Pres. Ford clears his conscience? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-24-2007, 09:09 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Normal Pres. Ford clears his conscience?

This is the first anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination in which there are no surviving members of the Warren Commission.

Interesting that President Ford, the staunch defender of the work completed by the commission admits in a book released posthumously that the CIA DESTROYED EVIDENCE.

How can you defend the Warren Commission when evidence has been destroyed? How can you stand by the conclusion of the Commission when they were not given all documents?

SO the FBI (James Hosty) destroyed a note written by Oswald to him weeks prior to the assassination and Gerald Ford, Warren Commission member and President confirms that the CIA destroyed evidence, yet the American public is to believe that this is a solid case.

[Q]In this book, Ford "confirms the role of the CIA in hiding and destroying information regarding the assassination and rebuts critics and conspiracy advocates but contends with interesting specificity that Oswald was the only shooter." But his publisher, who argued with Ford over what should be included in this book and who worked minute-by-minute, the many drafts and final, published words along with the late president, disagrees.
"There was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy," says Tim Miller, CEO of FlatSigned.com. "There is no doubt that President Gerald Ford knew more about the JFK death. There is no doubt President Clinton knows more. Has he or any other US President since November 22, 1963 ever swore under oath that they know no more?"[/Q]


Well, President Ford, your conscience cannot be totally clear but it was a step in the right direction.


More and more I wonder if Oswald was an agent gone bad.



http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,227165.shtml
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-24-2007, 12:35 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Re: Pres. Ford clears his conscience?

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
This is the first anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination in which there are no surviving members of the Warren Commission.

Interesting that President Ford, the staunch defender of the work completed by the commission admits in a book released posthumously that the CIA DESTROYED EVIDENCE.

How can you defend the Warren Commission when evidence has been destroyed? How can you stand by the conclusion of the Commission when they were not given all documents?

SO the FBI (James Hosty) destroyed a note written by Oswald to him weeks prior to the assassination and Gerald Ford, Warren Commission member and President confirms that the CIA destroyed evidence, yet the American public is to believe that this is a solid case.

[Q]In this book, Ford "confirms the role of the CIA in hiding and destroying information regarding the assassination and rebuts critics and conspiracy advocates but contends with interesting specificity that Oswald was the only shooter." But his publisher, who argued with Ford over what should be included in this book and who worked minute-by-minute, the many drafts and final, published words along with the late president, disagrees.
"There was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy," says Tim Miller, CEO of FlatSigned.com. "There is no doubt that President Gerald Ford knew more about the JFK death. There is no doubt President Clinton knows more. Has he or any other US President since November 22, 1963 ever swore under oath that they know no more?"[/Q]


Well, President Ford, your conscience cannot be totally clear but it was a step in the right direction.


More and more I wonder if Oswald was an agent gone bad.



http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,227165.shtml
That's fascinating. I've been intrigued by the Kennedy assanation for about 4 years now. My Psych teacher in 12th grade, and my American History teacher in 10th, were both deeply knowledgeable and interested in it. We covered it very deeply in both classes. I've heard the official story, and the conspiracies. The conspiracy theories sound much more plausible to me. Every thing from the bullet looking as though it had never been used, and certainly like it had not passed through a human skull, to the sounds of shots coming from a place other than the book depository that could finally be heard years later on the police dictophone, things never added up. Sadly, our government has too many secrets, I think, for this ever to be investigated further on a large scale. I'm usually the first to debunk conspiracies as paranoia, but there just seems to be a darker truth behind this tragedy. The one thing that's kept me from jumping on board completely, though, is the lack of logical explanations as to why in the world, a government would want to assassinate its president.
__________________

__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 11-24-2007, 01:06 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Re: Re: Pres. Ford clears his conscience?

Quote:
Originally posted by U2isthebest
The one thing that's kept me from jumping on board completely, though, is the lack of logical explanations as to why in the world, a government would want to assassinate its president.
I believe that the prevalent motive, in this hypothetical situation, is the fear that JFK was not strong enough to fight communism. And so the CIA orchestrated his assassination in the name of "national security," you could say.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-24-2007, 01:13 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Re: Re: Re: Pres. Ford clears his conscience?

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


I believe that the prevalent motive, in this hypothetical situation, is the fear that JFK was not strong enough to fight communism. And so the CIA orchestrated his assassination in the name of "national security," you could say.
I've heard that, but it makes no sense to me. Who prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis from possibly leading to a nuclear attack on the country? It was Kennedy. God knows what could've happened if he wasn't in office. Obviously he had many advisors, but the final decision rested with him. I personally believe he made the right one. There just seems to be major holes, so to speak, in all the conspiracy explanations. I still lean much further towards that side, though, than the lone, crazed gunman explanation that the government has stood by for 44 years now.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 11-24-2007, 07:59 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pres. Ford clears his conscience?

Quote:
Originally posted by U2isthebest


I've heard that, but it makes no sense to me. Who prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis from possibly leading to a nuclear attack on the country? It was Kennedy. God knows what could've happened if he wasn't in office.
Publicly this was the immage that was engineered.

Kennedy negotiated to remove missles from Turkey if the Russians would remove the missles from Cuba. Inside the CIA/Military it led to a perception that he actually LOST ground.

This deal was not made known the the American public making the blockade look successful.

Reality- The Soviets forced him to the table to remove missles.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-24-2007, 11:15 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 07:34 PM
I was once a believer in the second gunman theory and the conspiracies.

Then I watched Penn and Teller Bullshit, and it completely shatters the second gunman theory and the magic bullet theory.

"Back and to the left" is patently untrue.

Oswald did it, alone.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 11-24-2007, 11:18 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pres. Ford clears his conscience?

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Publicly this was the immage that was engineered.

Kennedy negotiated to remove missles from Turkey if the Russians would remove the missles from Cuba. Inside the CIA/Military it led to a perception that he actually LOST ground.

This deal was not made known the the American public making the blockade look successful.

Reality- The Soviets forced him to the table to remove missles.
Not true, the missiles in Turkey were obsolete Jupiters, and the military had been planning on removing them anyways.

Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba to use them as a bargaining chip when it came to Berlin, not Turkey.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 11-25-2007, 12:16 AM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pres. Ford clears his conscience?

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


Not true, the missiles in Turkey were obsolete Jupiters, and the military had been planning on removing them anyways.

Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba to use them as a bargaining chip when it came to Berlin, not Turkey.
So, Kennedy did not remove the missiles because of the Cuban Missle Crisis?

It matters not that they were obsolete. They were installed in 1961. They were installed to make an international statment. Turkey wanted them there. They were removed becuase of the Missile Crisis. They were removed without letting the American public know this was the reason, and if I find among the two dozen books on the Kennedy Administration in my library, the quote in which they make it clear to the Soviet government that it EVER comes out publicly that there was an agreement as such, the deal was off, I will gladlyu quote it for you. If I have the time.

Yes they may have been obsolete, but ultimately, this was the deal.

Let's start here:

[Q]Ending of crisis
After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba.

At 9 a.m. on October 28, a new message from Khrushchev was broadcast on Radio Moscow. Khrushchev stated "the Soviet government, in addition to previously issued instructions on the cessation of further work at the building sites for the weapons, has issued a new order on the dismantling of the weapons which you describe as 'offensive' and their crating and return to the Soviet Union."

Kennedy immediately responded, issuing a statement calling the letter "an important and constructive contribution to peace". He continued this with a formal letter: "I consider my letter to you of October twenty-seventh and your reply of today as firm undertakings on the part of both our governments which should be promptly carried out... The U.S. will make a statement in the framework of the Security Council in reference to Cuba as follows: It will declare that the United States of America will respect the inviolability of Cuban borders, its sovereignty, that it take the pledge not to interfere in internal affairs, not to intrude themselves and not to permit our territory to be used as a bridgehead for the invasion of Cuba, and will restrain those who would plan to carry an aggression against Cuba, either from U.S. territory or from the territory of other countries neighboring to Cuba."[18]

The practical effect of this Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was that it effectively strengthened Castro's position in Cuba in that he would not be invaded by the United States. Communism would survive in the Caribbean Island. It is possible that Khrushchev only placed the missiles in Cuba to get Kennedy to remove the missiles from Turkey and that the Soviets had no intention of resorting to nuclear war when they were out-gunned by the Americans. However because the withdrawals from Turkey were not made public at the time, Khrushchev appeared to have lost the conflict and become weakened. The perception was that Kennedy had won the contest between the superpowers and Khrushchev had been humiliated. However this is not entirely the case as both Kennedy and Khrushchev took every step to avoid full out conflict despite the pressures of people in their governments. Khrushchev would hold on to power for another two years.[19]


[edit] Aftermath

President Kennedy with advisors after EXCOMM meeting on 29 October 1962 after the Cuban Missile Crisis officially ended.The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Turkey was not made public—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The Russians were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started — though if played well, it could have looked like just the opposite. Khrushchev's fall from power two years later can be partially linked to Politburo embarrassment at both Khrushchev's eventual concessions to the U.S. and his ineptitude in precipitating the crisis in the first place. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis was not solely responsible for the fall of Khrushchev. The main reason was that rival politicians such as Leonid Brezhnev believed that Khrushchev did not have enough "power" to handle international crises[citation needed].

For Cuba, it was a partial betrayal by the Soviets, given that decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev, and certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of Guantanamo, were not addressed. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion.

U.S. military commanders were not happy with the result either. General LeMay told the President that it was "the greatest defeat in our history" and that the U.S. should invade immediately. There has been speculation that there was some connection between Kennedy's policies towards Cuba and his death, but there are other Kennedy assassination theories.

The Cuban Missile Crisis spurred the creation of the "red telephone," a direct communications link between Moscow and Washington D.C. The purpose of this undersea line was to have a way the leaders of the two Cold War countries could communicate directly to better solve a crisis like the one in October 1962.

Various commentators (Melman, 1988; Hersh, 1997) also suggest that the Cuban Missile Crisis enhanced the hubris of the United States military planners, leading to military adventurism, most decidedly in the Vietnam War.

This Russo-American confrontation was synchronous with the Sino-Indian War, dating from the U.S.'s military quarantine of Cuba; historians speculate that the Chinese attack against India, for disputed land, was meant to coincide with the Cuban Missile Crisis.[20][/Q]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

Wiki will do for starters.

WHat I find interesting is the perception that they were outdated. They were obsolete in the sense that the US was FAR FAR ahead in the weapons technology of the time with subs and bombers. Soviets were outgunned. But these missiles were placed in Turkey in 1961. This to the public was a direct challenge to the Soviets. Much more of a statment than submarines.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-25-2007, 12:39 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 07:34 PM
They actually were removed because of the missile crisis, but they were scheduled for removal anyways. The Oct. 62 showdown just sped the process up somewhat. They didn't need missiles in Turkey anymore because the range of the ALBM's and IRBM's had increased to the point that they could hit the USSR from western Europe. Of course, they did not tell the Soviets that the removal was going to happen anyways, so the Soviets thought they were getting a deal.

It was good gamesmanship by the United States, but it really wasn't the Great Compromise that it's made out to be.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 11-25-2007, 09:13 AM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 01:34 AM
I don't think we'll ever know the truth. I don't buy the official "Oswald did it alone" theory.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 11-25-2007, 09:20 AM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:34 PM
You stated that I was not being truthful. I disagree.

You stated that the Cuban Missile Crisis occured because of Berlin. That is not 100% accurate.

I do not deny that it would have eventually happened. I personally think it was brilliant. But that is not the point.

1) They were placed there in Turkey in 1961 to send a message to the Soviets. In 1961 we already had the technology to launch from submerged submarines making the weapon obsolete. But the Cold War was very much a war of public perception.

The key question - Why did the US place an obsolete weapon in Turkey in 1961?

My point is, the Cold War was very much a war of perception and positioning. The obsolete weapon was placed there for a reason.

2) You stated that Berlin was the reason for the Cuban Missile Crisis. While Berlin was very much a piece of the Cold War, it is not truthful to state that the missile placement in Cuba was because of the Berlin Crisis.

There was a distinct missile gap between the Soviet Union and the US. Kennedy campaigned that we were behind, but once assuming office found that this was not true. Thre USSR had no missiles that could be fired from a submerged sub in 1961 while the US did. This was a HUGE US advantage. The Soviet response was to place missiles in Cuba.

Kruschev's letters to Kennedy at the time make no mention at all of Berlin:

[Q]Letter from Khrushchev to Kennedy

Chairman Nikita Khrushchev
October 27, 1962

Dear Mr. President:

It is with great satisfaction that I studied your reply to Mr. U Thant on the adoption of measures in order to avoid contact by our ships and thus avoid irreparable fatal consequences. This reasonable step on your part persuades me that you are showing solicitude for the preservation of peace, and I note this with satisfaction. ...

I understand your concern for the security of the United States, Mr. President, because this is the first duty of the president. However, these questions are also uppermost in our minds. The same duties rest with me as chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers. You have been worried over our assisting Cuba with arms designed to strengthen its defensive potential -- precisely defensive potential -- because Cuba, no matter what weapons it had, could not compare with you since these are different dimensions, the more so given up-to-date means of extermination.

Our purpose has been and is to help Cuba, and no one can challenge the humanity of our motives aimed at allowing Cuba to live peacefully and develop as its people desire. You want to relieve your country from danger and this is understandable. However, Cuba also wants this. All countries want to relieve themselves from danger. But how can we, the Soviet Union and our government, assess your actions which, in effect, mean that you have surrounded the Soviet Union with military bases, surrounded our allies with military bases, set up military bases literally around our country, and stationed your rocket weapons at them? This is no secret. High placed American officials demonstratively declare this. Your rockets are stationed in Britain and in Italy and pointed at us. Your rockets are stationed in Turkey.

You are worried over Cuba. You say that it worries you because it lies at a distance of 90 miles across the sea from the shores of the United States. However, Turkey lies next to us. Our sentinels are pacing up and down and watching each other. Do you believe that you have the right to demand security for your country and the removal of such weapons that you qualify as offensive, while not recognizing this right for us?

I think that one could rapidly eliminate the conflict and normalize the situation. Then people would heave a sigh of relief, considering that the statesmen who bear the responsibility have sober minds, an awareness of their responsibility, and an ability to solve complicated problems and not allow matters to slide to the disaster of war.

This is why I make this proposal: We agree to remove those weapons from Cuba which you regard as offensive weapons. We agree to do this and to state this commitment in the United Nations. Your representatives will make a statement to the effect that the United States, on its part, bearing in mind the anxiety and concern of the Soviet State, will evacuate its analogous weapons from Turkey. Let us reach an understanding on what time you and we need to put this into effect.

After this, representatives of the U.N. Security Council could control on the spot the fulfillment of these commitments. Of course, it is necessary that the Governments of Cuba and Turkey would allow these representatives to come to their countries and check fulfillment of this commitment, which each side undertakes. Apparently, it would be better if these representatives enjoyed the trust of the Security Council and ours -- the United States and the Soviet Union -- as well as of Turkey and Cuba. I think that it will not be difficult to find such people who enjoy the trust and respect of all interested sides.

We, having assumed this commitment in order to give satisfaction and hope to the peoples of Cuba and Turkey and to increase their confidence in their security, will make a statement in the Security Council to the effect that the Soviet Government gives a solemn pledge to respect the integrity of the frontiers and the sovereignty of Turkey, not to intervene in its domestic affairs, not to invade Turkey, not to make available its territory as a place d'armes for such invasion, and also will restrain those who would think of launching an aggression against Turkey either from Soviet territory or from the territory of other states bordering on Turkey.

The U.S. government will make the same statement in the Security Council with regard to Cuba. It will declare that the United States will respect the integrity of the frontiers of Cuba, and also will restrain those who would think of launching an aggression against Cuba either from U.S. territory or from the territory of other states bordering on Cuba.

Of course, for this we would have to reach agreement with you and to arrange for some deadline. Let us agree to give some time, but not to delay, two or three weeks, not more than a month. ...

All this, possibly, would serve as a good impetus to searching for mutually acceptable agreements on other disputed issues, too, on which there is an exchange of opinion between us. These problems have not yet been solved but they wait for an urgent solution which would clear the international atmosphere. We are ready for this.

These are my proposals, Mr. President.

Respectfully yours,

Nikita Khrushchev

[/Q]

Kennedymakes no mention of Turkey in his response:

[Q]President John F. Kennedy
October 27, 1962

Dear Mr. Chairman,

I have read your letter of October 26th with great care and welcomed the statement of your desire to seek a prompt solution to the problem. The first thing that needs to be done, however, is for work to cease on offensive missile bases on Cuba and for all weapons systems in Cuba capable of offensive use to be rendered inoperable, under effective United Nations arrangements.

Assuming this is done promptly, I have given my representatives in New York instructions that will permit them to work out this weekend -- in cooperation with the Acting Secretary General and your representative -- an arrangement for a permanent solution to the Cuban problem along the lines suggested in your letter of October 26th. As I read your letter, the key elements of your proposals -- which seem generally acceptable as I understand them -- are as follows:

1) You would agree to remove these weapons systems from Cuba under appropriate United Nations observation and supervision; and undertake, with suitable safeguards, to halt the further introduction of such weapons systems into Cuba.

2) We, on our part, would agree -- upon the establishment of adequate arrangements through the United Nations to ensure the carrying out and continuation of these commitments -- (a) to remove promptly the quarantine measures now in effect and (b) to give assurances against an invasion of Cuba. I am confident that other nations of the Western Hemisphere would be prepared to do likewise.

If you will give your representative similar instructions, there is no reason why we should not be able to complete these arrangements and announce them to the world within a couple of days. The effect of such a settlement on easing world tensions would enable us to work toward a more general arrangement regarding "other armaments," as proposed in your second letter which you made public. I would like to say again that the United States is very much interested in reducing tensions and halting the arms race; and if your letter signifies that you are prepared to discuss a detente affecting NATO and the Warsaw Pact, we are quite prepared to consider with our allies any useful proposals.

But the first ingredient, let me emphasize, is the cessation of work on missile sites on Cuba and measures to render such weapons inoperable, under effective international guarantees. The continuations of this threat, or prolonging of this discussion concerning Cuba by linking these problems to the broader questions of European and world security, would surely lead to the peace of the world. For this reason I hope we can quickly agree along the lines outlined in this letter of October 26th.

John F. Kennedy
[/Q]

While strategically you and I may agree the missiles were obsolete, but if this were not POLITICALLY damaging to the president why did it have to be kept so quiet? The Cold War was a war of perception. You cannot be winning the Cold War if you are giving in to pressure by the USSR. It is very clear that Turkey is not mentioned in the President's response. It is also VERY clear from the historical record, that removal of the missiles was agreed upon.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-25-2007, 12:18 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Further evidence that even though the Jupiter missiles were obsolete, it would have been political suicide for President Kennedy to let the deal go public:

[Q]But now Bundy reads part of a letter from Rusk that clarifies the situation on that grimmest of all evenings, Oct. 27. Shortly after Robert Kennedy was dispatched to put the United States ''ultimatum'' to Ambassador Dobrynin, Rusk and the President discussed what they would do if Khrushchev refused to go along. What in particular would they do if the Soviets refused to accept the ambiguously phrased ''deal'' over the Jupiters in Turkey, a deal that the United States would disown if the Kremlin ever mentioned it publicly. Would the world be plunged into war over a bunch of missiles the United States didn't even want or need anymore? [/Q]

What is interesting is that they were obsolete, no longer needed, but the administration did not want it publicly known that they had made the deal. Political perceptions in the Cold War era mattered tremendously.

The President could not afford to take that hit. He had to come out looking like he had stood up to the Soviet Union. There had been enough defeats - Bay of Pigs, Berlin, getting his as kicked at his first meeting with Kruschev. He coulod not afford to lose this political clout.

What I admire about him though is he had a backup plan. He was willing to sacrafice his political future if it meant averting war.

[Q]Now Rusk has written in his letter: ''There is a postcript which only I can furnish. It was clear to me that President Kennedy would not let the Jupiters in Turkey become an obstacle to the removal of the missile sites in Cuba because the Jupiters were coming out in any event. He instructed me to telephone the late Andrew Cordier, then at Columbia University, and dictate to him a statement which would be made by U Thant, the Secretary General of the United Nations, proposing the removal of both the Jupiters and the missiles in Cuba. Mr. Cordier was to put that statement in the hands of U Thant only after a further signal from us. That step was never taken and the statement I furnished to Mr. Cordier has never seen the light of day. So far as I know, President Kennedy, Andrew Cordier and I were the only ones who knew of this particular step.''

Rusk's letter has immediate repercussions around the table. It is a genuinely important revelation - a secret Rusk has kept for 25 years -for it indicates, as Bundy points out, that John Kennedy was ''prepared to go the extra mile to avoid a conflict, and to absorb whatever political costs that may have entailed.'' And surely there would have been some political damage from an explicit trade of American and Soviet missiles, even one initiated by U Thant. Following the earlier disclosures - of Sorensen's reading on Kennedy's willingness to ''define away'' the crisis, and the growing view that there were probably no Soviet warheads in Cuba - this reinforces the feeling here that the dangers of nuclear war during the crisis were somewhat slimmer than most analysts -not to mention most Americans - have believed. [/Q]

Dean Rusk waited 25 years to reveal that the President would have gone public to avert the war. This was the last step Kennedy was going to take to prevent a war.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print

Side bar, thanks Dave for getting me thinking about this stuff. Working in an elementary school does not give me this kind of mental excercize.

Matt
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-25-2007, 12:28 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:34 PM
I love this stuff! Ted Sorenson confesses some of the truth:

[Q]Sorensen's "Confession":

...the president [Kennedy] recognized that, for Chairman Khrushchev to withdraw the missiles from Cuba, it would be undoubtedly helpful to him if he could say at the same time to his colleagues on the Presidium, "And we have been assured that the missiles will be coming out of Turkey." And so, after the ExComm meeting [on the evening of 27 October 1962], as I'm sure almost all of you know, a small group met in President Kennedy's office, and he instructed Robert Kennedy—at the suggestion of Secretary of State [Dean] Rusk—to deliver the letter to Ambassador Dobrynin for referral to Chairman Khrushchev, but to add orally what was not in the letter: that the missiles would come out of Turkey.

Ambassador Dobrynin felt that Robert Kennedy's book did not adequately express that the "deal" on the Turkish missiles was part of the resolution of the crisis. And here I have a confession to make to my colleagues on the American side, as well as to others who are present. I was the editor of Robert Kennedy's book. It was, in fact, a diary of those thirteen days. And his diary was very explicit that this was part of the deal; but at that time it was still a secret even on the American side, except for the six of us who had been present at that meeting. So I took it upon myself to edit that out of his diaries, and that is why the Ambassador is somewhat justified in saying that the diaries are not as explicit as his conversation. [/Q]

Other first hand recollections:

[Q]Accounts of Former U.S. Officials:




McGeorge Bundy:
... Later [on Saturday], accepting a proposal from Dean Rusk, [John F.] Kennedy instructed his
brother to tell Ambassador Dobrynin that while there could be no bargain over the missiles that had been supplied to Turkey, the president himself was determined to have them removed and would attend to the matter once the present crisis was resolved—as long as no one in Moscow called that action part of a bargain. [p. 406]

...The other part of the oral message [to Dobrynin] was proposed by Dean Rusk: that we should tell Khrushchev that while there could be no deal over the Turkish missiles, the president was determined to get them out and would do so once the Cuban crisis was resolved. The proposal was quickly supported by the rest of us [in addition to Bundy and Rusk, those present included President Kennedy, McNamara, RFK, George Ball, Roswell Gilpatrick, Llewellyn Thompson, and Theodore Sorensen]. Concerned as we all were by the cost of a public bargain struck under pressure at the apparent expense of the Turks, and aware as we were from the day's discussion that for some, even in our own closest councils, even this unilateral private assurance might appear to betray an ally, we agreed without hesitation that no one not in the room was to be informed of this additional message. Robert Kennedy was instructed to make it plain to Dobrynin that the same secrecy must be observed on the other side, and that any Soviet reference to our assurance would simply make it null and void. [pp. 432-441

.. There was no leak. As far as I know, none of the nine of us told anyone else what had happened. We denied in every forum that there was any deal, and in the narrowest sense what we said was usually true, as far as it went. When the orders were passed that the Jupiters must come out, we gave the plausible and accurate—if incomplete—explanation that the missile crisis had convinced the president once and for all that he did not want those missiles there.... [p. 434]

[from McGeorge Bundy, Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years (New York: Random House, 1988]
[/Q]


Dobrynin's Cable to the Soviet Foreign
Ministry, 27 October 1962:

[Q]However, taking time to find a way out [of the situation] is very risky (here R. Kennedy mentioned as if in passing that there are many unreasonable heads among the generals, and not only among the generals, who are itching for a fight'). The situation might get out of control, with irreversible consequences."

"In this regard," R. Kennedy said,' the president considers that a suitable basis for regulating the entire Cuban conflict might be the letter N.S. Khrushchev sent on October.26 and the letter in response from the President. which was sent off today to N.S. Khrushchev through the US Embassy in Moscow. The most important thing for us,' R. Kennedy stressed, "is to get as soon as possible the agreement of the Soviet government to halt further work on the construction of the missile bases in Cuba and take measures under international control that would make it impossible to use these weapons. In exchange the government of the USA is ready, in addition to repealing all measures on the "quarantine," to give the assurances that there will not be any invasion of Cuba and that other countries of the Western Hemisphere are ready to give the same assurances—the US government is certain of this."

"And what about Turkey?" I asked R. Kennedy.

"If that is the only obstacle to achieving the regulation I mentioned earlier, then the president doesn't see any unsurmountable difficulties in resolving this issue," replied R. Kennedy. "The greatest difficulty for the president is the public discussion of the issue of Turkey. Formally the deployment of missile bases in Turkey was done by a special decision of the NATO Council. To announce now a unilateral decision by the president of the USA to withdraw missile bases from Turkey—this would damage the entire structure of NATO and the US position as the leader of NATO, where, as the Soviet government knows very well, there are many arguments. In short. if such a decision were announced now it would seriously tear apart NATO."

"However, President Kennedy is ready to come to agree on that question with N.S. Khrushchev, too. I think that in order to withdraw these bases from Turkey," R. Kennedy said, 'we need 4-5 months. This is the minimal amount of time necessary for the US government to do this, taking into account the procedures that exist within the NATO framework. On the whole Turkey issue," R. Kennedy added, "if Premier N.S. Khrushchev agrees with what I've said, we can continue to exchange opinions between him and the president, using him, R. Kennedy and the Soviet ambassador. ''However, the president can't say anything public in this regard about Turkey," R. Kennedy said again. R. Kennedy then warned that his comments about Turkey are extremely confidential; besides him and his brother, only 2-3 people know about it in Washington.

"That's all that he asked me to pass on to N.S. Khrushchev," R. Kennedy said in conclusion. [/Q]
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-25-2007, 12:29 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:34 AM
I don't know who to believe. I remember the assassination. The press just showed Oswald doing the killing, and that's all I know.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-25-2007, 12:44 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Well, the most recent book by Bugliosi really makes an OUTSTANDING case that Oswald acted alone.

What troubles me more than anything is the fact that the CIA and the FBI destroyed evidence.

COuld it have been evidence that connected the dots that they (like 9/11) missed important stuff that could have prevented the situation?

Could it have been that Oswald was indeed an agent gone bad?

-------


I do not have doubt as to Oswald's involvment, as some do. I just do not know how we are to buy the results of the investigation when we know evidence was destroyed, but we do not know why.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com