Kennedy Lied, People Died-and the Media Covered it Up

I refer, of course, to the Bay of Pigs freedom-fight, 57 years ago this week. Given that Hollywood and the mainstream media have finally gotten around to revealing the hideous truth about a Kennedy’s perfidy and how the media/Democrat complex helped cover it up (Teddy, Chappaquiddick)—who knows? Perhaps one day they’ll level with us about what REALLY happened at the Bay of Pigs?

``I really admire toughness and courage, and I will tell you that the people of this brigade (Brigada 2506) really have that…you were let down by our country.'' (Donald Trump, addressing Bay of Pigs Veterans at Bay of Pigs museum Miami Fl, 11/16, 1999.)

“It’s a great honor and I’m humbled for this endorsement from these freedom fighters—from TRUE freedom fighters… You were fighting for the values of freedom and liberty that unite us all. (Candidate Donald Trump, receiving endorsement of Bay of Pigs Veterans at Bay of Pigs museum Miami Fl, 11/16, 2016.)

But let’s not hold our breath about the Hollywood/Media complex finally coming clean about the Bay of Pigs as it just did about Chappaquiddick. So until that day arrives, here it is:

No, the invasion was not “doomed” from the beginning because of Castro’s “popular support” in Cuba—as the Media/Democrat complex would have you believe.

No, the invasion was not “doomed” because the original CIA/Military plans were “faulty”—as the Media/Democrat complex would have you believe.

No, the “formerly rich, pampered and effete” Cuban invaders did not “quickly surrender,” as the Media/Democrat complex would have you believe.

In fact, it was the voluntary actions of a Kennedy that lead to doom, same as at Chappaquiddick.

"WHAT?! Are they NUTS?!” bellowed Brigade Air Force chief Reid Doster form Guatemala when he learned that Kennedy had canceled most of the vital airstrikes to destroy Castro’s small air force before the invasion. “There goes the whole f***ing war!"

“Where are the planes?” kept crackling over U.S. Navy radios two days later. “Where is our ammo? Send planes or we can’t last!” Brigade Commander Jose San Roman kept pleading to the very fleet U.S. that escorted his men to the beachhead. Crazed by hunger and thirst, his men had been shooting and reloading without sleep for three days. Many were hallucinating. By then many suspected they’d been abandoned by the Knights of Camelot.

That’s when Castro’s Soviet Howitzers opened up, huge 122 mm ones, four batteries’ worth. They pounded 2,000 rounds into the freedom-fighters over a four-hour period. “It sounded like the end of the world,” one said later. “Rommel’s crack Afrika Corps broke and ran under a similar bombardment,” wrote Haynes Johnson in his book, the Bay of Pigs. By that time the invaders were dazed, delirious with fatigue, thirst and hunger, too deafened by the bombardment to even hear orders. But these men (representing every race and social class in Cuba) were in no mood to emulate Rommel’s crack Afrika Corps by retreating. Instead they were fortified by a resolve no conquering troops could ever call upon–the burning duty to free their nation.

"If things get rough," the heartsick CIA man Grayston Lynch radioed back, "we can come in and evacuate you."

"We will NOT be evacuated!" San Roman roared back to his friend Lynch. "We came here to fight! We don't want evacuation! We want more ammo! We want PLANES! This ends here!"

Camelot’s criminal idiocy finally brought Adm. Arleigh Burke of the Joints Chief of Staff, who was receiving the battlefield pleas, to the brink of mutiny. Years before, Adm. Burke sailed thousands of miles to smash his nation's enemies at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Now he was Chief of Naval Operations and stood aghast as new enemies were being given a sanctuary 90 miles away! The fighting admiral was livid. They say his face was beet red and his facial veins popping as he faced down his commander-in-chief that fateful night of April 18, 1961. "Mr. President, TWO planes from the Essex! (the U.S. Carrier just offshore from the beachhead)" that's all those Cuban boys need, Mr. President. Let me order...!"

JFK was in white tails and a bow tie that evening, having just emerged from an elegant social gathering. "Burke," he replied. "We can't get involved in this."

"WE put those Cuban boys there, Mr. President!" The fighting admiral exploded. "By God, we ARE involved!"

Admiral Burke’s pleas also proved futile.

The freedom-fighters’ spent ammo inevitably forced a retreat. Castro's jets and Sea Furies were roaming overhead at will and tens of thousands of his Soviet-led and armed troops and armor were closing in. The Castro planes now concentrated on strafing the helpless, ammo-less freedom-fighters.

"Can't continue,” Lynch's radio crackled - it was San Roman again. "Have nothing left to fight with ...out of ammo...Russian tanks in view....destroying my equipment.”

"Tears flooded my eyes," wrote Grayston Lynch. "For the first time in my 37 years I was ashamed of my country."

When the smoke cleared and their ammo had been expended to the very last bullet, when a hundred of them lay dead and hundreds more wounded, after three days of relentless battle, barely 1,400 of them -- without air support (from the U.S. Carriers just offshore) and without a single supporting shot by naval artillery (from U.S. cruisers and destroyers poised just offshore) -- had squared off against 21,000 Castro troops, his entire air force and squadrons of Soviet tanks. The Cuban freedom-fighters inflicted over 3000 casualties on their Soviet-armed and led enemies. This feat of arms still amazes professional military men.

“They fought magnificently and were not defeated,” stressed Marine Col. Jack Hawkins a multi-decorated WWII and Korea vet who helped train them. “They were abandoned on the beach without the supplies and support promised by their sponsor, the Government of the United States.”

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty!" proclaimed Lynch and Hawkin’s Commander-in-Chief just three months earlier.

Absent Lincoln, there’d be no United States in its present form.

That is likely true, but you can't use a future event to justify past misconduct. Perhaps a rape produces a pregnancy which becomes a wonderful human being that saves millions. It still does not justify the rape.

I’m always curious what a person who views Lincoln as the “worst” considers what a viable alternative to him would’ve been and the consequences of such.

Well the "worst" part is his starting a war that killed 750,000 people directly, and possibly another 2 million indirectly, as well as destroying the original foundational principle of our own government (that people have a right to independence) and establishing Washington DC as a seat of power that was never intended by the Founders. States rights have been effectively revoked, and their sovereignty has been surrendered.

The overbearing Federal leviathan was more or less the consequence of Lincoln usurping for his government more powers than the Federal government was ever intended to have.

Add to this the corruption and influence trading his government established, and it pretty much becomes the root cause of most of the problems we are facing nowadays.

Lincoln not only got a lot of people killed needlessly, he created the Federal monster with which we have to deal today. People blame Wilson, but it really started with Lincoln.

It’s unfortunate that Lincoln can very well be classified as both the best and the worst as a result of his election and administration. It’s a very complicated situation, but frankly, a lot of it was merely the “perfect storm” of delaying dealing with the issue of slavery until both sides could not longer tolerate the other.

Had it been abolished at our founding, so much would’ve been avoided, but that was not possible without a decided split between the colonies, and disunity would’ve allowed a victory for the British monarchy.

The South was clearly playing with fire, and in areas where you had free Whites outnumbered by slaves by margins as high as 10-to-1 (such as Charleston), how long did they think they could maintain a status quo before you had a Haitian situation or more Nat Turner uprisings ? Even without arms, sheer numbers of people could use brute force and then obtain said arms.

As I’ve addressed in other posts, though, the North was hypocritical as well. They abhorred slavery, BUT, did not want an exodus of ex-slaves to their hometowns. They were fine with Black folks so long as there were few nearby and the remainder far, far away from them (something even the Black comedian and satirist Dick Gregory observed as late as the 1960s).

The election of subpar to near-incompetent Presidents from 1836 to 1856 didn’t help matters, delaying what was the inevitable. If only because both the Whigs and the Democrats had balances between their pro-slave and anti-slave wings forced both parties to have to appeal to both sides, allowing for that corrosive status quo to continue.

The explicit creation of the Republicans with the collapse of the Whigs, allowing for a singular anti-slave party meant that the election of even one would spark a war. Had Millard Fillmore not tried a third-party bid in 1856 with the remnants of the Whigs continuing to try for a status quo situation, it would’ve just as easily begun with a President Fremont, and hence would’ve been on his head instead.

There was no one really in 1860 that could’ve stopped the inevitable. Perhaps John Bell (the nominee from my state of TN, whom I would’ve voted for, however futile that would’ve been — of course Lincoln was not on the ballot in TN and Bell was closest to the GOP even as an ex-Whig Constitutionalist), but that again would’ve merely delayed the situation to 1864.

Southern Democrats wouldn’t even tolerate the moderate Stephen Douglas. If the Senator from Illinois had managed to put together a coalition to win, the South would’ve considered him virtually as intolerable as Lincoln. Breckinridge ? Utterly intolerable to the Northern states and likely would’ve faced impeachment with a GOP Congress.

So, then, back to Lincoln. But, again, what was he to do ? If he sat back and allowed 11 states to secede without doing anything, he’d have presided over the effective dissolution of the nation. It would’ve been viewed by the North as gutless, cowardly and perhaps even treasonous. Such weak leadership, again, would’ve almost guaranteed his impeachment. Worse, yet, other states might’ve fully defected as well (MO, KY, MD, DE) and swaths of Southern-sympathizing areas in IL, IN and OH. DC itself would’ve been completely surrounded by enemy territory and likely would’ve resulted in the federal government having to retreat and relocate back to Philadelphia.

Any of that would’ve meant Southern victory outright. With a weakened North, that would’ve emboldened the South to go on an unprecedented territorial gobble, first with Caribbean interests (Cuba), then Mexico (as it was 20 years earlier, Southern interests wanted to annex most of Northern Mexico), and clear down Central America to the Colombian border. You’d also have had skirmishes and battles with the aforementioned weakened North to obtain Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California.

Perhaps, even audacious attempts to move on to South America. Of course, in doing all of this, the Whites would’ve been in the decided minority in such a new country, with a large group of Blacks and Native Indians, with the latter probably being formally swallowed up into a new class of slavery (however longer that would’ve lasted).

By the 20th century, the CSA would’ve probably been closer to Mexico in style and substance. An aristocracy in control of the nation with a gargantuan underclass and probably astronomical crime levels. Likely a third-world country.

The greatly shrunken USA might’ve been more like a slightly stronger version of Canada. Curiously, they’d have likely been the ones to build a wall along the border to keep Southern refugees out (read: Blacks and Indians).

If history had unfolded as it did in Europe and Asia, I don’t think the USA alone would’ve been able to stand up to Hitler, et al. Indeed, it’s even conceivable the CSA might’ve aligned itself with Germany in both wars and we’d have had yet more war between the USA and CSA.

Excuse me for going off on a tangent here. Despite all the problems that Lincoln spurred on in keeping the country together, I’d think we’d be in such a vastly different reality today to the point that it would’ve been far worse. We can only speculate, of course. I do rank Lincoln as “Great”, but with a cost, only one that might’ve been easier to pay than had he failed to win the war.

As I’ve addressed in other posts, though, the North was hypocritical as well.

Wrong. The North didn't bring them here and wasn't responsible for them. The slave owners who controlled the South bare 100% responsibility for the war, remember no one was gonna take their slaves but they were unwilling to let their political and economic power continue to decline. Bunch of Soroses.

Opposing human bondage and not wanting indigent ex-slaves to live next door to you and take jobs in your area are not morally incongruous positions any more than opposing abortion and not supporting the government paying for every crack whore's kid are morally incongruous positions.

You try too hard to be even handed. And way too many people of Southern extraction needlessly defend that rebellion for no better reason than silly pride that their ancestors couldn't have possibly been on "the wrong side". Rebelling so slavery could be expanded is not a defensible position, which is why we always hear nonsense propaganda about how the war wasn't really about slavery. Neo-Confederate Romanticism does nothing but make us look bad.

Correct. There was no one who could have stopped the war in 1860.

James Huston’s book, “Calculating the Value of Union” is exceptionally good (even though he goes off the rails at the end) in that he makes clear that the issue, deep down, was the definition of “property.”

Was a human “property?” Half the states and about 1/3 of the white population said “yes.” The problem arose that with the Missouri Compromise territory opening up, those numbers were about to drop precipitously. Thus the incredible fight over such a relatively meaningless territory as Kansas.

Ultimately as Huston shows, if slaves got into the territories, it would be impossible legally and philosophically to keep them out of the north. After all, a chair in Alabama is a chair in Utah is a chair in Ohio. On the other hand, if slaves could be legally and philosophically prohibited in the territories once and for all, there was no way the slave states could keep abolition out of the south.

The 11 states that made up the Confederacy were the riches region in the country PURELY due to the value of land and slaves. For example, slaves and land values in the South surpassed ALL railroads and textile mills in the North in 1850. By 1860, of the 11 wealthiest states in the union, 10 were in the South.

Changing this definition of property would vastly change the wealth differential between the two sections. While ultimately I do believe the war was about an idea, on a more basic level it was about the South protecting its wealth, pure and simple.

Not quite so. The North did have slavery, too, though they abolished it state-by-state. For them, it wasn’t financially feasible, not necessarily because of higher moral standards. I guarantee if you had swapped folks from one region to the other, they could’ve easily switched positions if their financial situation were at stake. The North also benefitted from slavery, too. Northern mills and factories got the “product” from down south.

As for opposing human bondage and not wanting “those people” near you when you beat the drum of equality DOES make for epic level hypocrisy. We’re not talking about crack whores and their kids (that’s a helluva comparison, dude !), but people wanting to flee an area where they’re not welcome and perhaps in danger of their lives and likely wanting to get educated and better themselves and become prosperous. They wanted neither the indigents (understandable) nor the ones who wanted to better themselves (plain racist).

True, some of the antebellum romanticization is a bit hard to swallow (especially considering the tinderbox they were sitting on, ready to go up in flames at the first spark), but so is the farcical claim of nobility and superior morality of the North. Each had their own issues and foibles. If Northerners had been given a free decision as to whether they wished to go South to fight, if Lincoln had said, “To free the slaves”, very few would’ve done so. It had to be done under the aegis of “Union, one and inseparable.” That they could agree to.

Remember, most Southerners did not own slaves, and Lincoln badly miscalculated when he thought he could drive a wedge between the slaveholding class and non-slaveholders in getting their fellow Southerners to rise up against the former. Southerners overwhelming saw it as an invasion by a dictatorial and hypocritical North. Lincoln himself said if he could’ve kept the union together without freeing a slave, he’d have done it. That was still the old Whig in him straddling the fence.

As for trying too hard to be even handed, I consider that a compliment. After all, if I’m attempting to analyze it through a historian’s perspective, shouldn’t I be ?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.