Facts about the 1960 Presidential Election, and the Political Fiction that followed

[Mervyn Hagger]

I read a very interesting synopsis of the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy Presidential Election, in which Nixon, as Vice President, claimed to be the father of the Cuban invasion, albeit not at the 'Bay of Pigs'.

Nixon wanted the invasion to take place before the Presidential Election in case Kennedy won, and he then went ahead with the invasion, and he succeeded with the invasion, and then claimed victory for the invasion.

I watched the four 1960 Presidential Election videos online via YouTube.

I concluded that not only was this perspective analysis true, but that another suggestion put forth in the original article was also true.

Kennedy did promote the idea of reestablishing American domination over post-Mafia Cuba under Fidel Casto.

Nixon did denounce Kennedy as a totally irresponsible warmonger for promoting such an idea.

Nixon claimed that Kennedy was breaking several USA treaties with Latin America, as well as the UN Charter by planning to attack and invade Cuba.

At that time the specificity of the Eisenhower-Nixon invasion plan was not known by the general public.

Tinkering with the invasion plan led to a switch of invasion locations to the 'Bay of Pigs', and because of Nixon's denouncement of Kennedy being a warmongering individual, Kennedy announced that there would not be any invasion by US Armed Forces.

Some Americans did participate in air cover during the 'Bay of Pigs' invasion, but they were cloaked under the umbrella of National Guard, and not the USAF.

So when the entire invasion went pear-shaped, Kennedy's friends looked for someone to blame, and that was the CIA.

Kennedy could not reveal that the invasion was not his idea but Nixon's, because Kennedy had already tinkered with Nixon's plan to such an extent that it was destined for failure, because strictly speaking, it was no longer Nixon's plan but Kennedy's plan.

To hopefully redeem himself, JFK placed his brother RFK in charge of a CIA faction based in Miami, and then secretly began to finance and recruit Cuban ex-pats for "another go" under the code name of AMWORLD.

The JFK mythology was added to by his murder, which some even pinned on LBJ. The story about LBJ and Vietnam is a fake because JFK was dead and buried before Vietnam became a nightmare, although JFK helped to make sure that it became a nightmare.

Long after JFK had been killed off, that is in 1966, and all of the nonsense Vietnam-LBJ stories started circulating, the apologists for JFK came up with The New York Times hearsay quotation that JFK wanted to smash the CIA. They placed the blame on LBJ. Of course LBJ was a crook from day one of his first Texas election orchestrated with help from the 'Duke of Duval', but that is beside the point. LBJ became the scapegoat so that JFK could become a 'god'. In reality, JFK was the opposite of the person he was perceived to be.

The current controversy about the murder of JFK does not make sense because it is a stewpot of conjecture.

What does make sense is the dialogue expressed in that four-part televised Presidential Debate of 1960.

What also makes sense is that RFK had a personal vendetta going against one member of the Mafia in New Orleans.

RFK humiliated - not just disrespected this Mafia boss - in a very public way, and that man had good reason to get rid of RFK by bumping off his brother so that RFK would be deprived of his job as US Attorney General. That result was assured due to the Kennedy clan's total hatred for LBJ, and that including Jackie. Her 'Camelot' fantasy story was concocted after JFK was dead.

So what about Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby?

The indicators (timeline, etc.) point to LHO being a 'patsy' as he claimed to be.

The CIA were working with the Mafia and Jack Ruby was certainly tied to the Mafia.

In other words, if the political story about the Cuban invasion is separated from the murder of JFK, then it is possible to see the real story. But by throwing everything into one big stew pot in a totally absurd and non-investigative manner, nothing is clear.

The Establishment likes it that way because the real story will never emerge.

But, if the two events (Cuba and murder) are disconnected, a totally different twin storyline comes into view, and it is provable, clear, and easy to comprehend.

That is how I am approaching this topic.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Mervyn Hagger
Reworded a sentence

[Joseph Backes]

Oh, if only people loved Nixon, and if only more people voted for Nixon, and if only Nixon was elected in 1960, boo, hoo, hoo, then the world would have been beautiful and full of flowers all year 'round! Yea for Nixon!

Melvin is living a totally absurd and non-investigative life.  

He cannot or will not name the title or author of the article he says he "read." 

"Kennedy did promote the idea of reestablishing American domination over post-Mafia Cuba under Fidel Casto." - FALSE!

This is pure RIGHT-wing spin. There is no truth to it at all. When did JFK ever advocate for the American domination of any country? What is true is that JFK was briefed on the invasion plan by Dulles and then spoke about getting tough in Cuba during the first debate. This came as a surprise to Nixon who had to denounce Kennedy as being reckless to protect the plan. 

The BOP invasion was sabotaged from within by the CIA. There is an abundance of evidence on this now. And you can start learning about this, Martian, with the CIA Inspector General's report. 

I don't know what story of LBJ and Vietnam is a fake to Melwyn.  Does he think LBJ bares no responsibility for the decisions he made starting with reversing JFK's decision to withdraw? Is Merwin suggesting that from Nov 23, 1963 to the war's end in 1975 is all JFK's fault? That the three presidents after JFK bare no responsibility at all?

What a putz.

JFK's murder cannot be separated from his political enemies who despised his policies both foreign and domestic, and despised JFK personally. They saw his constant talk of peace as weakness. They wanted to use force everywhere, they wanted to invade Cuba and kill Castro, they wanted to invade Laos in 1961, they wanted a war in Vietnam. They wanted to use nukes in Cuba, in Southeast Asia and against the Russians.  

JFK was a rational man surrounded by ruthless power mad war mongering idiots.  

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

29 minutes ago, Joseph Backes said:

Oh, if only people loved Nixon, and if only more people voted for Nixon, and if only Nixon was elected in 1960, boo, hoo, hoo, then the world would have been beautiful and full of flowers all year 'round! Yea for Nixon!

Melvin is living a totally absurd and non-investigative life.  

He cannot or will not name the title or author of the article he says he "read." 

"Kennedy did promote the idea of reestablishing American domination over post-Mafia Cuba under Fidel Casto." - FALSE!

This is pure RIGHT-wing spin. There is no truth to it at all. When did JFK ever advocate for the American domination of any country? What is true is that JFK was briefed on the invasion plan by Dulles and then spoke about getting tough in Cuba during the first debate. This came as a surprise to Nixon who had to denounce Kennedy as being reckless to protect the plan. 

The BOP invasion was sabotaged from within by the CIA. There is an abundance of evidence on this now. And you can start learning about this, Martian, with the CIA Inspector General's report. 

I don't know what story of LBJ and Vietnam is a fake to Melwyn.  Does he think LBJ bares no responsibility for the decisions he made starting with reversing JFK's decision to withdraw? Is Merwin suggesting that from Nov 23, 1963 to the war's end in 1975 is all JFK's fault? That the three presidents after JFK bare no responsibility at all?

What a putz.

JFK's murder cannot be separated from his political enemies who despised his policies both foreign and domestic, and despised JFK personally. They saw his constant talk of peace as weakness. They wanted to use force everywhere, they wanted to invade Cuba and kill Castro, they wanted to invade Laos in 1961, they wanted a war in Vietnam. They wanted to use nukes in Cuba, in Southeast Asia and against the Russians.  

JFK was a rational man surrounded by ruthless power mad war mongering idiots.  

 

Joseph, since you only engage in abusive comments to the extent of misspelling my name, either ignore or, have a read of Larry Hancock's works because with the exception of material that my group has uncovered and which I am sharing by email with Larry, you appear to be totally in the dark. Please stick to civil and legally-framed remarks or pretend that I do not exist and I will do the same for you.

[Joseph Backes]

No, you NOT SEE.  I'm not interested in your reply. You are now ignored. You are a person I can NOT SEE anymore.

GOOD BYE. 

[Mervyn Hagger]

It would appear that some persons on this board choose to be abusive by deliberately misspelling my name more than once and intentionally misquoting me in order to preserve and protect their chosen ideology. I am only interested in corresponding with intelligent participants on an an intellectual level. All others will be ignored.

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

It would appear that some persons on this board choose to be abusive by deliberately misspelling my name more than once and intentionally misquoting me in order to preserve and protect their chosen ideology. I am only interested in corresponding with intelligent participants on an an intellectual level. All others will be ignored.

Well, based on your attitude it is clear you do not play well with others so you might do better playing solo as you cannot handle being corrected. 

[Mervyn Hagger]

Clearly this topic, which is focused upon the 1960 Presidential Election debates, has struck a raw nerve in some who worship the memory of the Kennedys as if they were 'gods'. Personal attacks by some have replaced sensible comments about events leading up to the 'Bay of Pigs' invasion. My intention is to post only that which is known and can be both documented and proven, or to raise questions about information whether it can be proven. But some seem to be rather fanatical in their fury and hence their comments descend to the level of mere belief in a cause of their own making. While I would like to read what others have to say about those televised debates, those posting personal abuse will be ignored.

[Paul Brancato]

27 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Clearly this topic, which is focused upon the 1960 Presidential Election debates, has struck a raw nerve in some who worship the memory of the Kennedys as if they were 'gods'. Personal attacks by some have replaced sensible comments about events leading up to the 'Bay of Pigs' invasion. My intention is to post only that which is known and can be both documented and proven, or to raise questions about information whether it can be proven. But some seem to be rather fanatical in their fury and hence their comments descend to the level of mere belief in a cause of their own making. While I would like to read what others have to say about those televised debates, those posting personal abuse will be ignored.

Mervyn - you have entered the fray on this forum before. You start with a theory based around off shore radio stations, but quickly move to indicting RFK. I pointed this out to you a few years ago, and asked you why you segue from one to another, why you insert your RFK denunciation in the middle of your theory about McLendon and Murchison as if they are somehow connected. Are they connected? Or are a few commentators here correct in labeling your entries as anti-Kennedy? 

[Mervyn Hagger]

28 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mervyn - you have entered the fray on this forum before. You start with a theory based around off shore radio stations, but quickly move to indicting RFK. I pointed this out to you a few years ago, and asked you why you segue from one to another, why you insert your RFK denunciation in the middle of your theory about McLendon and Murchison as if they are somehow connected. Are they connected? Or are a few commentators here correct in labeling your entries as anti-Kennedy? 

Good question Paul, and I am so glad that you asked it! The reason is that between then and now I have been working with others to find the hard evidence for something we knew but could not prove. Now we can. Also, thank Gary Murr and Larry Hancock for setting us on the right road to discovery. Our findings will be published in a series of new books (we have already published several academic monologues over the years).

[Mervyn Hagger]

I had hoped that by now, someone else had gone over to YouTube and played the 4 1960 Presidential Debates between Nixon and Kennedy, and noticed how the issue of what became known as disaster at the 'Bay of Pigs Invasion', was center stage in 3 of those debates. Nixon did not want Kennedy to claim credit for Nixon's invasion plans if Kennedy got elected, and so he tried to trap Kennedy who seemed to be advocating an invasion.

[Cory Santos]

I have watched the debates then this came up.  

[Mervyn Hagger]

Then there is this https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Cory+Santos

[Cory Santos]

11 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Then there is this https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Cory+Santos

I do not think it is logical for anyone to understand the relevance of your reply above as it has nothing to do with the topic, however, I think it is cool DVP thinks I’m a worthy enough adversary that he has included me on his site - as long as the debate is accurately quoted of course.   Bravo DVP.   Perhaps he will add you one day Mervyn.  

Edited August 16, 2023 by Cory Santos

[Mervyn Hagger]

11 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I do not think it is logical for anyone to understand the relevance of your reply above as it has nothing to do with the topic, however, I think it is cool DVP thinks I’m a worthy enough adversary that he has included me on his site - as long as the debate is accurately quoted of course.   Bravo DVP.   Perhaps he will add you one day Mervyn.  

I refer you to my original response to you.