Jump to content
The Education Forum

Wasn't JFK precluded from providing air support @ Bay of Pigs?


Recommended Posts

Very strange:

"Apr 7, Tad Szulc (d.2001) wrote a front page NY times article on anti-Castro forces training to fight at Florida bases and predicted a probable invasion on April 18. The invasion took place Apr 17."

http://timelines.ws/20thcent/1961.HTML

Appears to be true:

"Tad Szulc, 74, Dies; Times Correspondent Who Uncovered Bay of Pigs Imbroglio

May 22, 2001, Tuesday

By DANIEL LEWIS (NYT); Foreign Desk

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Tad Szulc, former foreign correspondent for The New York Times whose reports of imminent assault on Cuba by anti-Castro Cubans in 1961 came to reality in disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, dies at age 74"

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...nce%20Agency%20

So CIA propaganda rag NY Times announces "covert" invasion of Cuba on front page days in advance as the CIA is assuring President Kennedy of utmost discretion?

"C.I.A. Had Ability to Plant Bay of Pigs News, Document Shows

March 24, 2001, Saturday

By TIM WEINER (NYT); Foreign Desk

Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 7, Column 1, 529 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Declassified CIA document shows that agency could virtually dictate articles directly onto international news wire services during and after Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961; it has been known since 1970's that in cold war CIA had handful of 'assets' in place at some news organizations like Associated Press and United Press International, particularly in foreign bureaus"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=99579

"| Posted 07/06/2006 @ 2:32pm

Nation and NY Times: Bay of Pigs Deja Vu

"While the Bush Administration's war on a free, independent and aggressive media is unparalleled, US government attempts to suppress information are not new. More than forty years ago, for example, the New York Times acceded to the Kennedy Administration's request that it play down its advance knowledge of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. (In a recent editorial, the Times wrote that "it seems in hindsight that the editors were over-cautious" by not printing what they knew about the invasion.)

In his open letter explaining the decision to publish the banking records story, Executive Editor Bill Keller referred to the Times' handling of the Bay of Pigs story. "Our biggest failures," Keller wrote, "have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After the Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco."

What is little known is the role The Nation played in this story. In November 1960, The Nation published the first article on preparations being made for what would become the Bay of Pigs invasion. According to Carey McWilliams, The Nation's editor at the time, "Ronald Hilton, director of Stanford University's Institute of Hispanic-American Studies had just returned from Guatemala with reports that it was common knowledge --indeed, it had been reported in La Hora, a leading newspaper, on October 30--that the CIA was training a guerrilla force at a secret base for an early invasion of Cuba." McWilliams promptly got in touch with Hilton, who confirmed details, and agreed that he could be quoted. McWilliams wrote an article setting forth the facts Hilton had given him, including the location of the base near the mountain town of Retalhulea. If the reports were true, McWilliams wrote, "then public pressure should be brought to bear upon the administration to abandon this dangerous and hare-brained project." in the meantime, he added, the facts should be checked out immediately "by all US news media with correspondents in Guatemala." Although a special press release was prepared-- to which copies of the article were attached-- the wire services ignored the story and only one or two papers mentioned it.

However, The Nation's article was then called to the attention of a New York Times editor who assigned Times' reporter Paul Kennedy to do a story. Kennedy filed an article in January 1961 covering similar ground to the Nation's. But it was the Tad Szulc article in the Times-- that ran only a week before the invasion in April 1961 --that Kennedy called the Times's publisher about. The New York Times yielded to the President's demand that the story be reduced in prominence and detail.

According to McWilliams's memoirs (and the Columbia University "Forum" on "The Press and the Bay of Pigs" of Fall 1967), a week or so after the Bay of Pigs fiasco a group of press executives met with President Kennedy at the White House. "At this session," McWilliams recounts, "the President complained of premature disclosure of security information in the press and cited Paul Kennedy's story in the New York Times as a case in point. The New York Times' Turner Catledge then reminded Kennedy that reports about the base had previously appeared in the Guatemalan newspaper La Hora and The Nation."

The President reportedly turned to Catledge and said, "if you had printed more about the operation, you would have saved us from a colossal mistake." More than a year later, Kennedy told the New York Times' Orvil Dryfoos, "I wish you had run everything on Cuba...I am just sorry you didn't tell it at the time."

On edit:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKszulc.htm

"(1) Tad Szulc, New York Times (7th April, 1961)

This is a city of open secrets and rampaging rumors for the legions of exiled Cubans who plot the downfall of Premier Fidel Castro and his regime. Men come and go quietly on their secret missions of sabotage and gun-running into Cuba, while others assemble at staging points here to be flown at night to military camps in Guatemala and Louisiana... The exiles intend... to gain a beachhead in Cuba to set up a 'Government in Arms' and then request diplomatic recognition by foreign nations."

Edited by Myra Bronstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=99579

"| Posted 07/06/2006 @ 2:32pm

Nation and NY Times: Bay of Pigs Deja Vu

"While the Bush Administration's war on a free, independent and aggressive media is unparalleled, US government attempts to suppress information are not new. More than forty years ago, for example, the New York Times acceded to the Kennedy Administration's request that it play down its advance knowledge of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. (In a recent editorial, the Times wrote that "it seems in hindsight that the editors were over-cautious" by not printing what they knew about the invasion.)

In his open letter explaining the decision to publish the banking records story, Executive Editor Bill Keller referred to the Times' handling of the Bay of Pigs story. "Our biggest failures," Keller wrote, "have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After the Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco."

What is little known is the role The Nation played in this story. In November 1960, The Nation published the first article on preparations being made for what would become the Bay of Pigs invasion. According to Carey McWilliams, The Nation's editor at the time, "Ronald Hilton, director of Stanford University's Institute of Hispanic-American Studies had just returned from Guatemala with reports that it was common knowledge --indeed, it had been reported in La Hora, a leading newspaper, on October 30--that the CIA was training a guerrilla force at a secret base for an early invasion of Cuba." McWilliams promptly got in touch with Hilton, who confirmed details, and agreed that he could be quoted. McWilliams wrote an article setting forth the facts Hilton had given him, including the location of the base near the mountain town of Retalhulea. If the reports were true, McWilliams wrote, "then public pressure should be brought to bear upon the administration to abandon this dangerous and hare-brained project." in the meantime, he added, the facts should be checked out immediately "by all US news media with correspondents in Guatemala." Although a special press release was prepared-- to which copies of the article were attached-- the wire services ignored the story and only one or two papers mentioned it.

However, The Nation's article was then called to the attention of a New York Times editor who assigned Times' reporter Paul Kennedy to do a story. Kennedy filed an article in January 1961 covering similar ground to the Nation's. But it was the Tad Szulc article in the Times-- that ran only a week before the invasion in April 1961 --that Kennedy called the Times's publisher about. The New York Times yielded to the President's demand that the story be reduced in prominence and detail.

According to McWilliams's memoirs (and the Columbia University "Forum" on "The Press and the Bay of Pigs" of Fall 1967), a week or so after the Bay of Pigs fiasco a group of press executives met with President Kennedy at the White House. "At this session," McWilliams recounts, "the President complained of premature disclosure of security information in the press and cited Paul Kennedy's story in the New York Times as a case in point. The New York Times' Turner Catledge then reminded Kennedy that reports about the base had previously appeared in the Guatemalan newspaper La Hora and The Nation."

The President reportedly turned to Catledge and said, "if you had printed more about the operation, you would have saved us from a colossal mistake." More than a year later, Kennedy told the New York Times' Orvil Dryfoos, "I wish you had run everything on Cuba...I am just sorry you didn't tell it at the time."

On edit:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKszulc.htm

"(1) Tad Szulc, New York Times (7th April, 1961)

This is a city of open secrets and rampaging rumors for the legions of exiled Cubans who plot the downfall of Premier Fidel Castro and his regime. Men come and go quietly on their secret missions of sabotage and gun-running into Cuba, while others assemble at staging points here to be flown at night to military camps in Guatemala and Louisiana... The exiles intend... to gain a beachhead in Cuba to set up a 'Government in Arms' and then request diplomatic recognition by foreign nations."

*******************************************************

I somehow seemed to have missed this thread when it started. As I read through it, one fact remained blatantly clear, and that was the direct violation of The Geneva Accords, the Bay of Pigs, as well as the assignment of those supposed "advisers" to SEA from the late 1950's through the culmination of the Vietnam "conflict." Training of foreign nationals, on their own soil, for potential invasion of another country. A former French colony, regardless of whether they asked us for assistance or not, we still proceeded to insert ourselves in their civil war under the guise of that time-worn excuse, "protecting the free world from Communism." And, to this day, we continue to allow the C.I.A. to interfere, or engage, if you will, on behalf of Wall Street, for the soul purpose of extracting a targetted nation's resources, be it their natural resouces, or their sweat-shop laboring human resources. Only now, the rapidly becoming time-worn excuse is that we're "protecting the free world from Islamic "terrorists."" The United States and its mother country, The United Kingdom, continue to violate the rules and regulations of engagement agreed upon, and drawn up, as a direct result of the abuses inflicted upon the rights of humans, the conditions under which people were allowed to engage in mortal combat, and that no nation state's constitutional rights be infringed upon, or seized by empirical means. These rights were set forth in The Geneva Accords following the Second World War. The violations of these accords continue unabated by the very nations who contributed the time and effort to draft them in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=99579

"| Posted 07/06/2006 @ 2:32pm

Nation and NY Times: Bay of Pigs Deja Vu

"While the Bush Administration's war on a free, independent and aggressive media is unparalleled, US government attempts to suppress information are not new. More than forty years ago, for example, the New York Times acceded to the Kennedy Administration's request that it play down its advance knowledge of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. (In a recent editorial, the Times wrote that "it seems in hindsight that the editors were over-cautious" by not printing what they knew about the invasion.)

In his open letter explaining the decision to publish the banking records story, Executive Editor Bill Keller referred to the Times' handling of the Bay of Pigs story. "Our biggest failures," Keller wrote, "have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After the Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco."

What is little known is the role The Nation played in this story. In November 1960, The Nation published the first article on preparations being made for what would become the Bay of Pigs invasion. According to Carey McWilliams, The Nation's editor at the time, "Ronald Hilton, director of Stanford University's Institute of Hispanic-American Studies had just returned from Guatemala with reports that it was common knowledge --indeed, it had been reported in La Hora, a leading newspaper, on October 30--that the CIA was training a guerrilla force at a secret base for an early invasion of Cuba." McWilliams promptly got in touch with Hilton, who confirmed details, and agreed that he could be quoted. McWilliams wrote an article setting forth the facts Hilton had given him, including the location of the base near the mountain town of Retalhulea. If the reports were true, McWilliams wrote, "then public pressure should be brought to bear upon the administration to abandon this dangerous and hare-brained project." in the meantime, he added, the facts should be checked out immediately "by all US news media with correspondents in Guatemala." Although a special press release was prepared-- to which copies of the article were attached-- the wire services ignored the story and only one or two papers mentioned it.

However, The Nation's article was then called to the attention of a New York Times editor who assigned Times' reporter Paul Kennedy to do a story. Kennedy filed an article in January 1961 covering similar ground to the Nation's. But it was the Tad Szulc article in the Times-- that ran only a week before the invasion in April 1961 --that Kennedy called the Times's publisher about. The New York Times yielded to the President's demand that the story be reduced in prominence and detail.

According to McWilliams's memoirs (and the Columbia University "Forum" on "The Press and the Bay of Pigs" of Fall 1967), a week or so after the Bay of Pigs fiasco a group of press executives met with President Kennedy at the White House. "At this session," McWilliams recounts, "the President complained of premature disclosure of security information in the press and cited Paul Kennedy's story in the New York Times as a case in point. The New York Times' Turner Catledge then reminded Kennedy that reports about the base had previously appeared in the Guatemalan newspaper La Hora and The Nation."

The President reportedly turned to Catledge and said, "if you had printed more about the operation, you would have saved us from a colossal mistake." More than a year later, Kennedy told the New York Times' Orvil Dryfoos, "I wish you had run everything on Cuba...I am just sorry you didn't tell it at the time."

On edit:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKszulc.htm

"(1) Tad Szulc, New York Times (7th April, 1961)

This is a city of open secrets and rampaging rumors for the legions of exiled Cubans who plot the downfall of Premier Fidel Castro and his regime. Men come and go quietly on their secret missions of sabotage and gun-running into Cuba, while others assemble at staging points here to be flown at night to military camps in Guatemala and Louisiana... The exiles intend... to gain a beachhead in Cuba to set up a 'Government in Arms' and then request diplomatic recognition by foreign nations."

*******************************************************

I somehow seemed to have missed this thread when it started. As I read through it, one fact remained blatantly clear, and that was the direct violation of The Geneva Accords, the Bay of Pigs, as well as the assignment of those supposed "advisers" to SEA from the late 1950's through the culmination of the Vietnam "conflict." Training of foreign nationals, on their own soil, for potential invasion of another country. A former French colony, regardless of whether they asked us for assistance or not, we still proceeded to insert ourselves in their civil war under the guise of that time-worn excuse, "protecting the free world from Communism." And, to this day, we continue to allow the C.I.A. to interfere, or engage, if you will, on behalf of Wall Street, for the soul purpose of extracting a targetted nation's resources, be it their natural resouces, or their sweat-shop laboring human resources. Only now, the rapidly becoming time-worn excuse is that we're "protecting the free world from Islamic "terrorists."" The United States and its mother country, The United Kingdom, continue to violate the rules and regulations of engagement agreed upon, and drawn up, as a direct result of the abuses inflicted upon the rights of humans, the conditions under which people were allowed to engage in mortal combat, and that no nation state's constitutional rights be infringed upon, or seized by empirical means. These rights were set forth in The Geneva Accords following the Second World War. The violations of these accords continue unabated by the very nations who contributed the time and effort to draft them in the first place.

Nicely said Terry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=99579

"| Posted 07/06/2006 @ 2:32pm

Nation and NY Times: Bay of Pigs Deja Vu

"While the Bush Administration's war on a free, independent and aggressive media is unparalleled, US government attempts to suppress information are not new. More than forty years ago, for example, the New York Times acceded to the Kennedy Administration's request that it play down its advance knowledge of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. (In a recent editorial, the Times wrote that "it seems in hindsight that the editors were over-cautious" by not printing what they knew about the invasion.)

In his open letter explaining the decision to publish the banking records story, Executive Editor Bill Keller referred to the Times' handling of the Bay of Pigs story. "Our biggest failures," Keller wrote, "have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After the Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco."

What is little known is the role The Nation played in this story. In November 1960, The Nation published the first article on preparations being made for what would become the Bay of Pigs invasion. According to Carey McWilliams, The Nation's editor at the time, "Ronald Hilton, director of Stanford University's Institute of Hispanic-American Studies had just returned from Guatemala with reports that it was common knowledge --indeed, it had been reported in La Hora, a leading newspaper, on October 30--that the CIA was training a guerrilla force at a secret base for an early invasion of Cuba." McWilliams promptly got in touch with Hilton, who confirmed details, and agreed that he could be quoted. McWilliams wrote an article setting forth the facts Hilton had given him, including the location of the base near the mountain town of Retalhulea. If the reports were true, McWilliams wrote, "then public pressure should be brought to bear upon the administration to abandon this dangerous and hare-brained project." in the meantime, he added, the facts should be checked out immediately "by all US news media with correspondents in Guatemala." Although a special press release was prepared-- to which copies of the article were attached-- the wire services ignored the story and only one or two papers mentioned it.

However, The Nation's article was then called to the attention of a New York Times editor who assigned Times' reporter Paul Kennedy to do a story. Kennedy filed an article in January 1961 covering similar ground to the Nation's. But it was the Tad Szulc article in the Times-- that ran only a week before the invasion in April 1961 --that Kennedy called the Times's publisher about. The New York Times yielded to the President's demand that the story be reduced in prominence and detail.

According to McWilliams's memoirs (and the Columbia University "Forum" on "The Press and the Bay of Pigs" of Fall 1967), a week or so after the Bay of Pigs fiasco a group of press executives met with President Kennedy at the White House. "At this session," McWilliams recounts, "the President complained of premature disclosure of security information in the press and cited Paul Kennedy's story in the New York Times as a case in point. The New York Times' Turner Catledge then reminded Kennedy that reports about the base had previously appeared in the Guatemalan newspaper La Hora and The Nation."

The President reportedly turned to Catledge and said, "if you had printed more about the operation, you would have saved us from a colossal mistake." More than a year later, Kennedy told the New York Times' Orvil Dryfoos, "I wish you had run everything on Cuba...I am just sorry you didn't tell it at the time."

On edit:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKszulc.htm

"(1) Tad Szulc, New York Times (7th April, 1961)

This is a city of open secrets and rampaging rumors for the legions of exiled Cubans who plot the downfall of Premier Fidel Castro and his regime. Men come and go quietly on their secret missions of sabotage and gun-running into Cuba, while others assemble at staging points here to be flown at night to military camps in Guatemala and Louisiana... The exiles intend... to gain a beachhead in Cuba to set up a 'Government in Arms' and then request diplomatic recognition by foreign nations."

*******************************************************

I somehow seemed to have missed this thread when it started. As I read through it, one fact remained blatantly clear, and that was the direct violation of The Geneva Accords, the Bay of Pigs, as well as the assignment of those supposed "advisers" to SEA from the late 1950's through the culmination of the Vietnam "conflict." Training of foreign nationals, on their own soil, for potential invasion of another country. A former French colony, regardless of whether they asked us for assistance or not, we still proceeded to insert ourselves in their civil war under the guise of that time-worn excuse, "protecting the free world from Communism." And, to this day, we continue to allow the C.I.A. to interfere, or engage, if you will, on behalf of Wall Street, for the soul purpose of extracting a targetted nation's resources, be it their natural resources, or their sweat-shop laboring human resources. Only now, the rapidly becoming time-worn excuse is that we're "protecting the free world from Islamic "terrorists."" The United States and its mother country, The United Kingdom, continue to violate the rules and regulations of engagement agreed upon, and drawn up, as a direct result of the abuses inflicted upon the rights of humans, the conditions under which people were allowed to engage in mortal combat, and that no nation state's constitutional rights be infringed upon, or seized by empirical means. These rights were set forth in The Geneva Accords following the Second World War. The violations of these accords continue unabated by the very nations who contributed the time and effort to draft them in the first place.

_________________________________

Hi Terry,

Great post. I agree.

BTW, I think you meant to say "sole purpose" rather than "soul purpose." (lol)

I always look forward to your posts. Really!

--Thomas

_________________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=99579

"| Posted 07/06/2006 @ 2:32pm

Nation and NY Times: Bay of Pigs Deja Vu

"While the Bush Administration's war on a free, independent and aggressive media is unparalleled, US government attempts to suppress information are not new. More than forty years ago, for example, the New York Times acceded to the Kennedy Administration's request that it play down its advance knowledge of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. (In a recent editorial, the Times wrote that "it seems in hindsight that the editors were over-cautious" by not printing what they knew about the invasion.)

In his open letter explaining the decision to publish the banking records story, Executive Editor Bill Keller referred to the Times' handling of the Bay of Pigs story. "Our biggest failures," Keller wrote, "have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After the Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco."

What is little known is the role The Nation played in this story. In November 1960, The Nation published the first article on preparations being made for what would become the Bay of Pigs invasion. According to Carey McWilliams, The Nation's editor at the time, "Ronald Hilton, director of Stanford University's Institute of Hispanic-American Studies had just returned from Guatemala with reports that it was common knowledge --indeed, it had been reported in La Hora, a leading newspaper, on October 30--that the CIA was training a guerrilla force at a secret base for an early invasion of Cuba." McWilliams promptly got in touch with Hilton, who confirmed details, and agreed that he could be quoted. McWilliams wrote an article setting forth the facts Hilton had given him, including the location of the base near the mountain town of Retalhulea. If the reports were true, McWilliams wrote, "then public pressure should be brought to bear upon the administration to abandon this dangerous and hare-brained project." in the meantime, he added, the facts should be checked out immediately "by all US news media with correspondents in Guatemala." Although a special press release was prepared-- to which copies of the article were attached-- the wire services ignored the story and only one or two papers mentioned it.

However, The Nation's article was then called to the attention of a New York Times editor who assigned Times' reporter Paul Kennedy to do a story. Kennedy filed an article in January 1961 covering similar ground to the Nation's. But it was the Tad Szulc article in the Times-- that ran only a week before the invasion in April 1961 --that Kennedy called the Times's publisher about. The New York Times yielded to the President's demand that the story be reduced in prominence and detail.

According to McWilliams's memoirs (and the Columbia University "Forum" on "The Press and the Bay of Pigs" of Fall 1967), a week or so after the Bay of Pigs fiasco a group of press executives met with President Kennedy at the White House. "At this session," McWilliams recounts, "the President complained of premature disclosure of security information in the press and cited Paul Kennedy's story in the New York Times as a case in point. The New York Times' Turner Catledge then reminded Kennedy that reports about the base had previously appeared in the Guatemalan newspaper La Hora and The Nation."

The President reportedly turned to Catledge and said, "if you had printed more about the operation, you would have saved us from a colossal mistake." More than a year later, Kennedy told the New York Times' Orvil Dryfoos, "I wish you had run everything on Cuba...I am just sorry you didn't tell it at the time."

On edit:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKszulc.htm

"(1) Tad Szulc, New York Times (7th April, 1961)

This is a city of open secrets and rampaging rumors for the legions of exiled Cubans who plot the downfall of Premier Fidel Castro and his regime. Men come and go quietly on their secret missions of sabotage and gun-running into Cuba, while others assemble at staging points here to be flown at night to military camps in Guatemala and Louisiana... The exiles intend... to gain a beachhead in Cuba to set up a 'Government in Arms' and then request diplomatic recognition by foreign nations."

*******************************************************

I somehow seemed to have missed this thread when it started. As I read through it, one fact remained blatantly clear, and that was the direct violation of The Geneva Accords, the Bay of Pigs, as well as the assignment of those supposed "advisers" to SEA from the late 1950's through the culmination of the Vietnam "conflict." Training of foreign nationals, on their own soil, for potential invasion of another country. A former French colony, regardless of whether they asked us for assistance or not, we still proceeded to insert ourselves in their civil war under the guise of that time-worn excuse, "protecting the free world from Communism." And, to this day, we continue to allow the C.I.A. to interfere, or engage, if you will, on behalf of Wall Street, for the soul purpose of extracting a targetted nation's resources, be it their natural resources, or their sweat-shop laboring human resources. Only now, the rapidly becoming time-worn excuse is that we're "protecting the free world from Islamic "terrorists."" The United States and its mother country, The United Kingdom, continue to violate the rules and regulations of engagement agreed upon, and drawn up, as a direct result of the abuses inflicted upon the rights of humans, the conditions under which people were allowed to engage in mortal combat, and that no nation state's constitutional rights be infringed upon, or seized by empirical means. These rights were set forth in The Geneva Accords following the Second World War. The violations of these accords continue unabated by the very nations who contributed the time and effort to draft them in the first place.

_________________________________

Hi Terry,

Great post. I agree.

BTW, I think you meant to say "sole purpose" rather than "soul purpose." (lol)

I always look forward to your posts. Really!

--Thomas

_________________________________

**********************************************************

"BTW, I think you meant to say "sole purpose" rather than "soul purpose." (lol)

HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH!

Hey, that's hysterical! Talk about a case of "hoof 'n' mouth" disease. Thanks, Thomas. The more left-brained I become, the more my spelling tends to suffer. It's funny because when I see the word, "sole" I immediately think of filet of sole. Jeez, can you imagine? I've probably been totally disregarding the spelling of "sole" in favor of "soul" because I think it's a fish! And, at least for the last couple of years! Gad! :blink: I need a change of scene. But damn, that was a good laugh!

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...