I dont really disagree with that , just surmising on what McNamara may have been thinking.
Declan
It was a UDT team, but I figured many people might not know what that is.
Underwater Demolition Team?
Yessir. UDT eventually became the SEALs, or the SEAL teams were created as a natural offshoot of this program. As I recall, UDT-1 was still operating in the 70s.
I got thrown off by UDT Team, but its no different than ATM Machine and PIN Number.
Ironic considering the stories about the Maine.
The problem is that at the start of the 1980s the Soviets introduces a virus into the the major water supply systems in the USA. The heinous part of it is that the virus affected people’s DNA, so that not only they but also their children have experienced the same symptoms, one of which is an attraction to conspiracy theories. Thus the problem continues to spread, from parent to child, across the country, as more and more people come under the lure of woo, ranging from Kennedy being an extreme traitor, to Obama being a foreign born Muslim.
Utter nonsense. They introduced the virus in the late 40’s.
There is a very interesting book by Seymour Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot, which presents a “dark” theory of much of the Kennedy Presidency. It would seem very much like a conspiracy-theory crackpot book, but Hersh is a very respected investigative journalist and is definitely no right-winger.
According to Hersh’s book, there were intensive efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro; the assassination was intended to occur shortly before the invasion, and would obviously contribute to its success. This is above and beyond the canceled air strikes.
That the invasion was otherwise poorly planned and unlikely to succeed without visible American involvement is certainly not in dispute. My impression, based in part on reading Hersh’s book, is that the whole invasion plan was an unlikely contingency which went ahead in part due to the incompetence of a new President. Even Schlesinger, the pro-Kennedy biographer, states this in so many words. Schlesinger also seems to admit that one reason for going ahead with a failing invasion is that dead or captured rebels would be better, for U.S. purposes, than called-off rebels wandering around Central America discussing their called-off CIA operation.
Hersh’s book does not represent Kennedy as a CIA pawn, rather as a maverick who thought that the judgment of himself, brother, and father was superior to professional advice.
It would be interesting to hear Dopers’ opinions of Hersh’s book, especially from Dopers who’ve actually read it. 
In earlier threads I asked a pro-Kennedy Doper whether he’s read it. I never got an answer, just repeated instructions to read Thousand Days. :smack:
BTW, E Heir(?), I have read Thousand Days; my first reading might have been before you were born. 
I agree that Hersh is no right-winger. But it’s harder to dismiss claims that he’s a conspiracy-theory crackpot.
Hersh believes in conspiracies. Sometimes he’s too willing to accept evidence that a conspiracy exists because the evidence fits in with his pre-existing beliefs.
A bay of pigs…(stares into far distance, imagining)
mmmmmmm… bacon!
Sorry, the USN carrier was the USS Essex, not the Kittyhawk. The book is:
“The Brilliant Disaster” by Jim Rasenberger
Here is the relevant chaperter:
"Nothing made so indelible an impression on the men as what happened soon after. The ship came to a stop and several men were lowered over the side to paint over the numbers on the bow, as a bosun hung a piece of gray canvas over the ship’s name on the fantail. Then, most remarkably, the U.S. flag was lowered from the mast. “You tell people that happened”, said bruce King years later,“and they say…Oh no, the United States would not do that.'But they did”.
It sounds incredible!
Heh. Reading the OP, I was going to say, “Maybe people will think it’s a privately-owned aircraft carrier?”
Ah, it’s the little things that count.
It IS incredible.
As in not credible or believable.
As many posters have already said, each carrier is readily identifiable by shape or even just silhouette alone, without needing to see the number, or name, or flag. It would have bee quite pointless to do this.
Thinking that painting over a carrier’s number would accomplish anything is the equivalent of going into a bank wearing a ski-mask with a shotgun over your shoulder and expecting the guard won’t be suspicious because you filed off the serial number and taped over the brandname.
Wikipedia entry for the USS Essex has a bay of pigs entry. It cites the book Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story by Peter Wyden, published in 1979. No mention of any attempts to hide the ships identity.
Take it for what it’s worth.
Covering the hull number of the ship would not hide the fact that it is an Essex-class ship. Very distinctive outlines.
I used to frequent a forum for war gamers (specifically Matrix Games/“War in the Pacific”), and us members had a blast playing “Identify this ship” from unlabeled photos.
Certainly many people with specialized knowledge would have no trouble positively identifying the carrier. But most people around the world, including most US citizens, could not do so themselves. Perhaps ensuring that there could be no picture showing the flag or the published hull number might be simply an attempt to allow deniability of US involvement, or the extent of that involvement.
That we today see such as IMplausible deniability is just one more demonstration of the magnitude of the cock-up that was Bay of Pigs.
So why didn’t Kennedy order the Navy to flatten Castro? The Russians were in no position to help Castro in 1961-they would have blasted us in the N-but that would be the extent of it.
If we really wanted to oust Castro, 1961 was the time to do it.
Ooops! I didn’t mean in the OP book. I meant in the common Kennedy hagiography, ever since the invasion, when JFK blamed everybody but himself for the screwup. (Yes, I know that he said he would ‘take responsibility’…right before firing Dulles, et al)
Best wishes,
hh