supported the new government legally.

Agreed. I was able to find my notes on this subject, and IMO the precise composition of the support forces was not revealed to JFK and he probably never asked specificaly, because he had made it clear that no "direct intervention" by US forces was allowed. I image Burke as CNO *quietly* replaced Essex's anti-sub aircraft with the A-4s after it was on station. This would give him an immediate opportunity to use them if approved, and yet he wasn't directly disobeying JFK's orders. I can't help but wonder if under certain circumstance he would have launched them on his own initiative...

Great response Greg,

Thanks!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At dawn of April 19th six unmarked American fighter planes took off to help defend the brigade's B-26 aircraft which were flying, no one wants to talk about that.

Scott,

You are referring to the A-4D Skyhawks off Essex? I've heard stories to that effect, some going so far as to state that one aircraft returned with 'battle damage.' I would expect that Castro would have raised holy hell over this, but I'm not aware of any protest by him.

What is your source that the aircraft actually flew that morning? Are you saying they launched in expectation of air support, or actually engaged Cuban aircraft?

Thanks for any info,

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At dawn of April 19th six unmarked American fighter planes took off to help defend the brigade's B-26 aircraft which were flying, no one wants to talk about that.

Scott,

You are referring to the A-4D Skyhawks off Essex? I've heard stories to that effect, some going so far as to state that one aircraft returned with 'battle damage.' I would expect that Castro would have raised holy hell over this, but I'm not aware of any protest by him.

What is your source that the aircraft actually flew that morning? Are you saying they launched in expectation of air support, or actually engaged Cuban aircraft?

Thanks for any info,

Tom

When the Brigade began landing on the 17 in Cuba, some Sea Fury MB.11s and Lockheed T-33s of the Cuban Air Force struck Brigade ships in the Bay of Pigs, severely damaging the Houston and sinking the Rio Escondido. The captain of the Houston managed to beach his ship before it sank, saving some of the Brigade’s supplies, and men. Castro was able to concentrate his forces in and around the the Bay of Pigs beached area and close in. The.Brigade 2506 put up fierce resistance and did a remarkable job considering how few men were involved, especially after the loss of so much of their supplies. The Brigade's B-26Bs continued to pound Castro’s forces near the Brigade locations, but were hampered by the long flight from Nicaragua where their airfields were located, this was because no airstipe had been established in Cuba, and by Cuban fighter aircraft waiting for them over the Bay of Pigs. (which did the most damage).
[it has often been reported that if only U.S. aircraft had been allowed to fly over the area, had that happened then the outcome would have been different]. U.S. Navy A4D Skyhawks from VA-34 on USS Essex, with markings were "painted over", this is what cause A. Stevenson to visit with Jack when word was [first] received about two Americans that got shot down, Robert Kennedy was appointed over this mission. They, the A4D Skyhawks DID provide air cover on two occasions during the invasion, as well as engage in reconnaissance flights. President Kennedy had never been told the full scope of the invasion and was given only select analysis by the CIA throughout the mission. However, Mr. Kennedy did approve "air-cover" to the B-26s that arrived late, and as a result, they were all shot down.
So, you have the CIA who's kept A. Stevenson, Kennedy and much of the Democratic leftist out of the loop about the entire operation, when Kennedy drafted the cable about no American military intervention, which was supposed to get in the hands of the CIA by Col. Hawkins, it never did.
We know this by Grayston Lynch who states, "no such cable was ever delivered to the CIA".
Based on this incomplete information A. Stevenson was given, he wisely declined to have U.S. aircraft attack Cuban aircraft, or become involved in the invasion. This is when he went to Washington himself, and demanded that Kennedy stop using American military. As a result, and acting on the best interest of the president George McBundy placed the call to the CIA and ordered them to "standdown" based off "National Security" which could set off a chain reaction of events. This is the reason McBundy placed that call, which all started with Stevenson.
In three days, the Brigade’s invasion crumbled and the survivors were captured by Cuban forces. Small groups of Brigade members managed to escape, drifting for weeks into the Gulf of Mexico before rescued, or were picked up by Coast Guard or the remaining Brigade members already ashore or from U.S. Navy ships before withdrawing from the Bay of Pigs.
Some members had escaped, while others were ransomed, and yet, more were still locked up during Johnson's administration who was also facing a ransom demand by Fidel Castro, this is one of the reasons Johnson allowed them to carry on. I understand that some of this NEW information may be pretty difficult to manage, but no one can discredit truth, all they can do is argue their opinion.
This is the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God. Hope I was able to answer some of your questions.
Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, what I find most amusing about this entire fiasco is the fact how the CIA was able to mange to keep pertinent information from the president of the United States, but can't keep their mouth shut about the impending fleets invasion date so that Castro could prepare himself?. Slaps my forehead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that the air strikes were crucial.

And I source that to Lyman Kirkpatrick and Bobby Kennedy.

Kirkpatrick made it a point to confront this head on in his report. He said words to the effect: So what? If Castro did not have the air superiority, you would have had a 1400 man army with not enough supplies, due to the boat sinking on the reef, against Castro's army, which consisted of 32,000 regular troops, and well over 100,000 reserves. Backed by Soviet Bloc supplied military arms which included tanks, artillery, mortars etc.

As Kirkpatrick notes, the exiles were potentially outnumbered by over a 100 to 1. If anyone has ever studied amphibious operations-- I read a book on this once--you will see that it has to be the reverse. That is, the incoming army had to significantly outnumber the forces arrayed against it to have a real chance at success. The reasons for this are obvious since, lacking total surprise, the army will be taking lots of fire at the beach.

And that was the other serious problem with the plan. There was no surprise. The CIA said there was no patrol at the landing site. There was. (Kornbluh, Bay of Pigs Declassified, p. 307) But beyond that, Castro had spies in the training camps, so that he actually knew when the last part of the flotilla had departed Central America.(ibid, p. 321) The air raids 48 hours before was clearly a signal something was coming. But further, that raid alerted Castro that another could be coming, so he dispersed his surviving planes so that one air sortie could not smash them all. (Kornbluh, ibid ) The point is that, with Castro on high alert, he was able to get everything he needed, including armor, and had outnumbered the incoming attack force within ten hours.

With all this exposed, due to the Kirkpatrick Report, RFK simply could not buy Dulles' rationale for the invasion. When Bobby asked him what the overall plan was, Dulles said it was to establish a beachhead and then build it up. RFK was simply stunned by this, and he replied, "How could you possibly do that--take 1,000 or 1,400 men in there and hold the beachhead against thousands of militia?" (Mike Morrisey, Fourth Decade, Vol. 1 No. 2, 20) This is when the whole BS about defectors was brought in. The CIA had promised thousands of defections in their plan. There were none. Both Rusk and Shoup--on the witness stand for the Taylor Commission--said this was a key part of the plan they were relying upon. When Lemnitzer was asked where the intelligence came from on the defectors, he said the CIA. (ibid, p. 21, Morrisey is quoting the Taylor Hearings from the book Operation Zapata)

In fact, the CIA lie about this was monumental, even for them. In a memo passed on to the White House one month before the operation, the Agency said that Castro was losing support rapidly, only 20 percent of the populace supported him. It went on to say that many Cubans felt the regime would soon fall. It even said that if an invasion came, well over half of the militia would defect. Talk about a whopper and a half. (Kornbluh, pgs. 294-95)

It would seem to me that Dulles and Bissell were clearly making stuff up in order to get Kennedy on board. No honest intelligence analyst could possibly sign onto that last memo. It was clearly meant to snooker Kennedy into doing something he did not want to do.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

Interesting stuff...a few clarifications would be helpful:

U.S. Navy A4D Skyhawks from VA-34 on USS Essex, with markings were "painted over", this is what cause A. Stevenson to visit with Jack (Colonel Jack Hawkins, right?) when word was [first] received about two Americans that got shot down,

Stevenson went to see Hawkins because of the 2 americans that were shot down in B-26s, or because he objected to using the sanitized US jets?

They, the A4D Skyhawks DID provide air cover on two occasions during the invasion, as well as engage in reconnaissance flights.

Essex, an Anti-Sub carrier was assigned to Task Force Alpha. On its way to Cuba, the ASW aircraft were flown off the carrier, and replaced by AD4-2 Skyhawks on a "training mission." I've read and heard that they flew recon. I imagine their mere presence would tend to deter any attacking cuban aircraft, and this could be passed off as "non-agressive" to the UN or whoever, because they were on a "training mission" in that area.

I've also been told that they actually 'took fire' from troops on the beach while providing cover for the B-26s. I've not heard that they actually fired on any of Castro's aircraft, though. Considering Castros reaction to the faked 'defecting Cuban' B-26s, his silence regarding American military jets flying cover is hard to believe, particularly when I've never found any corroboration from VA-34 pilots.

Now if you have good sources that the Skyhawks actually put themselves in harms way to protect the B-26s to the point of taking fire, it would lend credibility to this scenario. Do your sources tell you that any US jet actually expended any armament while flying cover?

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

Interesting stuff...a few clarifications would be helpful:

U.S. Navy A4D Skyhawks from VA-34 on USS Essex, with markings were "painted over", this is what cause A. Stevenson to visit with Jack (Colonel Jack Hawkins, right?) when word was [first] received about two Americans that got shot down,

Stevenson went to see Hawkins because of the 2 americans that were shot down in B-26s, or because he objected to using the sanitized US jets?

They, the A4D Skyhawks DID provide air cover on two occasions during the invasion, as well as engage in reconnaissance flights.

Essex, an Anti-Sub carrier was assigned to Task Force Alpha. On its way to Cuba, the ASW aircraft were flown off the carrier, and replaced by AD4-2 Skyhawks on a "training mission." I've read and heard that they flew recon. I imagine their mere presence would tend to deter any attacking cuban aircraft, and this could be passed off as "non-agressive" to the UN or whoever, because they were on a "training mission" in that area.

I've also been told that they actually 'took fire' from troops on the beach while providing cover for the B-26s. I've not heard that they actually fired on any of Castro's aircraft, though. Considering Castros reaction to the faked 'defecting Cuban' B-26s, his silence regarding American military jets flying cover is hard to believe, particularly when I've never found any corroboration from VA-34 pilots.

Now if you have good sources that the Skyhawks actually put themselves in harms way to protect the B-26s to the point of taking fire, it would lend credibility to this scenario. Do your sources tell you that any US jet actually expended any armament while flying cover?

Tom

He didn't go to Hawkins, he went to the White House directly to Kennedy, Jim may disagree that the airstrikes wouldn't have played a crucial part, but I don't think Jim was ever in the military either. Stevenson was first furious over the sanitized jets because he was lied to, it was [after the two B-26s] of the first two Americans getting shot down he started yelling at George McBundy according to the stories in Miami. I have spent much time with many of the members including the Bay of Pigs museums creator in Miami where I've also provided some photos, I'm not just reading and relying on a bunch of documents. But hey, two each his own

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essex, an Anti-Sub carrier was assigned to Task Force Alpha. On its way to Cuba, the ASW aircraft were flown off the carrier, and replaced by AD4-2 Skyhawks on a "training mission." I've read and heard that they flew recon. I imagine their mere presence would tend to deter any attacking cuban aircraft, and this could be passed off as "non-agressive" to the UN or whoever, because they were on a "training mission" in that area.

That could very well be plausible= plausible deniability Tom. Makes sense.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
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...