The Meaning of the Nov 18 1963 IAPA Speech

[Tim Gratz]

On a different thread Pat Speer and I had quite a lively discussion about the intent of JFK's November 18, 1963 speech to the IAPA in Miami. Pat argued it was conciliatory toward Castro. I differed.

The following excerpt from "The Ultimate Sacrifice" is relevant to this topic:

The following day's headlines are notable both for what they say and what they don't say. First, several newspapers seem to pick up very well on what JFK had been trying to get across -- in some cases, almost too well. For example, the November 19, 1963 Dallas Times-Herald headlined their UPI story with "Kennedy Virtually Invites Cuban Coup." The story said that in his Miami speech the previous day, "President Kennedy all but invited the Cuban people today to overthrow Fidel Castro's Communist regime and promised prompt US aid if they do. Kennedy's encouragement of a Cuban coup was contained in a major foreign policy speech. ... The President said it would be a happy day if the Castro government is ousted."

Some other newspapers also had provocative headlines based on the same UPI story, saying "Kennedy Encourages Cuba Coup" and "Says US will Aid in Ouster." (31) While headlines like those ensured that the coup leader in Cuba would get the intended message, they made JFK's carefully crafted words almost too clear. However, most newspapers were more restrained in their headlines and stories. The New York Times, for example, headlined theirs a more restrained "Kennedy says US will aid Cuba once Cuban sovereignty is restored under a non-Communist government."

In the other thread, I had posted two other papers which had headlined the story as did the UPI, that JFK was encouraging a coup against Castro. This is exactly the purpose of the speech, per "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Waldron and Hartmann argue that the language in the speech was indeed intended as a signal to the leader of the upcoming coup ("C Day") and note that the CIA also used the language to convince Cubela. Waldron and Hartmann do not believe that the Kennedys were aware of the Cubela caper.

I think it clear that the speech was intended for Cubans opposed to Castro; I do not believe it reasobable to read it as a speech conciliatory to Castro. It also fits in very well with the thesis of "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Edited December 2, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Tim, why don't you re-post the actual words to the speech, rather than other people's interpretation of the words? Virtually no one at that time knew that Kennedy was beginning secret negotiations with Castro. The speech was a double-edged sword; it gave the appearance of getting tough with Castro whilst simultaneously offering Castro an olive branch if he threw out the Russians and promised not to export revolution.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Carroll]

On a different thread Pat Speer and I had quite a lively discussion about the intent of JFK's November 18, 1963 speech to the IAPA in Miami. Pat argued it was conciliatory toward Castro. I differed.... I think it clear that the speech was intended for Cubans opposed to Castro; I do not believe it reasonable to read it as a speech conciliatory to Castro.

The speech unquestionably called for a change in Cuba and outlined the nature of what those changes needed to be. If Castro was intransigently in the Soviet camp then the obvious interpretation is that the speech was encouraging a coup. But if the key points mentioned were the same ones discussed through William Attwood, Lisa Howard and Jean Daniel, ending Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere and not exporting revolution to other Latin American countries, then it can be seen as an itemization of the moves required of Castro in order to go forward with a normalization of relations. So if the black and white analysis is a choice between a belligerent promotion of a coup or an olive branch expressing the necessary requirements for peace, then both are correct and neither is individually more correct than the other.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

The problem, gentlemen, is that actions speak louder than words.

Certainly one can negotiate with the leaders of another country with which you are in warfare. That is how wars are usually ended.

But I think one does not engage in negotiations in good faith while secretly plotting to murder the other party.

Not only was the CIA (with or without Kennedy knowledge) negotiating with Cubela in Paris about killing Castro, but, as you know, on October 31, 1963 Castro forces captured CIA-trained assassins infiltrated into Cuba aboard the "Rex".

The same Lisa Howard who started the peace negotiations with Castro later concluded that the Kennedys were only playing a game.

That was also Castro's conclusion. That is why he stalled his meeting with Jean Daniel until lunch time in Cuba on November 22, 1963. Because Castro knew Kennedy would never have lunch on November 22, 1963.

What died on the streets of Dallas were the hopes of "Bobby's friends" for a free Cuba, whether through AMLASH, AMTRUNK, AMWORLD or "C Day". Within a month of Dallas, RFK was telling his Cuban friends, "It's all over now."

Edited December 2, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Tim, I defy you to read the Church Committee report and testimony and continue to believe the Kennedys were in full control of the CIA in 1963. You have an obvious blind spot when it comes to this simple fact...the CIA believed they had a license to kill, and the license to create their own foreign policy, and they used these licenses.

[Shanet Clark]

Tim, I defy you to read the Church Committee report and testimony and continue to believe the Kennedys were in full control of the CIA in 1963. You have an obvious blind spot when it comes to this simple fact...the CIA believed they had a license to kill, and the license to create their own foreign policy, and they used these licenses.

Pat,

Didn't you know that the commies did it,

not the good guys in the US government ........... sheesh

(Lets put our fingers in our ears and shut our eyes)

GOD BLESS AMERICA

LAND THAT I LOVE

STAND BESIDE HER AND GUIDE HER...........

[Tim Gratz]

But you see, Pat, Fidel did not have access to the Church Committee Report in 1963.

[Tim Gratz]

Shanet wrote:

Didn't you know that the commies did it,

not the good guys in the US government ........... sheesh

As Shanet said, "sheesh". My argument is that if Castro did it it was to protect himself from the murderous plots of the CIA, which had formed an alliance with the devil. That hardly makes the US "the good guys".

[Dawn Meredith]

The same Lisa Howard who started the peace negotiations with Castro later concluded that the Kennedys were only playing a game.

That was also Castro's conclusion.

That was NOT Castro's conclusion. And if you would bother to just read the long speech Castro gave immediately after the assassination you would see this. Surely you can get Dr Martin Schotz' book online "History Will NOt Absolve US", where the speech is reprinted. I have tried to obtain this speech in other ways to post here, as when I tried to scan it last year the print did not come out legibly John said.

I believe I first discovered it in Paris Flammonde's work in the early 70's.

Instead of guessing what the man thought, read his own words and draw your own conclusions, unbiased by a writer with an agenda. ("The Kennedys' were trying to kill Castro only Castro killd him first" agenda you constantly push. That next level down of disinformation from LHO acting alone. The Mob did not do it, and Castro did not do it.)

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn, I assume you would agree that few murderers admit their guilt.

You absolve Castro because in a speech he mourned JFK whereas while he was alive Castro called him a "cretin" and "the Batista of our times"? Because he did not admit to involvement in the assassination he is clear?