The parallels between the administrations of Barack Obama and John Kennedy are stunning:
1. Both engaged in what might be called "Election Deception":
During the 1960 election, Kennedy attacked Nixon for being soft on
communism, particularly Cuba. In his book, 6 Crises, Nixon complained,
bitterly and accurately, that this was an unscrupulous deception on
Kennedy's part. Kennedy had been briefed that Nixon and the CIA were
planning a full scale invasion of Cuba. So, even though he knew it
wasn't true, Kennedy attacked Nixon from the right, claiming that he,
Kennedy, was more of a hawk on Cuba than Nixon. As soon as he got in,
Kennedy told the CIA to forget their invasion plans; the CIA went ahead
anyway at the Bay of Pigs; and Kennedy fired the top three men at CIA
for disobeying his orders.[1]
The military shared Nixon's perception that Kennedy was a liar and a traitor.
During the 2008 election, Obama surrounded himself with hawks like
Zbigniew Brzezinski, and attacked Bush from the right, saying that he
had neglected "the right war," the war in Afghanistan, and that he,
Obama, would transfer troops and treasure to the effort in
Afghanistan. However, once he got in, Obama brought none of the
Brzezinski people with him. None of them. Not Richard Clark. Not
Anthony Lake (both of whom were very active in Obama's campaign, and
are very deep-cover operatives for the darkest side of the Pentagon).
And, as you will see, Obama fought bitterly with the military over
their desire for more troops.
2. Both Kennedy and Obama experienced a dramatic change of attitude toward the military early in their presidencies:
Even if Obama did not perpetrate a deception to win the election, after
he was sworn in, his thinking and attitude toward the military began to
change dramatically, sharpen and harden against them. This directly
parallels what happened to Kennedy.
I don't regard Bob Woodward as a fundamentally reliable source, but to
be an effective liar he has to tell important truths sometimes. And I
believe there is good reason to credit the story he tells below,
inadvertently revealing the development of Obama's thinking on the war
in Afghanistan. It describes a briefing given by Obama's National
Security Advisor, Jim Jones, to the military commanders in Afghanistan
(from Bob Woodward, The Washington Post, Jul 1, 2009, A1.):
During the briefing, [Marine Brigadier General] Nicholson had told
Jones that he was "a little light," more than hinting that he could use
more
forces, probably thousands more. "We don't have enough force to go everywhere," Nicholson said.
But Jones recalled how Obama had initially decided to deploy additional
forces this year. "At a table much like this," Jones said, referring to
the polished wood table in the White House Situation Room, "the
president's principals met and agreed to recommend 17,000 more troops
for Afghanistan." The principals -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton; Gates; Mullen; and the director of national intelligence,
Dennis C. Blair -- made this recommendation in February during the
first full month of the Obama administration. The president approved
the deployments, which included Nicholson's Marines.
Soon after that, Jones said, the principals told the president, "oops,"
we need an additional 4,000 to help train the Afghan army.
"They then said, 'If you do all that, we think we can turn this
around,' " Jones said, reminding the Marines here that the president
had quickly approved and publicly announced the additional 4,000.
Now suppose you're the president, Jones told them, and the requests
come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think Obama
might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around at the
colonels. How do you think he might feel?
Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.
Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus
4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president
would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." Everyone in
the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military
and elsewhere means "What The F(expletive)?"
My take on the above is that Obama came in somewhat open minded on
Afghanistan. In his first month in office, he asked the military what
they needed; they told him, and he gave them 17,000 troops without a
blink. When they turned around and asked for another 4,000 just a few
months later, Obama was disconcerted. If these guys knew what they
were doing, they should have been right the first time about how many
troops they needed. But without a complaint, he gave them another
4,000. When the generals started to press for more, Obama had his WTF
moment, and sent Jones to straighten them out. Jones was telling the
generals that requesting more troops would be showing Obama that they
are clueless. Obama has tried to show his awareness that there are
thousands of lives in the balance.
Kennedy had his Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment at the Bay of Pigs, and again during the Cuban Missile Crisis.[2]
He came to see his military advisors and commanders as
blind-to-the-point-of-insane ideologues. And the quote above I think
shows that Obama's developing vision of the military has closely
paralleled the development of Kennedy's vision of these professional
killers.
3. Kennedy faced, and Obama faces, a military full of ideologues:
Curtis LeMay is the most infamous of the insanely rabid military
advisors Kennedy had. LeMay, against specific orders, at the height of
the Cuban missile crisis, sent a U2 spy plane flying into Russian
airspace, apparently hoping that the Russians would think this was an
attack and push the red button. LeMay was confident that in the
full-scale nuclear exchange that would follow, the US would suffer 30
to 50 million casualties, tops, but the Russians would be wiped out.
Hurray! We'd win! LeMay and his peers were livid that Kennedy was
refusing to send troops to Vietnam.
For the past eight years, Bush has forced into retirement those
military leaders with an objective approach to fighting "terrorism";
and he has promoted Muslim-hating Christian ideologues who seek a
new-age Christian Crusade against the Muslim heretics.[3]
An objective military observer must question the idea of equating
"insurgents" with "terrorists": There has never been even a suggestion
that the Taliban were involved in attacks on the US. The Taliban
government of Afghanistan offered to hand over Osama if the US could
provide evidence of his guilt. But the US invaded instead of providing
evidence. In this context, the "insurgents" are, essentially and
merely, patriots who oppose the domination of their country by foreign
troops. This is a common view within the Obama administration:
"Supporters of [Vice-President Joe] Biden's view [that no more troops
should be sent] argue that adding more troops would actually make the
problem worse, not better, because the Taliban draw support from the
fiercely nationalist Pashtun ethnic group in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
who will mobilize to resist a long-term occupation. 'The real fact is,
the more people we put in, the more opposition there will be,' says
Selig Harrison, a longtime observer of Afghanistan at the Center for
International Policy." (Rolling Stone[4])
One need not agree with this view to recognize that it is reasoned and legitimate.[5]
But this viewpoint is not represented in the military that Obama
inherited from Bush. Senior officers with this point of view were
forced into retirement under Bush. And Obama is faced with commanders
such as Lt. Gen. David Barno, a "counter-insurgency" advocate who
served as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan: "We're going to be
involved in this type of activity in a number of countries for the next
15 to 20 years." Barno does not just want to wipe out the Taliban. He
wants to expand the conflict to other countries and carry it on for
generations. What does Barno's plan, to kill Afghan patriots, have to
do with eliminating "terrorism"?
And a more terrifying question: These trained killers from the
military currently have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Muslims
on their hands. They have watched at close range as 1000's of young
American soldiers have been slaughtered. How do you suppose they feel
about a Black president, born to a Muslim father, trained in Muslim
schools, telling them they can't have any more troops for their holy
war against Muslims? "Rabid" seems a likely answer.
I am not the first to see the parallels between Kennedy's and Obama's
conflicts with the military. The first article I saw on this topic was
by Berkeley Professor Peter Dale Scott.[6] Robert Parry has written importantly on the topic.[7] Lawrence Wilkerson, a former top aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, observed in the Rolling Stone article,4
"It's going to take John Kennedy-type courage to turn to his Curtis
LeMay and say, 'No, we're not going to bomb Cuba.' It took a lot of
courage on Kennedy's part to defy the Pentagon, defy the military - and
do the right thing." (I must assume that Wilkerson is not familiar
with the details of how John Kennedy's conflict with the military
ended. See section 8. below for some of those pertinent details.
There can not be a reasonable doubt that the military killed JFK.)
4. Kennedy sought out military advisors not committed to, or dominated by, the Pentagon:
Obama has done likewise. The "Jim Jones" from the long quote (in
section 2. above), is a familiar figure; that is, he reminds me of the
kind of man that Kennedy brought in to advise him. He is a former
Marine general. He has impeccable "toughness" credentials. But he is
not a Muslim-hating ideologue, out to wage a modern crusade against
Islam, to win back the holy land (holy oil?), for Jesus. So he was
forced into retirement by Bush. But Obama picked him up out of
retirement and made him National Security Advisor. Kennedy had such
people in his administration. Roger Hillsman was a WWII hero, who
Kennedy made his undersecretary for South East Asian affairs. Hillsman
looked at Vietnam, and saw what Kennedy saw; and he saw what many
observers of Afghanistan see today:
•a. an utterly corrupt, inept, cowardly, self-interested puppet regime with no constituency among the local people;
•b. a dedicated, heroic, entrenched opposition with roots 1000 years deep among the locals; and
•c. an
ideology-driven military willing to make ridiculous promises of
success, "if only we can get just one more troop increase"; with a
nearly unlimited thirst for "insurgent" blood; and with no
understanding of the limits of their power.
5. The military overtly challenged Kennedy's right as
commander-in-chief to set policy. Their treatment of Obama has been
similarly outrageous:
Kennedy rejected the military's recommendation for an invasion of Cuba
at the Bay of Pigs; and the military, led by the CIA, went ahead with
it anyway. JFK rejected the military's suggestion that the US should
overthrow Diem, the president of South Vietnam; the military not only
organized Diem's overthrow, they assassinated him. And of course, for
three years Kennedy steadfastly refused their pressure to commit combat
troops to Vietnam. Obama's military has similarly challenged his right
to set military policy.
After Obama sent Jim Jones to Afghanistan to let his generals know that
they had gotten all the troops they were going to get (as described in
section 2. above), Stanley McChrystal began a campaign for more troops
that was insubordinate to the point of being illegal. (The endnote 4
below contains the full story as outlined in Rolling Stone.)
McChrystal responded to Jones' visit and message by writing a demand
for 40,000 troops, which he immediately, and illegally, leaked to the
press. The Republican leadership demanded that McChrystal be brought
before the Senate to have a national stage for his defiance of Obama's
attempts to set policy. McChrystal went on 60 Minutes to complain that
Obama was not listening to him; and then flew into London to publicly
call Obama "shortsighted." Obama flew to Europe and ordered
McChrystal to meet with him on his plane. Two days later, Jim Jones
rebuked McChrystal for failing to "follow the chain of command."
But on December 1st, Obama caved in to McChrystal and committed to send
an additional 30,000 troops; even though the American public, the
Democratic leadership in the Congress, and his closest advisors were
overwhelmingly dead set against it. WTF?! What happened? Obama
tried, in this speech, to maintain a shred of dignity and authority by
saying that the primary role of these troops would be to win the hearts
and minds of the Afghan people; and he promised that they would begin
to head home in 18 months. Eight days later, he was roundly
contradicted on every score, simultaneously, by a quartet of men we
ought to regard as his underlings: Hamid Karzai, the US installed,
officially illegitimate "president" of Afghanistan, who owes his
position, security, and daily bread to the US, overtly contradicted
Obama's statements about the limits of the US commitment, telling a
press conference that "Afghanistan's security forces will need U.S.
support for another 15 to 20 years."[8]
On the same podium, on the same day, Robert M. Gates, US Secretary of
Defense (and Karzai's apparent puppet master) echoed this same affront
to Obama, saying "it will be some time before Afghanistan is able to
sustain its security forces entirely on its own ... whether that's 15
or 20 years".8
(It should be noted in red letters that Gates was appointed by Bush,
and carried over by Obama.) On the same day, the LA Times reports
McChrystal told the Senate, "that the U.S. needed to signal a long-term
commitment in Afghanistan".8
Such calls for a long term US commitment not only contradict the stated
policy of the President, but they are overt provocations to legitimate
Afghan nationalists. They not only undermine official US policy, but
they serve the recruiting efforts of the "insurgents"; thereby putting
the lives of American soldiers at greater risk; and not only constitute
insubordination, but speeches by the military constitute an illegal and
anti-democratic attempt by unelected military officials to dictate
political policy, a virtual military coup of the President's powers and
duties.
6. Both Obama and JFK were faced with overt threats of assassination:
On November 22, 1963, Dallas was filled with wanted posters calling for Kennedy to be given the death penalty for treason. The NY Times
carried an op-ed on September 29, 2009 talking about the "very
dangerous" climate now in America, "the same kind of climate here that
existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination." Four days
later, on October 3rd, the Wall Street Journal pointed to three
overt physical threats to Obama: a poll on Facebook asking whether the
president should be assassinated, a column on a conservative Web site
suggesting a military coup is in the works, and Rep. Trent Franks (R.,
Ariz.) calling Mr. Obama "an enemy of humanity."[9]
JFK felt, and Obama feels, threatened by the military. JFK encouraged
and assisted Hollywood in the making of "Seven Days in May," a
fictional account of a military coup in the US. Kennedy wanted this
story to be told. He thought the American people needed to be alerted
to the threat to democracy posed by the military. No one knows what
went on in his head, but it is reasonable to conclude that he felt this
was a real and important threat. Robert Parry has written that Obama
had a "'Seven Days In May' moment," meaning that he felt the threat of
a military coup, when he began trying to withdraw troops from Iraq.
(This is another critically important news article. See endnote 7.)
The Rolling Stone article says that in October, "the
Pentagon and top military brass were trying to make the President an
offer he couldn't refuse." Now - "an offer he can't refuse" is a
reference to the movie, "The Godfather." In the movie, the man who
receives the "offer he can't refuse" wakes up and finds that the head
of his prized horse has been cut off and put in the bed next to him
while he was asleep; in order to send the message: "We are brutal. We
are killers. We got into your bedroom. If we had wanted to kill you,
we would have. Next time we will. If you want to live, don't let
there be a next time." The author of the Rolling Stone article
does not have superhuman powers of perception. But he has written a
detailed article on the relations between Obama and his military. And
he has included this suggestion of overt threats of death made to Obama
by the military.
And the article goes on: "They [the generals] wanted the president to
escalate the war - go all in by committing 40,000 more troops and
another trillion dollars to a Vietnam-like quagmire - or face a
full-scale mutiny by his generals." And what is "a full-scale
mutiny"? It means a coup. That is what it means, clearly, plainly,
and simply. The perceptive author of this insightful article, Robert
Dreyfus, clearly feels that the military wants Obama to feel
threatened.
7. Kennedy was plagued, and Obama is plagued, with a Secret Service that is grossly incompetent
Kennedy's murder should be proof enough.[10] The
failures of the Secret Service to protect Obama are worse. At the very
least, it can be said in favor of Kennedy's Secret Service that they
did not allow the shooters onto the White House grounds. The incident
of the so-called "Party Crashers," has to give Obama pause. The
Salahis, the uninvited guests, the husband and wife team who walked
into the White House reception for the Indian Prime Minister, easily
penetrated the most high-security affair to take place at the White
House in recent memory. The Indian Prime Minister is regarded as a
prime target for Muslim extremists, and everyone present could be
considered at great risk from a security lapse. Whatever else can be
said of the Salahis, they presented a starkly clear message to Obama:
"You are not protected. Your Secret Service is criminally negligent,
if not just criminal."
8. Is the military threatening to kill Obama? The evidence of
the involvement of the military in the assassination of JFK is, I
think, beyond dispute.[11]
Certainly, this evidence has given every president since Kennedy
nightmares about the risks involved in taking on the military.
Kennedy, like Obama, was under fierce pressure to send troops to
Vietnam.[12] And as you will see, the military has taken steps to make Obama feel that his life is in grave danger at their hands.
Vice President Biden, and Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have
both been outspoken in their opposition to sending troops to
Afghanistan. They are both Obama spokesmen. It may be assumed that at
all times they speak for the president. And yet they spent the 10
months before the President's Dec. 1 speech, undercutting the
President's final decision to send troops.[13] Does
that make any sense? Two weeks before the President's speech, Obama's
ambassador to Afghanistan wrote Obama a memo in which he warned against
sending troops to support a regime so corrupt that it enjoyed no
popular support. This ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, is a retired Army
general and former commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan.
He is one of the not-insane commanders that Bush pushed into
retirement; and Obama brought back him back in. Eikenberry's memo
against sending troops was immediately leaked to the press, and showed
up on the front pages of the LA Times and NY Times.
There was no outcry from the White House about the leak, suggesting
that Obama approved it. Does that make any sense? It appears that
the President was undercutting his own position, two weeks before
taking it?
Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders have taken similar positions as
Eikenberry. They might be accused of pandering to the American people,
who are broadly opposed to sending more troops; but it would be unusual
for congressional Democratic leaders to undercut their president in
this way. The Bob Woodward article, presented in section 2. above,
reveals a President with no plans to send troops, taking steps to
confront those military leaders with desires for more troops, and
telling them to forget it. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!! What happened?
Why did Obama suddenly change the position that his spokesmen had been
taking for nearly a year; the position that he was promoting, through
his ambassador, just two weeks before; that other leading Democrats had
been promoting; and that he had stated so forcefully to his commanders
in the field? Why did he suddenly decide to send 30,000 troops to kill
and be killed in a cause he knows to be hopeless?
This is NOT a small deal. It can't have been a whimsical decision on
his part. It must have been based on something. We should be able,
then, to look at the events in the news and identify some major
occurrence that would cause such a shift. No? Let's see. The central
feature behind Biden's and Emmanuel's position was that the Afghan
puppet regime was too corrupt to win popular support.[14]
Just recently, the regime proved too corrupt to even stage an
election, even after the UN ruled the last election fraudulent and
illegitimate. Could this miserable failure, to stage an election, have
changed Obama's mind? No. In fact, reports from Afghanistan are that
the corruption and incompetence of the puppet regime have only gotten
worse.[15]
When you come up with an answer, for any of these questions, I would be
very grateful if you would let me know. Because I don't like my
answer. But here it is:
A military coup, of sorts, has taken place. This coup, this wresting
by force of power from the hands of the President was accomplished in
two separate events.
The first event involves the so-called "Party Crashers." The Salahis
managed, not only to enter, but they proceeded to first shake hands
with the two most outspoken opponents of sending more troops: Joe
Biden, and Rahm Emanuel. And the Salahis then shook hands with Obama
himself. They had gained entrance through the intercession of the
Pentagon.[16]
Whether or not they told the President, "Send troops or die", they
unquestionably told him, through their actions, "The Secret Service
can't, or won't, protect you. Your life is over when the Pentagon says
it's over." This is not speculation; or interpretation. It is clear;
unequivocal; basic.
But wait! There's more! The Rolling Stone article is so
much better than the author intended! I know that he did not mean a
"coup" when he wrote that the generals were threatening a "full scale
revolt." I don't think he meant a death threat when he wrote "an offer
he couldn't refuse." And I don't think he grasped the import of this
remark. Even worse, the administration has to take into account the
possibility of a terrorist attack, which would allow the GOP to put the
blame on the White House. "All it would take is one terrorist attack,
vaguely linked to Afghanistan, for the military and his opponents to
pounce all over him," says Pillar.
Robert Dreyfuss, the Rolling Stone writer, is saying that
Obama caved because of the threat of another "terrorist" attack. Now.
The suggestion that US military was complicit in the crimes of 9/11 is
similar to saying that the Secret Service was complicit in the crashing
of the Obama's White House party: it's indisputable. The Salahis
could not have entered if the White House had the Secret Service not
let them in. Indisputably. And none of the planes could have hit any
of the buildings on 9/11 if the US air defenses had not gone completely
to sleep. The Pentagon attack is particularly egregious. The official
story is that 50 minutes after the 1st plane hit the World Trade
Center, US air defenses, on flaming red alert, designed to defend
against supersonic missiles and jet fighters, not only failed to stop a
slow moving humongous 757, they failed to get off a shot! Not a single
shot in defense of the most highly defended building on the planet.
The following week, Richard Meyers, who was in charge of US air
defenses on 9/11, instead of being court-marshaled and shot, as he
clearly ought to have been, was promoted, to the highest position in
the military: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[17]
So the military, under the Bush administration, was indisputably
complicit in the events of 9/11, if only by the most jaw-dropping
incompetence; incompetence that was warmly rewarded by the Republican
White House. So when the Republican leadership says Obama's attempts
to reduce troops and spending in Iraq and Afghanistan threaten to
unleash a new terrorist attack, this is a genuine threat from genuine
blood-covered terrorists.
The Fort Hood shooting is this "terrorist" threat made real. There is
much in the story of Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, to suggest
that he was a Manchurian Candidate, that he was "programmed," through
hypnosis, to do what he did. Though such a thing can never, by its
very nature, be proved. (If you have ever seen a demonstration by a
professional hypnotist, you already know that some people will do
anything under hypnosis and that they will have no recollection
afterward.)[18]
However, there are a number of things about the case of Malik Hasan
that are especially persuasive that he was under military control:[19]
•a. Hasan
had at least 13 email contacts with a radical Muslim imam. The Imam
told Al JaZeera that the first of these emails, sent 11 months before
the shooting, sought the Imam's approval for Hasan's shooting his
fellow soldiers.[20] Michael
McCaul, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee's
intelligence subcommittee, said that he has confirmed that Hasan wired
money to Pakistan.[21] There
has been much discussion in the "news" about the fact that the FBI took
no steps to apprehend or otherwise stop Hasan. But the contents of his
emails have not been released. That is highly suspicious. Can we
conjecture that if the contents were innocuous, that they would have
been released? Sure we can. The Imam found his house under attack
within 24 hours of his publicizing the contents of those emails. But
this discussion is a distraction from the flashing red light: the FBI
did not even open a file on Hasan. That is not preposterous. It is
very clear in its meaning. There is only one conceivable explanation,
and an obvious one. If the FBI failed to take steps as basic as
opening a file, it is because they were ordered not to do so; by
another agency of the federal government. Again, that is hardly
speculative. It should be basic common knowledge: if a drug dealer
gets picked up by some police agency in possession of a bag full of
drugs; and walks out the door, without being arrested, with his bag of
drugs, and without a file being opened, it's because he's undercover.
Apparently some agency of the federal government ordered Hasan to send
these emails. That is speculative, but no other explanation will
suffice.[22] And certainly, the FBI was ordered not to open a file. Of this there cannot be any doubt.
•b. Similarly,
the FBI's excuse for not opening a file, was that they discovered that
Hasan was doing research on the attitudes of Muslims serving in the US
military. How they made this determination, without opening a file, is
a mystery to me. But let that alone for the moment. For whom was
Hasan doing this research? Duh. No? But the attitude of the media to
such obvious questions is "don't ask, don't tell."
•c. Lee
Harvey Oswald had been set up by the CIA to appear to be an agent of
Fidel Castro. But the FBI investigated all this evidence and
determined that it was a fraud.[23] So
for Hasan to have been set-up in a similar fashion would be par for the
course. Fletcher Prouty (see endnote 12) was tipped off that Kennedy's
murder was a military plot by the fact that Oswald's entire bio
appeared in the papers in Australia, where Prouty was when he learned
of the crime, before Oswald was even charged. The NY Times
and Fox news were spreading the contents of the FBI's non-files /
non-investigation, showing Hasan to be an Arab terrorist, while they
were still reporting that he was dead, before they knew that he was
still alive. That is, someone on the inside was distributing this
insider knowledge about a guy who supposedly was of no interest. It
seems clear as day to me that it was a set-up.
•d. Now,
this is my favorite part. In the 1944 detective movie, "Double
Indemnity," Edward G. Robinson, the detective, is alerted that
something foul is going on because the insured dead man had an
insurance policy with disability as well as death benefits; but when he
broke his leg, he didn't try to use the disability benefits in his
policy. Why didn't he use it? He must not have known he had an
insurance policy. His wife purchased the policy behind his back, and
then killed him. OK. Now answer this: If Obama actually
wanted to send troops to Afghanistan; if he actually wanted to move the
American people to see the necessity of "fighting terrorism there
before it becomes terrorism here"; why did he not wave the bloody shirt
from the Fort Hood shooting? Why did he not claim Hasan to be a
terrorist? Why did he not use him as an example of the continued
threat? Obviously, then, Obama was not part of any plot to kill
soldiers at Fort Hood to justify a continued war on "terror."
And now, you do the math. Add 1 + 1. Add "Party Crashers" to
"programmed shooter" and what do you get? You get Nancy Pelosi as
president.
But things have changed since 1963, haven't they? The military has
matured. It is not so rabid, blood thirsty, and wild, as it used to
be. They wouldn't overtly threaten to kill the President in this way,
would they? The threats to which Obama caved were political threats,
not physical ones. No? No.
•a. Obama
is a master politician. He's not afraid of a political fight. He is
more capable of winning support for his position than any of his
opponents. And besides, the American people are against sending
troops, so this is an easy victory. I don't see how political threats
could force him to send young men and women to their deaths, for a
cause he and everyone around him know is hopeless. Counter insurgency
in support of a corrupt regime is killing for the sake of killing.
•b. The military was, at the very least, complicit in the 9-11 murders of 3,000 Americans.
•c. They were apparently involved in the murder of 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood.
•d. So,
it doesn't seem times have changed for the better. Eisenhower said that
the greatest threat to our national security came from what he called
"the military industrial complex" in this country; a ruling elite with
enormous political power. These people had the deepest support for
Hitler during WWII. And they orchestrated a performance by the media,
the Secret Service, the FBI, the mafia, and the military that murdered
JFK; and they have kept the truth suppressed ever since, the
ridiculousness of their cover-story not withstanding. They just passed
a $630 billion defense budget, in a world where the primary threat is a
few hundred men with hand-held weapons. What reason is there to think
that they would hesitate to kill Obama? Do you suppose they like
having a Black man as President?
So. Perhaps you are convinced that Obama was persuaded, by threats
against his life, to send troops. If so, there is a more terrible
question lurking out there. Were they threatening? Or were they
practicing? Or both?
A "full scale revolt" of the generals does not merely imply the death
of Obama. A military seizure of the government would entail far more
deaths than his, certainly many thousands. President Johnson, in
choosing not to pursue Kennedy's killers (no-doubt well known to him),
faced a similar choice: the threat of a full scale revolt - that is, a
military coup; civil war, death and prison camps for many thousands, if
not millions. But Johnson and Obama are not the only ones confronted
with difficult choices. The information presented here suggests that
your democratic government has already been seized. It is not in the
hands of your democratically elected President. And what are YOU going
to do about it, Patriot? Are you going to be a sheep and a traitor, a
collaborator? Or an insurgent?
In our political system, it is virtually a given that all politicians
are corrupt. The politician wants to get elected; so he takes money
from thieves; the best do small things to help the people; but they all
do what they think they have to to keep the money flowing in. But
people are people. They occasionally get carried away by an idea, or
by the moment, and they get inspired to think that real virtue is
possible, even for them. And for such people, at such times, there are
other forms of coercion. Blackmail, for example. Further, all
politicians know, and the media too, that to admit certain truths
means, at least, political death. And on occasion, there is the real
murder of an individual who thinks he can, and does, serve the
interests of the people. John Kennedy was such a one. And such a
murder is a great lesson to all the living about the facts of life. My
point is that "coercion with the threat of death" is a real tool used
by the ruling elite. Typically its use is extremely low key, I'm
sure. But on occasion its use may be sufficiently high profile to be
identified. And I think we can see this clearly with Obama. I believe
that the evidence shows that the military has overtly threatened, at
the very least, to kill Obama. I believe they are also, in preparation
for the day that he stands up to them, practicing to kill him.
The fact that Obama has refused to waive the bloody shirt from Ft. Hood
shows clearly that he did not authorize the shooting. However, you are
likely unaware that the moment the FBI concluded their initial
investigation of the Ft. Hood shooting, Obama rejected it out of hand
and called William Webster out of retirement to oversee a new
investigation.[24]
This has received no attention from any quarter. And, again, it
closely parallels Kennedy: after the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy called
Maxwell Taylor out of retirement to supervise the investigation
(referred to in endnote 1) of how the invasion occurred when Kennedy
had cancelled it. The investigation lasted two months. The results
were kept secret for twenty years. Kennedy knew in April that the CIA
had betrayed him, launching the Bay of Pigs invasion against his
specific orders. But he didn't fire Dulles until September, six months
later. Obama certainly is aware of the complicity of his intelligence
agencies in the Fort Hood shootings. Whether William Webster's
investigation will be as effective as Maxwell Taylor's is impossible to
tell. But Obama is trying to collect the evidence; and he is biding
his time. Which brings us to the "Underwear Bomber."
I have been very slow to recognize the Detroit plane "bombing" as a
plot of the intelligence agencies. But the following, entirely
suppressed from the media, settles the question, I think. Patrick
Kennedy, State Department Under-Secretary for Management testified
before the House Committee on Homeland Security on January 27. His
purpose was to explain in detail how it was that Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab, the Crotch Bomber, was not put on the no-fly list,
despite his father's warnings to the State Department that his son was
being recruited by terrorists. Kennedy testified:
"We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, 'Do
you have eyes on this person and do you want us to let this person
proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a
larger plot?'" He added: "And one of the members [of the intelligence
community]-and we'd be glad to give you that out of [open session]-in
private-said, 'Please, do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this
person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose
of trying to roll up an entire network, not just stop one person.'"[25]
Abdulmutallab has not been water-boarded. His family has been brought
in. At their urging, he is cooperating. The Republicans are screaming
that he shouldn't have a trial. And the prosecutors are collecting
evidence. What if they succeed in identifying "the entire network"?
What next? Is anyone paying attention besides Cheney and his network?
Not that I've noticed.
Finally - the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed:
When Obama was questioned by 9-11 Truthers about the evidence of an
inside job, he commented "we need to investigate a whole range of
options, although some of the issues you guys have raised I'm not
entirely confident are the case."[26] This is not an endorsement. But it is as good as anything Ron Paul has said publicly. And it is far from a condemnation.
His decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in open court in New
York City was a brilliantly casual knife to the throat of the
perpetrators: It presents a spotlighted stage, a platform, for the
9-11 Truth movement to demonstrate, raise issues, and bring attention
to the glaring facts. And what better argument could the defense make,
that Mohammed was not responsible for the attacks, than to show the
jury footage of building 7 coming down in a classic controlled
demolition?
Thus, the prospect of a public trial for KSM presents Cheney and the
other perpetrators with an everything-to-lose situation. The decision
was announced to stage the public trial, and, in the words of Newsweek
magazine: As if on cue, a Nigerian man with explosives in his crotch
nearly brought down an American airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day,
leaving the neocons feeling further vindicated and energized"; and
leaving Obama, "mugged by reality," as the neocons themselves put it.[27]
These "energized neocons" are the signatories of the Project for a New
American Century, who called for the "new Pearl Harbor" just before the
9-11 attacks; their fingerprints are all over the 9-11 attacks.
When Cheney objects to having a public trial for KSM out of one side of his mouth,27 and threatens biological and nuclear attacks out of the other,[28]
he must be taken seriously. And unless Obama feels that he has the
cards in his hand to arrest Cheney and his cohorts, what can he do?
Late last year, Holder accompanied Obama on a middle-of-the-night visit
to Dover Air Force Base. An Air Force plane had just delivered eighteen
bodies of soldiers and Drug Enforcement Administration officials who
had been killed that week, in Afghanistan. Holder said that Obama,
after seeing a hangar filled with caskets, sat alone in a nearby room.
Holder added that he "was struck by the fact that this guy has the
weight of the world on his narrow shoulders."[29]
John Hankey is the author of "Dark Legacy: George
Bush and the Murder of John Kennedy," a documentary detailing the
evidence linking George Bush Sr. to the assassination of John F.
Kennedy. The video is available for free on the web, at
BushKilledJFK.com, and at Amazon.com.
Endnotes:
[1]
Kennedy's cancellation of the invasion is not widely known; but it is
documented in the US Government publication of the official
investigation, a document entitled "Operation Zapata."
[2]
During the missile crisis, Kennedy's advisors told him that the Russian
missiles in Cuba were not armed, and advised an attack and invasion.
It has come out from the Russian side, that the missiles were ready,
armed with nuclear warheads, and the local commanders were authorized
to use them. Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense at the time,
has made much of this in his book and DVD "The Fog of War."
[3]
Both Obama's National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, and his Ambassador
to Afghanistan, Karl Eichenberry, were pulled by Obama out of
retirement, where Bush had forced them. The most egregious case of the
promotion of Christian ideologues is that of Lieutenant-General William
"Jerry" Boykin, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence
under Bush and a leading figure behind the prisoner abuses in Iraq and
at Guantanamo.
Writing for the Los Angeles Times on October 16, 2003, columnist
William Arkin pointed out that Boykin sees the "war on terror" as a
religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with
Islam of course cast in the latter role. According to Arkin, Boykin
told a religious group in Oregon, in June, that radical Islamists hate
the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our
foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian ... and the enemy is a guy
named Satan." He continued to say that "our spiritual enemy will only
be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."
Boykin, a 30-year veteran of the US Army's Delta Force, the Central
Intelligence Agency and Army Special Forces, told another audience, in
reference to operations he was involved in in Somalia in 1993, that "I
knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God
and his was an idol." Arkin further reports that Boykin believes that
President George W. Bush was not elected to the White House by mere
mortals, but chosen by God, and that he himself received his orders
from God. Arkin also noted that Boykin's concept of "war on terror" is
quite different from the way the US president looks at it. Boykin sees
it as a war against Muslims.
Though most individuals in the military have the common sense not to
speak as openly as Boykin did, the entire notion that "insurgents" need
to be killed, held by all the leading brass, is fundamentally similar.
That is, upon what basis do we condemn these men to death? Because
they are insurgents against a foreign occupier? How can that be?
There is a justification that is not stated. Clearly. And why not?
Because it is racist, and/or religious. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FE11Aa04.html
[4] The following are highlights from the Rolling Stone article depicting the efforts by McChrystal to force Obama to implement McChrystal's foreign policy, rather than Obama's: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30493567/the_generals_revolt
The military's campaign to force Obama's hand started in earnest in
September, when the Commander's Initial Assessment of the war - a
highly classified report prepared by McChrystal - was leaked to The
Washington Post. ... In
the report, McChrystal paints a dire picture of the American effort in
Afghanistan, concluding that a massive increase in troop levels is the
only way to prevent a humiliating failure.
On Capitol Hill, hawkish GOP congressmen seized the opening to turn up
the heat on Obama by demanding that he allow McChrystal and Petraeus to
come to Washington to testify at high-profile hearings to ask for more
troops. "It is time to listen to our commanders on the ground, not the
ever-changing political winds whispering defeat in Washington,"
declared Sen. Kit Bond, a Republican from Missouri. Attempting to usurp
Obama's authority as commander in chief, Sen. John McCain introduced an
amendment to compel the two generals to come before Congress, but the
measure was voted down by the Democratic majority.
As the pressure from the military and the right built, McChrystal went
on 60 Minutes to complain that he had only talked to Obama once since
his appointment in June. Then, upping the ante, the general flew to
London for a speech, where he was asked if de-escalating the war, along
the lines reportedly suggested by Vice President Joe Biden, might work.
"The short answer is: no," said McChrystal, dismissing the idea as
"shortsighted." His comment - which bluntly defied the American
tradition that a military officer's job is to carry out policy, not
make it - shocked political observers in Washington and reportedly
angered the White House. ...
For his part, Obama moved quickly to handle the insurrection. One day
after McChrystal's defiant London speech, the president unexpectedly
summoned the general to a one-on-one meeting aboard an idling Air Force
One in Copenhagen. No details of the discussion were released, but two
days later Jim Jones, the retired Marine general who now serves as
Obama's national-security adviser, publicly rebuked McChrystal,
declaring that it is "better for military advice to come up through the
chain of command."
[5]
Eichenberry, 18 days before Obama's Dec. 1 speech announcing 30,000
more troops, wrote a memo to Obama urging him not to send Americans to
die defending a regime as utterly corrupt and worthless as the puppet
regime in Afghanistan. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-obama-afghan12-2009nov12,0,2561752.story
[6] P.D. Scott: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15752
[7] Robert Perry says the same things have happened to Obama's stated plans to withdraw from Iraq. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/022009.html
[8] LA Times,12/9/09 http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghan-mcchrystal9-2009dec09,0,224382.story
[9] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125452861657560895.html
[10]
The secret service manual requires the planners of a motorcade to pour
on extra protection when there is a sharp turn in the route, which
requires that the car slow down. Agents should, therefore, have been
positioned all over Dealey Plaza to insure that there were no open
windows. That is standard procedure. Instead, there were no secret
service agents at all on the ground in Dealey Plaza. The protective
motorcycle escort was ordered to stay behind the President's vehicle.
The limo is equipped with handles on the rear trunk lid, and steps
built into the bumper, to accommodate agents riding on the back. The
agents were waived off this position and moved into a following car.
The driver should have stepped on the gas when the first shot was
fired. Instead, the driver braked and slowed, for the next 6 seconds.
Only after Kennedy was shot in the head did the driver take off.
[11]
I've spent 40 years researching, and 10 years making a documentary that
makes this point in spades. (I'll gladly provide you with a copy. It
is available on Amazon if you'd like to read the reviews.) In the
video, you will see a video interview with Aubrey Rike, the man who
loaded Kennedy's body into a bronze casket. You will also see a video
interview with Paul O'Neil, the Bethesda Naval Hospital sailor who
unloaded the body from a grey shipping casket, 20 minutes before the
bronze casket arrived at the facility. An FBI memo, shown in a section
of the video narrated by Walter Cronkite, says that it was obvious that
Kennedy's wounds had been altered. Pre-autopsy photos also show this
mutilation of the body. And one of the doctors from the Dallas
emergency room, in an excerpt from a NOVA special, points to an autopsy
photo of the entrance wound on Kennedy's right temple and says that the
photos show it was altered before the autopsy began.
The military had complete control of the body and the autopsy. They,
and no one else, altered the critical head wound. This was an entrance
wound to Kennedy's right temple. It was fired from the so-called
"grassy knoll." It exited the back leaving a gaping 4-inch hole in the
rear of Kennedy's head. The wound to Kennedy's temple was altered to
disguise its characteristic appearance as an entrance wound. But the
alterations were done at least 5 hours before Oswald was charged. The
autopsy room was full of admirals and generals. These men were acting
as part of the conspiracy to murder. There is no room for reasonable
debate on any of these points.
[12]
The movie "JFK" does an amazing job of making this point. The movie
presents a "Mr. X." This is not a fictional character. The man's name
was Fletcher Prouty. He was the Pentagon liaison to the CIA. And he
was deeply and directly involved, as shown in the movie, in the dual
efforts of JFK both to eliminate the CIA, and to withdraw from Vietnam.
[13] Biden: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/biden-begs-obama-no-more-troops-to-afghanistan.html
Emanuel: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/world/asia/19afghan.html
Eikenberry: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-obama-afghan12-2009nov12,0,2561752.story
[14]
You can NOT win a war against an insurgency that is more popular than
you. You can go on fighting forever, which is what the generals have
stated is their anticipated outcome. But you can not win a peace
without a government that is popularly supported.
[15] In fact, conditions in Afghanistan continue to deteriorate. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan,
Dec. 11, 2009. Top UN official in Afghanistan to leave in March,
Gareth Price, head of the Asia program at Chatham House, a think tank
in London, said "it's clear now that the Afghan government isn't
working."
[16] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004420_pf.html.
"People familiar with the inquiry into how the Salahis were able to
attend Tuesday's gala, even though they weren't on the official guest
list, said the Salahis exchanged e-mails with Michele S. Jones, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon-based liaison to
the White House. It was unclear how well the Salahis know Jones, but
Jones includes the Salahis' lawyer, Paul W. Gardner, as one of her 50
friends on Facebook.
[17]
My favorite is a lecture given by a physics professor, Steven Jones.
Jones was a tenured, admired physics professor at Brigham Young
University. Jones is a devout and conservative Christian and Mormon.
He voted for Bush. But his physics students asked him to explain the
collapse of the buildings at the World Trade Center, particularly
building 7. He enthusiastically approached the question as a teachable
moment. At first he approached the question as one of basic physics:
"Can the heat from jet fuel and office supplies explain the collapse of
a steel structure?" He concluded, with enormous anguish, that it
cannot. He was tortured by the implications for many months. And then
he woke up one morning and remembered that he was a leading expert, on
a world-class level, at chemical analysis. (The first time I googled
his name, his published papers on his techniques for determining the
chemical content of crystalline structures is what came up first.)
And, having determined that the official story of airplanes and jet
fuel could not account for the collapse of the buildings, he determined
to use his expertise to analyze samples of dust from the World Trade
Center to search for evidence of what did, in fact, bring down the
buildings. He found abundant evidence (metallic microspheres) of steel
having been evaporated (such tiny microspheres are created when steel
is evaporated) and also abundant samples of the military grade
demolition explosive, thermite. Thermite is virtually the only way
that steel can be heated to sufficiently high temperatures that it
evaporates. But I have several other DVD's besides the one by
Professor Jones. All of this information, including the videos, is
available online.
[18]
The assassin of Robert Kennedy, Sirhan Sirhan, is the best example,
since his case was the most thoroughly examined. The papers splashed
the idea of his being a radical West-hating Palestinian across the
front page. But Sirhan was a Christian. He and his family liked the
Kennedys. He had no recollection of the shooting. And every
eye-witness says that his gun never got within 3 feet of Kennedy's
front, while Kennedy had powder burns on the back of his head, which
the coroner said were left by a shot from not more than 1 inch.
Photographs showing CIA operatives, known Kennedy haters, around the
Biltmore hotel that night, have been recently uncovered.
The shooters of John Lennon, George Wallace, and Ronald Reagan fit
similar profiles, but their cases have not been so carefully
investigated.
The CIA spent 30 years researching hypnotism, but they learned nothing
and there are no files. As I said, if you've ever seen a hypnotist at
work, you will see that some people under hypnosis can be made to do
anything. But not everyone is susceptible. Sirhan was hypnotized by
court appointed psychiatrists. He was demonstrably susceptible.
[19] The link will take you to a stunning report on the shooter from the NY Times.
You have to read through to the end to get to the most amazing quotes
from his neighbors. He was, apparently, a friendly, lovable guy. The
tenants generally saw him leave early and come home late in the
afternoon, usually in his fatigues. He never had visitors, they said,
but he was friendly with his neighbors. "The first day he moved in, he
offered to give me a ride to work," said Willie Bell, 51, who lived
next door. "He'd give you the shoes and shirt and pants off him if you
need it. Nicest guy you'd want to meet. (Boy! You sure don't find
that quote in the headlines.) "The very first day I seen him, he
hugged me like, 'My brother, how you doing?'" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/09reconstruct.html?scp=3&sq=%22Why%20the%20War%20on%20Terror%20Is%20a%20War%20on%20Islam%22&st=cse
[20] http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9410718.
"Fort Hood: Hasan Asked Awlaki If It Was Okay to Kill American
Soldiers" Please note that this is ABC news online. This story has
been utterly suppressed. It was never broadcast by ABC, or carried by
any major newspaper. Within 24 hours of the publication of this
report, Awlaki's home was bombed by Yemeni war planes. You didn't know
Yemen had an air force?
[21] http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111309dnentcharges.4179b70.html.
"I have confirmed through independent sources that there were
communications and wire transfers made to Pakistan," McCaul said in a
prepared statement provided by his spokesman. "This Pakistan connection
just raises more red flags about this case and demonstrates why it's
important for Congress to exercise its oversight authority."
[22]
Curiouser and curiouser. Obama ordered the FBI to investigate
themselves to determine "whiskey tango foxtrot" they were doing in this
case. And the day they finished their investigation, he ordered them
to do it again, only this time with outside supervision. Immediately
after the shooting, Obama ordered a total clampdown on leaks of
information about the case. There is clearly much more going on here
than meets the eye: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-fort-hood9-2009dec09,0,399074.story
[23]
John Connally, who is implicated in the JFK assassination, called LBJ
to urge him to pursue this avenue in order to justify an invasion of
Cuba. The call was recorded and is available on line both in
transcript and audio form. The CIA claimed to have a photo of Oswald
visiting the Cuban embassy. But the photo does not remotely resemble
Oswald, and the FBI investigation says Oswald was elsewhere at the
time. Further, Oswald's representation of himself as a member of the
genuine pro-Castro "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" (FPCC) proved to be a
complete fraud. He was the only "member" of his local chapter. He set
it up without authorization from the actual FPCC. The address he used
on his leaflets for the FPCC was that of a CIA office run by the former
head of the Chicago FBI, Guy Bannister.
[24] http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-fort-hood9-2009dec09,0,399074.story
[25] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/f253-f03.shtml
[26] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWta99fesPw&NR=1
[27] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/15/100215fa_fact_mayer.
This is an excellent and thorough description of the Obama
administration's and Eric Holder's process in deciding to bring the
case to trial. It also describes the bloody threats of the neocons,
led by Cheney's daughter, against the people of the city of New York,
should the trial go forward.
[28] http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/dick-cheney-vice-president-joe-biden-square-off/story?id=9839602.
Cheney: "I think, in fact, the situation with respect to al Qaeda to
say that, you know, that was a big attack we had on 9/11, but it's not
likely again, I just think that's dead wrong," the former VP said on
"This Week. "I think the biggest strategic threat the United States
faces today is the possibility of another 9/11 with a nuclear weapon or
a biological agent of some kind, and I think al Qaeda is out there even
as we meet trying to figure out how to do that."
[29] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/15/100215fa_fact_mayer
Collapse
In what may be President Obama's most significant foray into changing U.S.-Africa policy since his election in 2008, the United States is embarking on a new initiative to boost agricultural production in the global south. Feed the Future (FTF) came out of the G8 summit in L'Aquila in 2009 where developed country leaders committed to acting to "achieve sustainable global food security." Obama pledged $3.5 billion over three years toward this goal, in hopes that other rich nations would also make significant investments in agricultural development.
