Thursday, 28 February 2013

October Surprise: 1962 - The Unspeakable

“ a meeting of the Soviet leadership [Kruschev] made this unprecedented statement:

"We have to help Kennedy."

"President Kennedy was under intense U.S. military and congressional pressure to invade Cuba."

Cuban Missile Crisis, Nikita Khrushchev

Sergei Khrushchev (1935–), son of Nikita Khrushchev, writes in his book Nikita Khrushchev: Creation of a Super- power,

“When Father argued at a meeting of the Soviet leadership in favor of withdrawing the missiles, he made this unprecedented statement:

’We have to help Kennedy withstand pressure from the hawks [supporters of war]. They are demanding an immediate military invasion.’”

The Soviet Premier knew an invasion would lead to nuclear war.

Khrushchev agreed to a U.S. president’s “promise” not to invade Cuba again. According to Sergei Khrushchev, this would have been “inconceivable” only a few years earlier.

Excerpt from “Communiqué to President Kennedy Accepting an End to the Missile Crisis, October 28, 1962”

"Esteemed Mr. President: 

I have received your message of October 27, 1962. I express my satisfaction and gratitude for the sense of proportion and understanding of the responsibility borne by you at present for the preservation of peace throughout the world which you have shown. I very well understand your anxiety and the anxi- ety of the United States people in connection with the fact that the weapons which you describe as “offensive” are, in fact, grim weapons. Both you and I understand what kind of weapon they are.

In order to complete with greater speed the liquidation of the conflict dangerous to the cause of peace, to give confidence to all peo- ple longing for peace, and to calm the American people, who, I am certain, want peace as much as the people of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Government, in addition to previously issued instructions on the cessation of further work at building sites for the weapons, has is- sued a new order on the dismantling of the weapons which you de- scribe as “offensive,” and their crating and return to the Soviet Union.

Mr. President, I would like to repeat once more what I had al- ready written to you in my preceding letters—that the Soviet Gov- ernment has placed at the disposal of the Cuban Government eco- nomic aid, as well as arms, inasmuch as Cuba and the Cuban people have constantly been under the continuous danger of an in- vasion [from the United States]....

We stationed them there in order that no attack should be made against Cuba and that no rash action should be permitted to take place.

I regard with respect and trust your statement in your message of October 27, 1962, that no attack will be made on Cuba—that no invasion will take place—not only by the United States, but also by other countries of the Western Hemisphere, as your message pointed out. Then the motives which promoted us to give aid of this nature to Cuba cease. They are no longer applicable, hence we have instructed our officers—and these means, as I have already stated, are in the hands of Soviet officers—to take necessary mea- sures for stopping the building of the said projects and their dis- mantling and return to the Soviet Union....

I note with satisfaction that you have responded to my wish that the said dangerous situation should be liquidated and also that conditions should be created for a more thoughtful appraisal of the international situation which is fraught with great dangers in our age of thermonuclear weapons, rocket technology ... global rockets, and other lethal weapons. All people are interested in insuring peace. Therefore, we who are invested with trust and great respon- sibility must not permit an exacerbation of the situation and must liquidate the breeding grounds where a dangerous situation has been created fraught with serious consequences for the cause of peace. If we succeed along with you and with the aid of other peo- ple of good will in liquidating this tense situation, we must also con- cern ourselves to see that other dangerous conflicts do not arise which might lead to a world thermonuclear catastrophe....

Mr. President, I trust your statement. However, on the other hand, there are responsible people who would like to carry out an invasion of Cuba at this time, and in such a way to spark off a war. If we take practical steps and announce the dismantling and evacua- tion of the appropriate means from Cuba, then, doing that, we wish to establish at the same time the confidence of the Cuban people that we are with them and are not divesting ourselves of the re- sponsibility of granting help to them.

We are convinced that the people of all countries, like yourself, Mr. President, will understand me correctly. We do not issue threats. We desire only peace. Our country is now on the upsurge. Our people are enjoying the fruits of their peaceful labor....

We value peace, perhaps even more than other people, because we experienced the terrible war against Hitler. However, our people will not flinch in the face of any ordeal. Our people trust their government, and we assure our people and the world public that the Soviet government will not allow itself to be provoked.

Should the provocateurs unleash a war, they would not escape the grave consequences of such a war. However, we are confident that reason will triumph. War will not be unleashed and the peace and security of people will be insured....

With respect for you, 

October 28, 1962.

The primary consequence of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that the American public now believed that the Soviet Union’s nuclear capabilities equalled those of the United States. Citizens would not listen to numbers that showed the United States with far more missiles. As far as Americans were concerned, each country could totally annihilate the other— or, for that matter, all life on earth. It was the last of the Cold War “missile bluff” diplomacies.

Both sides had so frightened the other during the Cuban Missile Crisis that the first serious negotiations in con- trolling nuclear weaponry began in August 1963. The United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain—which also had nu- clear capabilities—signed the Limited Test-Ban Treaty to ban nu- clear testing underwater, in the atmosphere, and in outer space.

"I often think how necessary it is for men who are vested with trust and great power to be inspired with the understanding of what seems to be an obvious truism, which is that we live on one planet and it is not in man’s power—at least in the foreseeable future—to change that. In a certain sense there is an analogy here—I like this comparison—with Noah’s Ark where both the “clean” and the “unclean” found sanctuary. But regardless of who lists himself with the “clean” and who is considered to be “unclean,” they are all equally interested in one thing and that is that the Ark should successfully continue its cruise. And we have no other alternative: either we should live in peace and cooperation so that the Ark maintains its buoyancy, or else it sinks. Therefore we must display concern for all of mankind, not to mention our own advantages, and find every possibility leading to peaceful solutions of problems."

The Secret Government Speaks: Woodward Declares War

Bob Woodward looked right at home reminding Fox News Sunday that the sequester was Obama's idea.

Bob made sure the folks who watch the show's web-only segment get the idea.

"Mitch McConnell, the Senate leader of the Republicans, makes a very good case, and I have it in my book, that the president just walked away."

Then the White House affirmed Woodward's Fox News potential by deciding to engage.

Then the White House affirmed Woodward's Fox News potential by deciding to engage.

Woodward turned that into another headline — a move that Fox News no doubt loved.

"We unfortunately have seen this too often in recent presidential history"
Woodward turned that into another headline — a move that Fox News no doubt loved.

Fox News recognized Woodward's Fox News potential.

"Who do you believe? Do you believe the White House, who has a political stake in this, or do you believe Bob Woodward, who is not know for bashing the left or making up lies about President Obama?" —Megyn Kelly, Fox News

Sean Hannity totally dug it.

Sean Hannity totally dug it.

Journos started to recognize Woodward's Fox News potential.

Journos started to recognize Woodward's Fox News potential.

Then Woodward really made Roger Ailes's day when he told Politico the White House had threatened him.

Just look at how the Twitters went crazy.

Just look at how the Twitters went crazy.

Don't Fox News employees get a bonus for receiving threatening e-mails from Obama's White House?

This match made in cable news heaven has been right in front of us for months. Here's Woodward telling Bill O'Reilly that Obama's inauguration speech was incoherent.

Did you know there's a civil war going on in the Democratic Party? Take it away, Bob.

And remember, Roger Ailes: He can talk about Benghazi, too!

"When there is trouble in the White House there is too frequently a passivity."

Oh, and guess who's going to be on Hannity tonight?

Oh, and guess who's going to be on Hannity tonight?
If you guessed "Bob Woodward," you win a cookie.

14. Oh, and guess who's going to be on Hannity tonight?

If you guessed "Bob Woodward," you win a cookie.