Jump to content
The Education Forum

Plot or Blot?


Recommended Posts

 

In  this 1979   Video Averell Hariman talks about Kennedy and the Bay of Bigs. At 4min 50 of the video, he says, quote:

It would have been almost impossible, I think, for him (Kennedy) to have called it off, at least some people think so, because there were so many of the...of the...Cubans that knew about it and there would have been a major uproar about it. But it should never have been undertaken...for it would have been difficult to do...And then...he (Kennedy) realized that was a mistake and a BLOT against him.

Close Quote

Is there a typo in the transcript of his interview(which you can read at the right of the video)?? Shouldn't it be transcribed that way?: ... he realized that was a mistake and a PLOT against him? (Kennedy)

The term blot against him makes no sense to me ... 

Therefore, what Harriman says in this video, is, that he  (Harriman) knew, that Kennedy realized in the wake of the Bay of Bigs, that it was a PLOT against him, (by Dulles and others), to draw him into a major Cuban war, with the navy involved etc.  ... that the failure of the brigade was intentional, to create a situation to force Kennedy to use US military ... which  could have been the prelude to a major war ... 

Again, the term blot against him makes no sense ... or am I mistaken?

KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl, I think your interpretation makes a lot of sense. Even if it was a Freudian slip on their part.

The entire BOP operation was meant, IMHO, to draw the US military into a war over Cuba. In that respect, it WAS a calculated PLOT to force Kennedy into a war he didn't want. [Had Nixon won the election, it was a war he encouraged.] 

NOT allowing the military to attack Cuba in defense of the planned-to-fail BOP raid was, in the minds of the pro-war factions, a BLOT on JFK's record just weeks into the new administration. 

So in some ways, "plot" is much more accurate than "blot." So the transcript may be incorrect, as you pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

In  this 1979   Video Averell Hariman talks about Kennedy and the Bay of Bigs. At 4min 50 of the video, he says, quote:

..............

Again, the term blot against him makes no sense ... or am I mistaken?

KK

The word in question is heard at 5:06, in the video.

Karl. I think "blot" makes the most sense. Without reservation, I am hearing "blot".

In the context of the next sentence, "blot" makes even more sense. Kennedy did not want another mark against him. Mark, blot, score..... etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/politics/powell-calls-his-un-speech-a-lasting-blot-on-his-record.html

Very common terminology.  No mystery at all, even if you happen to think "plot" would be equally appropriate.

 

But you would not say: "... blot against me."? ...  like Harriman in that interview , quote: " ... that (BOP) was a mistake and a blot against him. (Kennedy)." "Plot against him", would be grammatically correct?  Maybe Harriman had both in mind, and merged it. (That the failure of the BOP invasion was a blot on Kennedys record, but in reality a plot against him, initiated by Dulles/Cabell/Bissell to drag him in a major Cuban war ... he realized it and fired the three plotters. Anyway, it is an odd statement by Harriman. 

Edited by Karl Kinaski
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...