President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal.

[Bfgrn]

Distortions of history aside, JFK is, was, and will always be considered a liberal Democrat.

Conservative spin aside, JFK is the spiritual as well as ideological father of today's liberals.

To say JFK would not be welcome into the Democratic party today is like saying Democrats don't like Bill Clinton.

reality is not the strong suit of today's conservatism. the evidence is that they keep saying every conservative President of the later half of the Twentieth Century was not a true conservative. They even have a name for it - RHINO

what a crock. so Vietnam was a "good war" (?)and the left would have fallen all over him? gtfoh.

or?

Kennedy had already issued the order for a 1000 troop withdrawal from Vietnam by the end of '63. And ordered the Pentagon to plan to have all US troops out of Vietnam by early 1965, shortly after what he assumed would be his re-election. But he did not, of course, live to see their withdrawal.

Galbraith and Vietnam

James K. Galbraith: Exit Strategy


Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIsdWSMaQA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIsdWSMaQA[/ame]

 

[georgephillip]

"In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]

"All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel.

"In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, 'I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.'

"Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals."

JFK and the Unspeakable...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Distortions of history aside, JFK is, was, and will always be considered a liberal Democrat.

Conservative spin aside, JFK is the spiritual as well as ideological father of today's liberals.

To say JFK would not be welcome into the Democratic party today is like saying Democrats don't like Bill Clinton.

reality is not the strong suit of today's conservatism. the evidence is that they keep saying every conservative President of the later half of the Twentieth Century was not a true conservative. They even have a name for it - RHINO

what a crock. so Vietnam was a "good war" (?)and the left would have fallen all over him? gtfoh.

or?

Kennedy had already issued the order for a 1000 troop withdrawal from Vietnam by the end of '63. And ordered the Pentagon to plan to have all US troops out of Vietnam by early 1965, shortly after what he assumed would be his re-election. But he did not, of course, live to see their withdrawal.

Galbraith and Vietnam

James K. Galbraith: Exit Strategy


Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIsdWSMaQA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIsdWSMaQA[/ame]

Just as Bobby and Martin were assassinated during an evolution in their thinking, Jack was assassinated during an evolution in his thinking.

President JFK learned not to trust certain people after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He was a quick study. He was no LBJ with a huge Texas inferiority complex and ego to salve. LBJ got a bad deal in that he served in the shadow of the golden boy of Camelot. Tough luck.

Like Nixon, I am sure LBJ was irritated by JFK's class and sense of entitlement as a son of the ruling class. It is unavoidable. JFK and LBJ were both products of their environments.

In America some people try desperately to deny class issues. Those people are usually from the upper class...the minority. Reality bites. In an egalitarian merit society, the upper class will always feel the sting of entitlement and selfishness thrown back in their faces by realities on the ground.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

can we do something about conspiracy trolls?


georgephillip???

 

[mdn2000]

Seems like Kennedy was a war monger, sending weapons to Israel, building the South Vietnamese Army, the Bay of Pigs with Cuba.

Liberal, I like the definition

John F Kennedy and Vietnam

“Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend…to assure the survival and success of liberty ”.

In 1961, Kennedy agreed that America should finance an increase in the size of the South Vietnamese Army from 150,000 to 170,000. He also agreed that an extra 1000 US military advisors should be sent to South Vietnam to help train the South Vietnamese Army. Both of these decisions were not made public as they broke the agreements made at the 1954 Geneva Agreement.

It was during Kennedy’s presidency that the ‘Strategic Hamlet’ programme was introduced. This failed badly and almost certainly drove a number of South Vietnamese peasants into supporting the North Vietnamese communists. This forcible moving of peasants into secure compounds was supported by Diem and did a great deal to further the opposition to him in the South. American television reporters relayed to the US public that ‘Strategic Hamlet’ destroyed decades, if not hundreds, of years of village life in the South and that the process might only take half-a-day. Here was a super-power effectively orchestrating the forced removal of peasants by the South Vietnamese Army who were not asked if they wanted to move. To those who knew about US involvement in Vietnam and were opposed to it, ‘Strategic Hamlet’ provided them with an excellent propaganda opportunity.

Kennedy was informed about the anger of the South Vietnamese peasants and was shocked to learn that membership of the NLF had increased, according to US Intelligence, by 300% in a two year time span – the years when ‘Strategic Hamlet’ was in operation. Kennedy’s response was to send more military advisors to Vietnam so that by the end of 1962 there were 12,000 of these advisors in South Vietnam. As well as sending more advisors to South Vietnam, Kennedy also sent 300 helicopters with US pilots. They were told to avoid military combat at all costs but this became all but impossible to fulfil.

Kennedy’s presidency also saw the response to the Diem government by some Buddhist monks. On June 11th 1963, Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk, committed suicide on a busy Saigon road by being burned to death. Other Buddhist monks followed his example in August 1963. Television reported these events throughout the world. A member of Diem’s government said:

“Let them burn, and we shall clap our hands.”

Another member of Diem’s government was heard to say that he would be happy to provide Buddhist monks with petrol.

Kennedy became convinced that Diem could never unite South Vietnam and he agreed that the CIA should initiate a programme to overthrow him. A CIA operative, Lucien Conein, provided some South Vietnamese generals with $40,000 to overthrow Diem with the added guarantee that the US would not protect the South Vietnam leader. Diem was overthrown and killed in November 1963. Kennedy was assassinated three weeks later

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Seems like Kennedy was a war monger, sending weapons to Israel, building the South Vietnamese Army, the Bay of Pigs with Cuba.

Liberal, I like the definition

What did Clinton do militarily? I guess using your ignorant logic, Bill Clinton is a conservative too?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

GOP Rivals Attack Clinton's Plan to Send Troops to Bosnia - The Tech

Conservative Hawks on defense, all GOP Rivals, Attack Liberal Clinton's Plan to Send Troops to Bosnia

 

[mdn2000]

"In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]

"All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel.

"In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, 'I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.'

"Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals."

JFK and the Unspeakable...

Chomsky students do not do their homework, Memorandum 263 did not call for the withdrawal of troops. Troops will stay, only advisors training the Vietnamese would be withdrawn once they were capable of continuing the war on their own.

Vietnam War: The Documents - 14

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.

So Georgy/Chomsky paraphrase Memo 263, no link when as we know Georgy/chomsky loves links. If you quote something you should link to it. Especially if you never read it.

Reading Memo 263 item 2 makes it clear one must read another statement to no what the policy is. Politics within the White House most likely move faster than these threads. What was the policy of Kennedy a minute before the bullet entered his brain, who knows.

U.S. Policy Statement on Vietnam, 1963

Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.

That is the policy, at that second, for how long after considering everything Kennedy was doing, Kennedy was a military man, not like Liberals of today. I would have to say Kennedy is not a Liberal by today's definition.

Chomsky and his students count on the the conservatives to not be able to counter the arguments they present, they present heresy as fact. Why not just refer to the policy statement of Oct 2, 1963, its simple, Chomsky does not base his criticism on fact.

Memo 263 explicitly refers in item 2 that the White house policy statement of Oct. 2, 1963 stands as policy.

Do we need our university professors telling lies about history. Chomsky has no business in the classroom

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

 

[mdn2000]

...

Off topic? you just asked about Bill Clinton. Sorry, just sharing history. I wish you gave me something I could respond to other than talking about Bill Clinton.

 

[Bfgrn]

Seems like Kennedy was a war monger, sending weapons to Israel, building the South Vietnamese Army, the Bay of Pigs with Cuba.

Liberal, I like the definition

John F Kennedy and Vietnam

“Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend…to assure the survival and success of liberty ”.

I don't know who authored that 'history' piece. But if you want to understand the Machiavellian reasons behind JFK's bellicose rhetoric, here is a great article from Time magazine.
Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME

I saw a TV program on Iraq and the neocons about 5 years ago where they interviewed Richard 'the Prince of Darkness' Perle, the leading neoconservative hawk who pushed for war with Iraq. Perle idolized John F. Kennedy. And he cited the same “Pay any price, bear any burden..." soaring rhetoric.

But Perle and the neocons ignored Jack Kennedy's real message of peace in the same Inaugural address, and they totally ignored JFK's actions while President. On at least 3 well known occasions, Kennedy resisted military action and went against Pentagon and CIA hard-liners, military advisers and the Chiefs of Staff who he despised.


"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy

________________________________________________

Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961
United States Capitol, Washington, D.C.
Date: January 20, 1961

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

---

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

 

[georgephillip]

"In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]

"All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel.

"In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, 'I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.'

"Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals."

JFK and the Unspeakable...

Chomsky students do not do their homework, Memorandum 263 did not call for the withdrawal of troops. Troops will stay, only advisors training the Vietnamese would be withdrawn once they were capable of continuing the war on their own.

Vietnam War: The Documents - 14

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.

So Georgy/Chomsky paraphrase Memo 263, no link when as we know Georgy/chomsky loves links. If you quote something you should link to it. Especially if you never read it.

Reading Memo 263 item 2 makes it clear one must read another statement to no what the policy is. Politics within the White House most likely move faster than these threads. What was the policy of Kennedy a minute before the bullet entered his brain, who knows.

U.S. Policy Statement on Vietnam, 1963

Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.

That is the policy, at that second, for how long after considering everything Kennedy was doing, Kennedy was a military man, not like Liberals of today. I would have to say Kennedy is not a Liberal by today's definition.

Chomsky and his students count on the the conservatives to not be able to counter the arguments they present, they present heresy as fact. Why not just refer to the policy statement of Oct 2, 1963, its simple, Chomsky does not base his criticism on fact.

Memo 263 explicitly refers in item 2 that the White house policy statement of Oct. 2, 1963 stands as policy.

Do we need our university professors telling lies about history. Chomsky has no business in the classroom

Now show us where I mentioned the name "Chomsky" on this thread?

 

[Bfgrn]

"In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]

"All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel.

"In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, 'I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.'

"Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals."

JFK and the Unspeakable...

Chomsky students do not do their homework, Memorandum 263 did not call for the withdrawal of troops. Troops will stay, only advisors training the Vietnamese would be withdrawn once they were capable of continuing the war on their own.

Vietnam War: The Documents - 14

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.

So Georgy/Chomsky paraphrase Memo 263, no link when as we know Georgy/chomsky loves links. If you quote something you should link to it. Especially if you never read it.

Reading Memo 263 item 2 makes it clear one must read another statement to no what the policy is. Politics within the White House most likely move faster than these threads. What was the policy of Kennedy a minute before the bullet entered his brain, who knows.

U.S. Policy Statement on Vietnam, 1963

Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.

That is the policy, at that second, for how long after considering everything Kennedy was doing, Kennedy was a military man, not like Liberals of today. I would have to say Kennedy is not a Liberal by today's definition.

Chomsky and his students count on the the conservatives to not be able to counter the arguments they present, they present heresy as fact. Why not just refer to the policy statement of Oct 2, 1963, its simple, Chomsky does not base his criticism on fact.

Memo 263 explicitly refers in item 2 that the White house policy statement of Oct. 2, 1963 stands as policy.

Do we need our university professors telling lies about history. Chomsky has no business in the classroom

If you're interested in some insight about the "Taylor report" I suggest you read this article. Galbraith and Vietnam

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith was then Ambassador to India. He was a close friend and a very trusted adviser to JFK.

Galbraith got wind of the McNamara Taylor plan--and rushed to block their efforts. It is an interesting read.


When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.

 

[georgephillip]

can we do something about conspiracy trolls?


georgephillip???

Conspiracy trolls CAN take a hint, Dante.

Let me just leave you with this...

November 22nd is rapidly approaching.

Think about a thread in this forum exploring Conspiracy's contribution to History.

Remember the Bay of Pigs?

"Though Douglass doesn’t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but

" – and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end - never told the President. [ii]

"The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway.

"Why?

"So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.

JFK and the Unspeakable...

 

[Liability]

Liberal distortion of JFK is a product of the unquestioned Camelot mythology.

In reality, it is safe to say that by today's standards, JFK was neither quite fish nor fowl. He was probably (judging by today's standards) more libeal than conservative, but the important fact is that he was not an absolute. But, that said, JFK was far more conservative than today's libbies can tolerate. They have to paint him as an ideologically "pure" liberal to keep the myth alive.

Here's an interesting read, with fodder for additional research: JFK and Nixon

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

it took 9 pages for the troll(s) to take this thread into the USMB toilet.


not a bad day for USMB

 

[Liability]

it took 9 pages for the troll(s) to take this thread into the USMB toilet.


not a bad day for USMB

Any thread you start is generally troll material and already in the toilet.

Your OP premise was delusional and you, being the total pussy you always are, objected to actual debate on your silly topic.

So, feel free to fuck yourself. As always, Dainty, you are the troll.

It's really quite extraordinarily pathetic. You actually play the part of retard troll in your own thread.

 

[Bfgrn]

can we do something about conspiracy trolls?


georgephillip???

Conspiracy trolls CAN take a hint, Dante.

Let me just leave you with this...

November 22nd is rapidly approaching.

Think about a thread in this forum exploring Conspiracy's contribution to History.

Remember the Bay of Pigs?

"Though Douglass doesn’t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but

" – and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end - never told the President. [ii]

"The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway.

"Why?

"So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.

JFK and the Unspeakable...

Washington's national-security apparatus had decided there was no living with Castro. During the final months of the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA started planning an invasion of the island, recruiting Cuban exiles who had fled the new regime. Agency officials assured the young President who inherited the invasion plan that it was a "slam dunk," in the words of a future CIA director contemplating another ill-fated U.S. invasion. J.F.K. had deep misgivings, but unwilling to overrule his senior intelligence officials so early in his Administration, he went fatefully ahead with the plan. The doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 became the Kennedy Administration's first great trauma.

We now know—from the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005—that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedy—who was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlin—had warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.

From that point on, the Kennedy presidency became a government at war with itself.

A bitter Dulles thought Kennedy had suffered a failure of nerve and observed that he was "surrounded by doubting Thomases and admirers of Castro." The Joint Chiefs also muttered darkly about the new President. General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said "pulling out the rug [on the invaders ]was... absolutely reprehensible, almost criminal." Admiral Arleigh Burke, the Navy chief, later fumed, "Mr. Kennedy was a very bad President... He permitted himself to jeopardize the nation."

Kennedy was equally outraged at his national-security advisers. While he famously took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle in public, privately he lashed out at the Joint Chiefs and especially at the cia, threatening to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." J.F.K. never followed through on this threat, but he did eventually fire Dulles, despite his stature as a legendary spymaster, as well as Bissell.

Weeks after the Cuba fiasco, J.F.K. was still steaming, recalled his friend Assistant Navy Secretary Paul (Red) Fay years later in his memoir, The Pleasure of His Company. "Nobody is going to force me to do anything I don't think is in the best interest of the country," the President told his friend, over a game of checkers at the Kennedy-family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. "We're not going to plunge into an irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in this country puts so-called national pride above national reason. Do you think I'm going to carry on my conscience the responsibility for the wanton maiming and killing of children like our children we saw [playing] here this evening? Do you think I'm going to cause a nuclear exchange—for what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn't think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he's crazy."

Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME

 

[MajinLink]

JFK and RFK were killed long before they could help out this country. I pity us.

 

[mdn2000]

Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates.

I guess he was a liberal after all.