Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Kennedy had not been shot, would you in 1964 have voted for the guy who had invaded Cuba? (nt) (Original Post) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 OP
Absolutely! leftofcool Mar 2015 #1
Yes. He kept the world out of World War III over the Bay of Pigs. Octafish Mar 2015 #2
Ah, he was duped, by false information, into supporting an ill-advised invasion. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #6
Duped, disinformed, misinformed, and omitted from the loop. Octafish Mar 2015 #18
Not comparable to anything now-at least not to anything with HRC or Obama. n/t. Ken Burch Mar 2015 #28
Pictures of the Bay of Pigs former9thward Mar 2015 #36
Thank you, former9thward! Octafish Mar 2015 #38
I was there 'illegally'. former9thward Mar 2015 #40
I just finished the Stephen King on the subject so I know that if Kennedy had not been shot Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #3
SUCH a good book! wyldwolf Mar 2015 #5
I LOVED that book. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #8
Great book and pipi_k Mar 2015 #10
You mean THAT guy? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #4
Yes. NV Whino Mar 2015 #7
Let me know when other posters ease up on ya. Rex Mar 2015 #9
No (nt) bigwillq Mar 2015 #11
Absolutely not. Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #12
Over Goldwater? Of course. HuckleB Mar 2015 #13
The guy who faced down Krushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis? Founder of the Peace Corps? Him? Hekate Mar 2015 #14
Silly. H2O Man Mar 2015 #15
When Kennedy was inaugurated he was told by Dick Bissell of the CIA hifiguy Mar 2015 #16
I find this question rather bizarre MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #17
No. But, I was only 20 at the time. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #19
No way. I voted when Kennedy was first elected RebelOne Mar 2015 #20
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #21
Considering that I was two... Thor_MN Mar 2015 #22
No Spirochete Mar 2015 #23
He refused to back up partisans with air power etc Omaha Steve Mar 2015 #24
Simple answer. Those here who rant against Hillary and Obama would not have voted for him. stevenleser Mar 2015 #25
Who was the invader? Historic NY Mar 2015 #26
Over Goldwater? Yes! n/m El Supremo Mar 2015 #27
My parents aren't even that old. LeftyMom Mar 2015 #29
Now look here young lady, I'll have you know, Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #34
This OP is just baiting. Ken Burch Mar 2015 #30
I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine... CanadaexPat Mar 2015 #31
The bay of pigs guy? No. But the Missles of October guy? YES! HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #32
Fact is we never would have had the chance to vote for him in 1964. roamer65 Mar 2015 #33
Based on anything besides your imagination? brooklynite Mar 2015 #35
You watched "Seven Days in May" didn't you? KinMd Mar 2015 #37
JFK was so impressed with book, he let Frankenheimer film in White House. Octafish Mar 2015 #39
Have not seen or read it. roamer65 Mar 2015 #41

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
2. Yes. He kept the world out of World War III over the Bay of Pigs.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:21 PM
Mar 2015

I'd wonder why he had done something so undemocratic, overthrowing a sovereign country. Turns out CIA director Allen Dulles said it'd be a slam-dunk, without help from US armed forces. He lied, Big Time. In fact, his "mistake" in retrospect looks like treason.



Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 29, 2000; A04

Shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961, a top CIA official told an investigative commission that the Soviet Union had
somehow learned the exact date of the amphibious landing in advance, according to a newly declassified version of the commission's final report.

Moreover, the CIA apparently had known of the leak to the Soviets--and went ahead with the invasion anyway.

In an effort to oust Fidel Castro, the CIA organized and trained a force of about 1,400 Cuban exiles and launched the invasion on April 17, 1961.

Castro's soldiers easily repelled the landing force in less than 72 hours, killing 200 rebels and capturing 1,197 others in what became one of the worst foreign policy blunders of the Cold War.

The investigative commission, chaired by Gen. Maxwell Taylor, was established almost immediately and held a series of secret hearings at the Pentagon before sending a sharply critical report to President Kennedy in June 1961.

CONTINUED…

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/bay-of-pigs/soviets.htm



A year later, the Missile Crisis erupts, giving him another opportunity. Again, he said, "No." In neither situation did JFK order an all-out attack, which is what those at CIA and the Pentagon wanted.

CIA director Allen Dulles and Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer (before they got canned over the Bay of Pigs) had recommended to JFK that the best thing for him to do as President was to launch an all-out sneak attack on the Soviet Union. This pre-emptive war would not be over Cuba, but rather because the USSR posed an existential threat to the USA and, thus, should be attacked when our nuclear superiority was at a maximum, "some time in Fall 1963."



Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963



Glad JFK said, "No."

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
6. Ah, he was duped, by false information, into supporting an ill-advised invasion.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:24 PM
Mar 2015

Plus ca change......

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
18. Duped, disinformed, misinformed, and omitted from the loop.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:38 PM
Mar 2015

And they said nothing to him about having contracted the Mafia to kill Fidel Castro in 1960. For some reason, the CIA continues to maintain the fiction that he had ordered that assassination program.

Funny how they still to this very day try to make out that it was JFK's idea.



AUG 1960: Richard Bissell meets with Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, and discusses with him ways to eliminate or assassinate Fidel Castro. Edwards proposes that the job be done by assassins hand-picked by the American underworld, specifically syndicate interests who have been driven out of their Havana gambling casinos by the Castro regime. Bissell gives Edwards the go-ahead to proceed. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursues a series of plots to poison or shot Castro. The CIA’s own internal report on these efforts states that these plots "were viewed by at least some of the participants as being merely one aspect of the over-all active effort to overthrow the regime that culminated in the Bay of Pigs." (CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3, 14)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/chron.html



Details on the actual sit-down, which to an amateur democratic detective interested in justice would seem like a lead worth pursuing:



Ever wonder about the sanity of America's leaders? Take a close look at perhaps the most bizarre plot in U.S. intelligence history

By Bryan Smith
Chicago Magazine
November 2007
(page 4 of 6)

EXCERPT...

By September 1960, the project was proceeding apace. Roselli would report directly to Maheu. The first step was a meeting in New York. There, at the Plaza Hotel, Maheu introduced Roselli to O'Connell. The agent wanted to cover up the participation of the CIA, so he pretended to be a man named Jim Olds who represented a group of wealthy industrialists eager to get rid of Castro so they could get back in business.

"We may know some people," Roselli said. Several weeks later, they all met at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami. For years, the luxurious facility had served as the unofficial headquarters for Mafioso leaders seeking a base close to their gambling interests in Cuba. Now, it would be the staging area for the assassination plots.

At a meeting in one of the suites, Roselli introduced Maheu to two men: Sam Gold and a man Roselli referred to as Joe, who could serve as a courier to Cuba. By this time, Roselli was on to O'Connell. "I'm not kidding," Roselli told the agent one day. "I know who you work for. But I'm not going to ask you to confirm it."

Roselli may have figured out that he was dealing with the CIA, but neither Maheu nor O'Connell realized the rank of mobsters with whom they were dealing. That changed when Maheu picked up a copy of the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade, which carried an article laying out the FBI's ten most wanted criminals. Leading the list was Sam Giancana, a.k.a. "Mooney," a.k.a. "Momo," a.k.a. "Sam the Cigar," a Chicago godfather who was one of the most feared dons in the country—and the man who called himself Sam Gold. "Joe" was also on the list. His real name, however, was Santos Trafficante—the outfit's Florida and Cuba chieftain.

Maheu alerted O'Connell. "My God, look what we're involved with," Maheu said. O'Connell told his superiors. Questioned later before the 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (later nicknamed the Church Committee after its chairman, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho), O'Connell was asked whether there had ever been any discussion about asking two men on the FBI's most wanted list to carry out a hit on a foreign leader.

"Not with me there wasn't," O'Connell answered.

"And obviously no one said stop—and you went ahead."

"Yes."

"Did it bother you at all?"

"No," O'Connell answered, "it didn't."


CONTINUED...

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2007/How-the-CIA-Enlisted-the-Chicago-Mob-to-Put-a-Hit-on-Castro/index.php?cparticle=4&siarticle=3



Yet, for some reason, the CIA continues to the present day to imply that it was Kennedy who did that.



Spies: Ex-CIA Agent In Raleigh Says Castro Knew About JFK Assassination Ahead Of Time

Former CIA agent and author Brian Latell in Raleigh

By The Raleigh Telegram

RALEIGH – A noted former Central Intelligence Agency officer, author, and scholar who is intimately knowledgeable about Cuba and Fidel Castro, says he believes there is evidence that Castro’s government knew about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 ahead of time.

SNIP...

Robert Kennedy, as the Attorney General of the United States, was in charge of the operation, said Latell. Despite the United States’ best efforts, the operation was nonetheless penetrated by Cuban intelligence agents, said Latell.

Latell said there were two serious assassination attempts by the United States against Castro that even used members of the mafia to help, but both of them were obviously unsuccessful.

He also said that there was a plot by the United States to have Castro jabbed with a pen containing a syringe filled with a very effective poison. Latell said that he believes the experienced assassin who worked for Castro who originally agreed to the plan may have been a double agent. After meeting with a personal representative of Robert Kennedy in Paris, the man knew that the plan to assassinate Castro came from the highest levels of the government, including John F. and Robert Kennedy.

The plan was never carried out, as the man later defected to the United States, but with so many double agents working for Castro also pledging allegiance to the CIA, Latell said it was likely that the information got back to Havana that the Kennedy brothers endorsed that plot with the pen.

CONTINUED...

http://raleightelegram.com/201209123311



Yet, the Mighty Wurlitzer cough Shenon plays the false tune that Kennedy was the guy who wanted Castro dead.



What the Warren Commission Didn’t Know

A member of the panel that investigated JFK’s death now worries he was a victim of a “massive cover-up.”

By PHILIP SHENON
February 02, 2015

EXCERPT...

Slawson feels betrayed by several senior government officials, especially at the CIA, whom he says he trusted in 1964 to tell the truth. He is most angry with one man—then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who assured the commission during the investigation that he knew of no evidence of a conspiracy in his brother’s death. It is now clear, as I and others have reported, that Robert Kennedy withheld vital information from the investigation: While he publicly supported the commission’s findings, Kennedy’s family and friends have confirmed in recent years that he was in fact harshly critical of the commission and believed that the investigation had missed evidence that might have pointed to a conspiracy.

“What a bastard,” Slawson says today of Robert Kennedy. “This is a man I once had admiration for.”

Slawson theorizes that that attorney general and the CIA worked together to hide information about Oswald’s Mexico trip from the commission because they feared that the investigation might stumble onto the fact that JFK’s administration had been trying, for years, sometimes with the help of the Mafia, to assassinate Castro. Mexico had been a staging area for the Castro plots. Public disclosure of the plots, Slawson says, could have derailed, if not destroyed, Robert Kennedy’s political career; he had led his brother’s secret war against Castro and, as declassified documents would later show, was well aware of the Mafia’s involvement in the CIA’s often harebrained schemes to murder the Cuban dictator. “You can’t distinguish between Bobby and the CIA on this,” Slawson says. “They were working hand in glove to hide information from us.”

Although there is nothing in the public record to show that Robert Kennedy had specific evidence of a foreign conspiracy in his brother’s death, I agree with Slawson that RFK and senior CIA officials threw the commission off the trail of witnesses and evidence that might have pointed to a conspiracy, especially in Mexico. Slawson also now suspects—but admits again that he cannot prove—that Chief Justice Earl Warren, who led the commission that bore his name, was an unwitting participant in the cover-up, agreeing with the CIA or RFK to make sure that the commission did not pursue certain evidence. Warren, he suspects, was given few details about why the commission’s investigation had to be limited. “He was probably just told that vital national interests” were at stake—that certain lines of investigation in Mexico had to be curtained because they might inadvertently reveal sensitive U.S. spy operations.

That might explain what Slawson saw as Warren’s most baffling decision during the investigation—his refusal to allow Slawson to interview a young Mexican woman who worked in the Cuban consulate in Mexico and who dealt face-to-face with Oswald on his visa application; declassified CIA records would later suggest that Oswald had a brief affair with the woman, who was herself a committed Socialist, and that she had introduced him to a network of other Castro supporters in Mexico. “It was a different time,” Slawson says. “We were more naïve. Warren would have believed what he was told.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/warren-commission-jfk-investigators-114812_Page2.html#.VN982vnF-UV



Why would CIA not want the Warren Commission, and the American public to which it reported, know the truth about its illegal assassination program?

former9thward

(31,974 posts)
36. Pictures of the Bay of Pigs
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:16 AM
Mar 2015




Top picture is where the assault forces landed. Bottom picture is the sugar cane factory where Castro made his headquarters when the invasion happened. I took these pictures in 1995.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
38. Thank you, former9thward!
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:38 AM
Mar 2015

Great photographs that make me feel like we are standing there. Cuba is a beautiful place, one I hope to visit. Were you there as an academic or on a cultural exchange?

For some reason, my goverment dorsn't want me tio know socialism works. Anyway, some more secret government for a stronger democracy:



CIA SUCCESSFULLY CONCEALS BAY OF PIGS HISTORY

D.C. CIRCUIT SPLIT DECISION RULES CIA DRAFT HISTORY CAN BE KEPT SECRET INDEFINITELY

NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FOIA LAWSUIT EXPOSES GAP BETWEEN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S "TRANSPARENCY" POLICIES AND ACTUAL BUREAUCRATIC (AND JUDICIAL) BEHAVIOR


Posted May 21, 2014
For more information contact:
202/994-7000 or nsarchiv@gwu.edu

Washington, DC, May 21, 2014 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit yesterday joined the CIA's cover-up of its Bay of Pigs disaster in 1961 by ruling that a 30-year-old volume of the CIA's draft "official history" could be withheld from the public under the "deliberative process" privilege, even though four of the five volumes have previously been released with no harm either to national security or any government deliberation.

"The D.C. Circuit's decision throws a burqa over the bureaucracy," said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org), the plaintiff in the case. "Presidents only get 12 years after they leave office to withhold their deliberations," commented Blanton, "and the Federal Reserve Board releases its verbatim transcripts after five years. But here the D.C. Circuit has given the CIA's historical office immortality for its drafts, because, as the CIA argues, those drafts might 'confuse the public.'"

"Applied to the contents of the National Archives of the United States, this decision would withdraw from the shelves more than half of what's there," Blanton concluded.

The 2-1 decision, authored by Judge Brett Kavanaugh (a George W. Bush appointee and co-author of the Kenneth Starr report that published extensive details of the Monica Lewinsky affair), agreed with Justice Department and CIA lawyers that because the history volume was a "pre-decisional and deliberative" draft, its release would "expose an agency's decision making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions."

SNIP...

Prior to yesterday's decision, the Obama administration had bragged that reducing the government's invocation of the b-5 exemption was proof of the impact of the President's Day One commitment to a "presumption of disclosure." Instead, the bureaucracy has actually increased in the last two years its use of the b-5 exemption, which current White House counselor John Podesta once characterized as the "withhold if you want to" exemption.

CONTINUED...

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20140521/

Gosh. What does Volume V contain that is so sensitive?


former9thward

(31,974 posts)
40. I was there 'illegally'.
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:58 AM
Mar 2015

I was there by myself and they let me go anyplace on the island I wanted to go. One such place was the Bay of Pigs where non-Cubans normally don't go. I had heard they had a good museum there about the event.

This is a photo of the Museum of the Bay of Pigs. Very interesting place with a lot of information about the invasion and a bunch of artifacts from the event.



Speaking of Cuba, yes it is a very beautiful place to visit. I visited a tobacco field and everyone rushed out of the field when they saw me with a camera. No one had ever taken their picture before.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
3. I just finished the Stephen King on the subject so I know that if Kennedy had not been shot
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:22 PM
Mar 2015

The Yellow Card Man would lose track of the strings and mayhem would ensue. Jimla unleashed. End of the world and of worlds.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
8. I LOVED that book.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:25 PM
Mar 2015

As good as anything King has ever written. My only complaint was that at some point the guy should have said "hey, this is kind of like Back to the Future 2!"

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
4. You mean THAT guy?
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:23 PM
Mar 2015

The tax cutter? The strong anti-communist? The guy who aggressively increased military spending 50 percent of federal expenditures and 9 percent of GDP, both far higher than today’s levels) ?

The guy who said "I'm not a liberal at all. I'm not comfortable with those people"?

Yup, I would have voted for him.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
12. Absolutely not.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:51 PM
Mar 2015

I was only 20 that fall & the voting age was 21. Also, I hadn't awoken from my proto-libertarian stupor by that point in my life.

Hekate

(90,642 posts)
14. The guy who faced down Krushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis? Founder of the Peace Corps? Him?
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:32 PM
Mar 2015

Absolutely -- except I was only 16 when he was assassinated the previous year.

I believe he deserved a second term and I didn't even know he was going to pull us out of Vietnam.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
16. When Kennedy was inaugurated he was told by Dick Bissell of the CIA
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:50 PM
Mar 2015

and military chieftains that there was "no way to stop" the Bay of Pigs invasion. That has been chronicled in more history books than I can count, but I read it most recently in "The Brothers" by Stephen Kinzer. The brass and the CIA lied their asses off to JFK.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
17. I find this question rather bizarre
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:53 PM
Mar 2015

What are you inferring about Kennedy's decision during the Bay of Pigs?

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
19. No. But, I was only 20 at the time.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:47 PM
Mar 2015

I was in the marines in '64 and I thought the invasion of Cuba was, at best, downright stupid and colonialism. And, I thought the Cuban Missile crisis was an even dumber risk to take.

RebelOne

(30,947 posts)
20. No way. I voted when Kennedy was first elected
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:51 PM
Mar 2015

and I would have voted for him again if he had lived to run for re-election.

Response to RebelOne (Reply #20)

Omaha Steve

(99,580 posts)
24. He refused to back up partisans with air power etc
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:25 PM
Mar 2015

He didn't invade. And it was an Eisenhower administration plan anyway.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
25. Simple answer. Those here who rant against Hillary and Obama would not have voted for him.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:29 PM
Mar 2015

And bigger point that you are making, no real person can pass muster with these folks.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
34. Now look here young lady, I'll have you know,
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:22 PM
Mar 2015

whoops, lost my train of thought there. Time for my nap I think.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
30. This OP is just baiting.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:41 PM
Mar 2015

Of course we'd all have had to vote for JFK. There wasn't any other option at the time. Refusing to would have meant letting the civil rights movement get crushed.

You can't compare that situation to the present. There are no stakes remotely similar to that now.

HRC's Iraq War support and her openness to bombing Iran in 2008 still morally disqualify her from the nomination now. She shouldn't even run.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
32. The bay of pigs guy? No. But the Missles of October guy? YES!
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:03 PM
Mar 2015

I also came to understand Keynesian economics at that point and how the JFK administration based economic policy on that.
I'm still deeply committed to it's rationality as a way for government to manage the economy. Laissez faire and truly Free-Markets hurt people.

I also thought the space program was AWSOME.

With respect to military, I wouldn't vote for the guy who ok'd the phoney insurrection in Cuba. But I WOULD vote for the guy that dealt with The Missles of October. Kennedy was living the cold war, in a nation where Big Money greatly feared nationalization of overseas assets and the rise of command economies. The Bay of Pigs and Vietnam both emerged out of those sentiments.

roamer65

(36,745 posts)
33. Fact is we never would have had the chance to vote for him in 1964.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:18 PM
Mar 2015

I think of it as the 1963 Coup d'Etat. If Kennedy had survived the assassination attempt, I strongly believe there would have been a overt military coup in the United States.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
39. JFK was so impressed with book, he let Frankenheimer film in White House.
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:54 AM
Mar 2015
Seems like a nice Blog:

EXCERPT...

What did the United States government think of Seven Days in May? It was released in February, 1964, just three months after John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Predictably, the military hated it, and had wanted Frankenheimer to submit a script for Pentagon approval. Frankenheimer refused. Kennedy himself, however, had read the novel and strongly encouraged the movie to be made. When Kennedy ran into Kirk Douglas at a party before filming began, he asked Douglas if he planned to make the movie. “When Douglas replied yes, the President proceeded to tell him why and how it would make an excellent movie.” (Burt Lancaster: An American Life, by Kate Buford, p. 230) For the opening scene of the movie, Frankenheimer wanted to film a mock protest outside of the White House between pro and anti-disarmament treaty protestors. Kennedy arranged his schedule so that he and the First Family would be in Hyannisport for a weekend, thus giving Frankenheimer the opportunity to capture the scene.

http://mark-markmywords.blogspot.com/2011/12/jfk-and-seven-days-in-may-starring-burt.html

roamer65

(36,745 posts)
41. Have not seen or read it.
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 05:19 PM
Mar 2015

Just a simple tenet of any coup d'état is that you have a backup up plan in case your target survives.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If Kennedy had not been s...