Tag Archives: Central Intelligence Agency

Some predictions for 2013 after 2012?


DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN07 - John F. Kerry, Se...
DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN07 – John F. Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts (Democrat), USA captured during the session ‘The Future of the Middle East’ at the Annual Meeting 2007 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 27, 2007. Copyright by World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Remy Steinegger (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

>”Don’t sweat the small stuff when so much else matters.”<

Predictions are not always easy and sometimes impossible. We have one certainty and this is that not nothing is certain. Our agenda for tomorrow based on today or yesterday may well work out, but sometimes it may get disrupted by the unexpected and we have to deal with things as they face us. The day may end differently than we expected, despite a good start perhaps and despite the fact that we assumed everything would by all right.

The same applies to predictions on a New Year, we hope for the best but nothing is certain. Same applies to the weather forecast. We may have good grounds to say it will be a sunny day tomorrow and go to the beach, but we may have to change plans as it proves to be a rainy day with a thunderstorm after eg a very humid day. Let’s be happy that the forecast that the world would end on the 20th of December was nonsense, nobody is able to predict those things.

In other words we may have our intentions but we are not sure whether they come true. Hence what I have to say about 2013 is based on assumptions, based on trends and certain facts perhaps but knowing as well that everything can be changed by the unexpected. In other words and if you like, read what is written below for your pleasure only. It is written by a country Physician, – so be on your guard as Physicians are not supposed to know anything about the future, not to speak about international developments. However what is said is not too difficult and perhaps we all know about it already. Besides this there is no pretension to be complete on those things as completeness on those things as far beyond our abilities.

2012 was for sure not the most dramatic year fortunately. As I said the world did not come to an end and for some this was a bonus, if they were aware of those predictions. Still there have been plenty of issues in 2012 with the seeds of events setting the scene for 2013. This includes eg the launch of a long-range rocket in North Korea, a country with just a new young leader.We had the conflict between Israel and Gaza, or actually as well the non – coöperation from Israel towards a new Palestinian State next door with still clearly significant Hamas impact and the potential of new rocket attacks from East Jerusalem, – if again a conflict situation. Hamas still being supported by Iran, not particularly Israels biggest ally so to say. We all know this. Nothing new. There has been always friction in this area.. Even in the Old Testament there were many reflections on struggle and endless fights. The problem now is that we have different means to start war’s. It’s a bit scary at times. Iran’s nuclear ambitions within this context are only adding oil on fear.

The ongoing civil war in Syria with endless killings and with the remote risk of escalation is an other example, and sadly spoken there is no reference for life at all in Syria (its leaders).. The only thing which is positive after the international community being tight into “non action” is that Russia is getting a bit over Syria with its troubles as well, which may aid international coöperation to end this pointless conflict, – based on a dictator hanging in for power. It’s a terrible example.

There are the current tensions between China and Japan about an absolute insignificant rock in the ocean, which means apparently enough for those countries to send Navy vessels to this direction. And we all hope that no idiot will start to sink a ship in this breeding conflict as little things can have major implications. However feel assured, neither the Chinese nor the Japanese are idiots, they need to show to their own people that they take this issue serious. However one may ask for what reason. One miscalculation or error in judgement may ruin plans. Interestingly Kennedy during the missile Cuba crisis in 1962 was at the end more concerned about his own Generals than about the leader of the Soviet Union at the time. Gives an indication perhaps that playing with fire may give unexpectedly a fire and sometimes a big one.

The continuation of Obama’s Presidency in 2013 may cause him more grey hairs, but his team approach will help to set the tone of international developments where both wisdom action and restraint are more balanced when the election outcome would have been differently. History has not always been that lucky.

Syrian dictator Assad still being in office with all the ongoing massacres will drive him into increasing isolation.Hopefully it is just a matter of time that international approval will help to stop the needless killings and extreme violence in this troubled country.The whole Middle East area is already troubled enough.

Needless to say that the Middle East will be most challenging in 2013, more so than in 2012. This since civilization festered area with religious hatred and conflict for certain will not easily find a harmonious solution for all parties involved. The most practical interim solution will be straight on US – Iran discussions to test Iran’s willingness to coöperate in multi part talks to restrict/reduce the chance of an escalating war without end.The emhasis should be to end all terror related violence as only this will encourage Israel to help the Palestinians into the developments needed with the protection of all people in the Israel/Gaza region.It is just wait and see whether it will go this direction, but it would be wise to include Iran subject to prove of genuine intentions to keep friendly relations with all neighbours in the area, including full safety guarantees for Israel.

It is amazing to see that the Euro crisis has been able to drag on for another year without a final conclusion. In December 2012 Greece is still in the Eurozone and different European countries are struggling with various intensity to stay straight, so to say. Unemployment ratio is increasing likewise the closure or reduction of various businesses. For many the belief in the Euro future is bleak with Germany however insisting that the Euro should survive. Needless to say that a potential fall of the Euro will have lots of implications for the people of Europe, but also for the nations with strong Euro connections.

Leadership changes took place in various countries during 2012 and generally spoken not much change can be expected immediately after those transitions. However, the leadership changes in both North Korea,China, Russia, Japan and other States will set the agenda for changing dynamics in 2013, with the inclusion at least of a stable and trustworthy foreign policy approach of the US under the same President with a good successor of Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State. John Kerry is a foreign policy expert and an impressive elder statesman in the US Senate. He will not need much “in-house training” to aid US foreign policy on critical issues in 2013.

The most important issue perhaps of being resolved at present is unfortunately financial . If both the US and Europe are unable to solve their issues with the required political will, it will enhance the weakening of the “western hemisphere” in almost every dimension. Fiscal cliffs or not, the balance between outgoing’s and innings need to be right. The current US deficit and the Federal Reserve printing heaps of money not backed by any “golden standard” or “oil” is asking for trouble down the line with the risk of a massive new recession.Utterly complex matters within the US not fully controlled need to be be managed or controlled by vigorous new legislation. Gun control is important and a public topic at present but the system of financial self-regulation is vital for the US to continue to exist in the way it does and not go down the road as the Roman empire once did. Some countries perhaps would be delighted with a reduction of US power, but the risk of a significant reduction of US power could destabilise the world and President’s Obama’s second term will be vital to face and deal with the issues as they are.The potential foreshadow of social unrest and increasing violence as a result of a possible second recession makes gun control even more significant to protect US citizens against itself. The potential destruction of the US not necessarily may come from the outside but can come from the inside and the years ahead are critical for the US. Inflation and possible recession are going hand in hand if no firm control on the Federal Reserve, but the powers behind this are significant and dealing with this is a risk for the US President. However what needs to be done needs to be done. At the end of the day it is all people’s work translated into energy, rewarded by money, – which is decreasing in value by the private control of creating money by the Federal Reserve. Man made problems can be resolved by men, only if the political will to support the required directions resonates through various legislative branches in both Europe and the US.Without any predictions being possible it is wait and see how the dynamis in this area will evolve in 2013, knowing that any international conflict could ruin the efforts of each country to solve its balance between spending and cutting costs in a way which protects those who have worked hard for their money, but also those who live from their superannuation, those who are disabled and fragile in society, the elderly and the children included. “Sometimes the wrong choices bring us to the right places.” as was once said by Nathan Pyle, – however I doubt this for 2013 (in no uncertain terms).. Increasing costs for food and energy against reduced value of our money is harmful wherever we may live on this world, and still the majority of people can’t afford it anymore and live below any reasonable standard of living.

Various countries in the Middle East will face the problem of opposing Islamist groups taking responsibility of taking Government as many Islamists have their own political frictions with the potential of increasing sectarian conflicts in the years laying ahead. Initial peaceful countries could turn quickly into new areas of intense conflict.

The US has renewed interest  in the Asian Pacific for both economical and security reasons after withdrawing from both Iraq and eventually in 2014 from Afghanistan, but the vacuüm created will have both Iran’s and India’s interest to have their perceived deserved share of influence. Also an area of different dynamics with an uncertain outcome at this stage after US withdrawal by the end of 2014.

It is anticipated that US dependence on oil exporting countries is going to reduce in quite sustained ways with significant “US dollar” issues. There is a tendency already of increasing countries less relying on the value of the US dollar with as final result (forgetting about a few other issues) that the US impact on foreign international policy may reduce in value and strength..

President Obama shortly in his second term will have greater influence to balance the critical important relationships between the US and China. The new President Xi from China needs to get agreement and support for a different set of policies in a rebalancing act on the Chines economy and the demands of some 350 million middle class people. The facts behind the conflict between Japan and China in the East Chines sea could be well that the Chinese government can’t afford to look weak. It is clear that the US has been worried about China for some time and it is not hoped that Japan might be forced to act in a very trivial conflict with apart from this the still contentious issues around Taiwan.

As we all know, words from leaders may lead to action and both feeding empty rhetoric and false sentiments besides fear, are unhelpful to balance the required coöperation between Washington and Beijing.Tha call for action goes together for the call for great care on both sides. Again note that it has been an international interest to have President Obama reelected as US “Commander-in-Chief”, even though a number of US citizens feel different about this.

Iran has been faced with various sanctions in 2012 together with increased inflation and unemployment.The desire of Iran to go nuclear and have potential weapons of mass destruction is going at a significant cost for Iran.It’s standing in the region as due to the Arab uprising is not as strong as it was before.It’s ally Syria is fully involved in a civil war and Israels insistence on a preëmptive attack may seem to have diminished somewhat, waiting what a second Obama term will deliver in terms of security for Israel. The question remains whether containment of a nuclear Iran is possible. Israel will still reconsider its options and in terms of US foreign policy it would be wise to test Iran on its willingness to have serious discussions on security matters in the Middle East area, including its place about Israel. If Israels security is without any doubt accepted it is neither in Israel’s interest nor intention to start a preëmptive war with Iran, but also this is a wait and see matter as how dynamics will evolve. Needless to say again that this is an area of both great concern and importance and proactive management from the US Administration is a need to keep the right balance as from other countries this can’t be expected, unfortunately. It’s a critical issue in US foreign policy in the Middle East and it would be hoped that John Kerry will be granted with a new US mission to explore the potential coöperation with Iran to balance US vital security interest in Israel, without a major Middle East war.

Climate change and the implications of Climate change, the protection against terrorism of any kind will remain high on the international agenda, likewise and hopefully increasingly the protection of human rights. The last often an issue of international lip service and a need being recognised but not often materialised where it proves to be required, including the issue of increasing human trafficking. Also in this domain we have to wait and see how international coöperation will work out, but at least a stable world will contribute and a world with increasing conflict will compromise, – any form of human rights! Hence the importance of the 2013 agenda that some countries are going to deal seriously with their own financial affairs as what we can learn from history is that the great depression of the 1930ties was one of the triggers of the second word war.

America’s stronghold as an economic power has been compromised in the past and it is by far nor sure this will be sorted in the future. A sudden recession or an unexpeced and escalating conflict could ruin each potential to overcome its problems if both leaders in Europe and the US are unable to get the required support to control internal economical dynamics not being sufficiently managed in the past. Fruitful international relationships are  of ongoing importance, which will be really the challenge of 2013 with a new generation of leaders in vital countries of potential conflict.

Far more to say about 2013, but let’s leave this to the experts with more insight information about existing background dynamics. What often seems true on the surface is different from the inside, with the knowledge reaching this inside.

Thank you!

 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

To sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression against human rights and injustice, and create the biggest movement on earth


 
Collage for MENA protests
“Each time a man stands up for an ideal or act to improve the lot of others, or strikes against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”    – Robert F Kennedy,  former US Senator and Presidential candidate in 1968
Like words can move and guide people as part of proper leadership, so is principle centred and strategic non violent action able to remove the power base of oppressive regimes, – those regimes with no respect for human rights. Needless to say the movement of non violent action will endure and the force if well-balanced on all core principles, may outmanoeuvre dictators to make free the people who lost their freedom and dignity under often ruthless powers.
Related image
It works. It proved in India at the times of Gandhi, it proved in Tunisia and Egypt with people at the forefront of action and strengthened with the literature of eg Gene Sharp, the last being a scholar in nonviolent social change and still alive today in East Boston, USA.   Gene Sharp is a graduate from Oxford and has held positions at Harvard University, besides Massachusetts Dartmouth. His books “The Politics of Nonviolent Action” and “Waging Nonviolent Struggle” have inspired many movements across the globe. Iran did accuse him of working for the CIA, which is not true. A reflection however that the non violent movement if well prepared is feared by those countries who have reason to fear, Iran and Syria included. Needless to say that in some Middle East countries real discussions are going as how to break the force of non violent action. However if well-developed, like Robert Kennedy from a distance once indicated, it can “sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression”, as happened eg in South Africa.
Obviously the road of non violence action is not without risk and people engaging in non violent action will be killed regardless their good intentions. Often the struggle is a hard one with loss of friends to be endured, not to speak about the risk of very potential torture. However non-violence by principle and guided with superior talent is the only way, as violence will be responded with greater violence by forces far stronger than yourself and it will give opponents an argument to fight to the bitter end. Non violence includes the choice of specific tactics, often to break the violence of opposing policing and military force.
There have been misconceptions about nonviolent action. Many people used to think that it was not a strong force and that only the violence of war could remove extreme dictators. It is not true. Foreign countries do not need to occupy countries where human rights are abused or where dictator’s have the reigns. It needs to come from the people themselves, at times with support like in Libya. However the last one was not an example of non violent struggle and where violent struggle obtains a victory the likelihood of violence to be sustained has increased, – whatever party did win the struggle. Only if the principles of non violent action are at the centre of the struggle, those groups sustaining and winning the battle this way are more likely to continue to stick to those principles.
If people are disciplined and courageous, they can do it with the proper concepts of non violent action. When people lose the understandable element of fear of an oppressor’s regime, the oppressive regime is facing deep trouble. Maintaining a nonviolent discipline is crucial. If a highly oppressive regime has various troops and effective weapons, it is foolish to try fighting them on their own ground You can’t win from their weapons and if you use the same tactics you will be branded as terrorists. So you must choose something else. Violence is usually not the answer, it creates more often greater disasters.
Highly regarded Us exVietnam war officials initially being sceptic about the concept of “non violent action”, – changed their mind after the war as they were confronted with evidence that it worked,  – more effective than they ever thought!  The power base of people does not involve a foreign occupation of any country if such country lives in gross contradiction of essential human rights, – it does not even involve the requirement of using ugly force. It only requires to empower people with the principles of non violent obstruction and non coöperation in the specific context of their country and such a movement is able the get a victory on principle and start on the same principles a sustainable democracy with proper law enforcement, – the last requiring force of the law on the real offenders and criminals.
Related image
Related imageMilitary-Industrial Complex Conduct Invites Nonviolent Direct Action
Some may say throwing stones are fine as long as you don’t hit people. It is simply not true. The gesture is violent in itself and will be responded with physical and all other violence. In biblical terms the fall of Jericho was neither caused by violence nor stones. The walls representing the barrier were of such nature that violence would not bring it down. Oppression and dictators are based on certain systems of power and undermining those systems to make them fall apart is one of the aims to get rid of oppression. With faith!
Related image

 

This concept can be developed into a smart and highly effective technology using the human spirit in all it’s positive and creative dimensions for those who suffer an enduring and violent injustice against the basics of human rights. It requires a sound knowledge of the nature and dynamics of the oppressing regime, answering the question as well in which areas they are both strong and weak. Modern communication technology will  aid such movement of positive change.

 
It is not always true that every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves, what is true that every community may get the sort of law enforcement it insists on. To tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world (as the Greeks) wrote so long ago, requires a shift in modern thinking where this modern thinking traditionally did include the option of excessive and more brutal force than ever before, against the will and the interest of the people. This type of  shift in thinking and perception is simply progress in the way we see the world and change is the motivator of progress into non violent ways to meet worthy goals and show respect for life.
However this type of change has enemies not to be underestimated. Those enemies are usually the extremists being extreme in their intolerance and in their accusations and it is paramount to provide them no grounded base for their accusations. Hence being in debt familiar with the principles of non violent struggle being the baseline to start a strategic sound and well prepared campaign against the oppressors, whoever the oppressors are and wherever they may be.
It is within this context that the intellectual work of Gene Sharp deserves recognition as within the context of an increasing friction between the interests of the people and the interests of Governments who seek confrontation rather than peace,  whilst the people they represent say:”Never ever again!”, – it provides a blueprint to do what Senator Robert F Kennedy once said in the above quote about “ripples of hope” and “million centres of energy and daring”.
The power of one can make or break the world where it comes to critical decisions about war and peace, and where the power of one directs into the direction of war the power of people’s have a right to say:”Not again, – never again!”, – as all out war on this planet not being able to controlled anymore is not a rational alternative. People  have  a right even to sweep down democratic governments if those governments take it one step too far in the direction of major war, and not keep the peace where  the option is to preserve the peace. Too many wars in the past were pointless, without real gain and with too many losses.
Any future major war may escalate into global disaster and as global citizens we have an obligation to watch our governments on the best possible intentions to protect our human right to live on this planet and cultivate the positive potential of life, – industry, – liberty and cut inequalities among race, cultures and individual opportunities. The last just  to be able to live, to love, to learn and to leave a legacy!
The use of violence is only the very last option when nuclear powers try to dominate the world with both the use of nuclear force and international blackmail, –  after it proved all efforts of proper international diplomacy guided by the UN failed.
Related image
To sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression against human rights and injustice, against the mightiest walls in favour of an increasing arms race and both nuclear and biochemical threat, –  requires nearly half a billion centres of energy and daring.  As only this current can change the tide in human history!

Thank you!

 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice (Part 11 – Epilogue & Summary)


Image result for images president kennedy   –

–                                                                                                                          

If this is the first article you read in this series about “Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice”, you might be interested to read first about the 8 Presidents being discussed in the 10 earlier chapters . Start in this case at Part 1 or 2 and work your way up to Chapter 10. Perhaps one at the time. Those chapters  can be found in “Recent Posts” at the right upper area of this page in the July/August 2011 editions. Other articles can be found in different monthly sections….Whilst not everybody agrees, – it is my opinion that with the arrival of President Obama in 2009, a new chapter started with various and valuable dimensions, leaving for the US a dark past behind since the assassination of President John F Kennedy in 1963.

Image result for images president kennedy

The US is a country with wide spectrum divisions and dangers but still now more civilised than in the way certain things have been dealt with in the past at the level of the Executive Branch. Let’s hope it stay this way in the years ahead

Related image

>Epilogue<

 
 “I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world, not only for its strength, but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.”
Related imageRelated image
 
 –Related image
“With all the history of war, and the human race’s history unfortunately has been a good deal more war than peace, with nuclear weapons distributed all through the world, and available, and the strong reluctance of any people to accept defeat, I see the possibility in the 1970’s of the President of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have these weapons.”
“My fellow Americans, let us take that first step. Let us…step back from the shadow of war and seek out the way of peace. And if that journey is a thousand miles, or even more, let history record that we, in this land, at this time, took the first step.”    
Related image
–                                                
“The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.”   John F Kennedy, the 35th US President.
Related image
 –>>

The beauty of a democracy is that systems of government are far more flexible than an autocracy, provided that voters use their right to vote with wisdom and commitment to select the people who are able to represent them with the required integrity and courage to work those systems for the better welfare of the people they represent. “Profiles in US Presidential violations of Justice” has neither been an example of excellence in US Government systems in the domain of the Executive branch, nor has it been able to give the worst examples at the background of the past operating powers in the process of their actions.   The justice violations as part of Presidential powers or extended powers at the Executive branch of the US have been quite clear at certain areas and the US  both as a Republic and a Democracy has been quite damaged since the assassination on the 35th US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It is fair to say that there has been an increasing level of disconnection between citizens and their government, in part at least as due to the lack of transparency, the various cover up’s, the number of illegal and criminal covert operations, the massive increase and difficult to control intelligence units. Apart from the contribution to unrest in the world and sacrificing people on pointless battlefields.

Related image

-[

Whilst most people working in US Agencies including those of the Military and the CIA are most valuable and do a good job in the interest of their country, the dangers of the Pentagon and the CIA being overpowering and misleading the US President to help long-term US military strategy, including the future US direction, are the most prominent dangers of the US as a democracy. As earlier reflected, a general will do most of the times an excellent job at war, the preparation, the logistics etc. Once they are ordered to go to war they will do it right and the army will do it right and if such a war has a real purpose as the last possible option after all other options did not work, there are occasions this could be a justified war. The first direction however should be always to prevent either war or terror. The military presence in US policy making and/or direction has always been more than much. Some earlier US Presidents did warn for the potential dangers in retrospect.

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

 

After the JFK  assassination most US Presidents were at some level marionettes of those major background powers and with President Obama it is still wait and see how matters will evolve as he needs to balance with extreme caution amidst various dynamics.

Regarding the latest full Presidency of G.W. Bush and the 9/11 Commission it is worth to make the added notations:

The “Sept. 11 Commission”  did investigate  a claim that U.S. defense intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as a likely part of an al Qaeda cell more than a year before the 2001 hijackings but did not send the information to law enforcement. Republican Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said that the men were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as “Able Danger.” An earlier link to al Qaeda than any previously disclosed intelligence about Atta is correct. “The 9/11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohamed Atta or of his cell,”  co-Chairman of the “September 11 Commission”  Lee H. Hamilton said.  This is correct as well.

Many of the 9/11 family reactions on this late information is not surprising as it would seem some significant issues have not been properly investigated.  The question is about why  didn’t “Able Danger” report their finding to the FBI?  Why wasn’t Atta and other 9/11 terrorists put on a watch list even though there was evidence of their terrorist ties?  Have there been profound failures or were there other reasons which needed to be concealed at all cost?

The truth is that “Able Danger” was banned from sharing information with the FBI. One of the members of  the “9/11 Commission” herself was  deeply involved  in some Clinton scandals, including “Chinagate”. Jamie Gorelick was Janet Reno’s right hand “man” in the Justice Department.

The answer to the question about why this new information came that late, being banned from the Commission, is because Jamie Gorelick was on the Commission for the purpose to hide information, as such to protect the position of former President Clinton, – as it would seem. There have been never proper investigations in the the intelligence failures of the Clinton era. John Deutch, former Director of Central Intelligence, had signed a criminal plea agreement in connection with his mishandling of national secrets the day before being pardoned by the outgoing President Clinton.

During Clinton’s Presidency  in 1997 the Taliban was  invited in Texas to meet with former US President G.H.W. Bush.. They had their meeting.

Current President Karzai of Afghanistan worked for former US President G.H.Bush (Bush,sr) quite some time ago and there have been close longstanding Taliban connections  between former President Bush and the CIA at the time. The CIA supported the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets many years ago, as we did see in the earlier chapters. Within this context Osama bin Laden did visit the US for support and weapons to be distributed to the Taliban. It was within this context that there has been meetings between Taliban representatives and G.H Bush in Texas, at the invitation of the former US President. Whilst the CIA used Massoud (a famous Mujahideen leader)  for a while to help the US force, – during the meeting however between Bush and the Taliban arrangements were made to assassinate Massoud. Other issues, including money oil and drugs profits, were discussed as well. In the  Taliban’s rise to power there was very much fighting and complex dynamics. Ahmad Shah Massoud  tried to start a nationwide political process with the goal of national consolidation and democratic elections, also inviting the Taliban to join the process and to contribute to stability. The last really so much required in Afghanistan.  Ahmad Shah Massoud had defeated the Soviet Red Army nine times in his home region of Panjshir, in north-eastern Afghanistan. He was highly regarded. However the Taliban declined to join such a political process. Osama bin Laden and Massoud were in essence enemies of each other. In the case of the Massoud assassination Karzai did act for Bush, and ordered as requested by Bush the assassination of Massoud. Two day before 9/11 he was killed.  Massoud had his own intelligence network and knew too much of what was going to happen. Massoud was aware of the Bush Karzai connections and the Taliban visit to  Texas and him blowing the whistle about 9/11 was obviously not allowed. He warned before 9/11 about pending terror attacks.

There have been various occasions that the US could have disposed Osama bin Laden but always at the last-minute there was a stand down. Osama bin Laden had to help first a secret and well prepared mission supported by the US Government, despite the existing tensions. He was a culprit used for a mission to help US foreign policy and to help the US to prepare for war with enough public support.  Bin Laden did not know that al-Qaeda would have “free access” to the US at the time of 9/11, and that the damage would be of such extended level.

Recordings from Rumsfeld before 9/11 did show that the only way America would be able to retaliate was a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack would give an excuse to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing else would support such an agenda in the eyes of the world and the US. A terrorist attack would be the justification for plans being in place already. The CIA was well prepared to add to the damage on that fateful day in New York. On the night Bush gave his “Axis of Evil” designation to Afghanistan US forces were less than four hours from acquiring Osama Bin Laden. As requested by G.W.Bush Bill Richardson  intervened and the US missed deliberately a chance to get bin-Laden.

The time was not ready to dispose Osama bin Laden. Richardson was earlier the designated man to negotiate with the Taliban as part  of secret US policies in 1996 of a failed UNOCAL deal (Unocal Corporation) about the proposed building of an oil pipeline through the country. It failed, hence the US wanted to retaliate against the Taliban down the track. The Taliban and al-Qaeda (bin-Laden) were not always that friendly with each other. There have been various discussion to dispose bin-Laden but the US wanted to wait and allow Osama bin-Laden to execute his plan to attack the US. Massoud was aware of some part of the 9/11 plan, hence Karzai and his Taliban carried out the assassination for G.W. Bush  2 days before 9/11. Massoud would have blown the whistle in retrospect.

The Massoud assassination was however the biggest mistake ever made in terms of the US Afghanistan policy. The course of the Afghan unrest could have ended in favor of Massoud as he was both highly regarded and had most of the support for a different more fruitful direction in this troubled country, but it didn’t happen.  Massoud had intelligence information on 9/11 and 9/11 was supposed to go ahead as the G.W.Bush Administrattion with Cheney and Rumsfeld had prepared for it because (as mentioned) a trigger was required to start a war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, apart from the fact that it would give an excuse to attack Iraq as well if evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” being around could be created.  We know that there were no weapons of “mass destruction” in Iraq, but for attacking Iraq and disposing Saddam Hussein such required evidence could be fabricated in such a way that allies to join this mission would believe in a legitimate war against Iraq, and so it happened….

Massoud – in Afghanistan – had enough influence in retrospect to solve the problem in Afghanistan, to stop eventually the violence in a natural way. He had actually more influence than Osama bin-Laden and was of an entirely different nature.  He would have solved the problems eventually without any need for the US to intervene. However the US had mixed agenda’s and different interests.

Both Clinton and G.W.Bush had secrets to keep for the 9/11 Commission. Bush wanted to have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan and provided deliberately Bin-Laden and al-Qaeda the opportunity for the 9/11 attacks with a stand down in security systems (different but similar with the JFK assassination, however this time with Rumsfeld & Cheney support), meanwhile organising before the attack the CIA (?) to plant bombs underneath the WTC buildings facilitating a controlled demolition.  WTC7 was involved as well  as there was a lot of Intelligence information re 9/11 (on purpose stored there). This would be all destroyed when WTC 7 would come down. WTC7 did however not endure the impact of a plane. The Pentagon attack was inflicted by missiles and not by the impact of a plane, despite the Government report. The last was an attack not inflicted by al-Qaeda, neither were the explosives bringing down the WTC buildings related with al-Qaeda. Those additions were ordered by the Executive branch of the US Government.

There was no wisdom at all in US policy at the time of the G.W. Bush Administration. Subject to further Senate and court hearings, the actions of former US President G.W.Bush were both criminal within and outside the US. Traveling to Switzerland he would have to stand trial as part of human right abuses as part of Swiss legislation in line with the Convention from Geneva. In the US he is a free man, protected by legislation, – the wrong legislation in his case.

Former US President G.W.Bush was responsible for both the preventable 9/11 implications and 2 most expensive wars for which the US is still paying the price. If Massoud would have had US protection and support at the time  the problems in Afghanistan would have been resolved without any intervention and President Obama would not have faced the problems as they are now.  The 9/11 drama was a calculated and criminal decision in the White House to mislead both the US and the world at the time to facilitate a reason to go to a war being acceptable to the world. However it came at a cost for those living in New York, it came at a cost for all people being involved in the war’s which followed and it came at a cost of human rights, the last being violated at all dimensions. The Kennedy assassination in 1963 was the start of a trend to be continued in various Administrations,  – covert operations being continued, – but 9/11 was the worst.

We know Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US as was the President’s Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to President George W. Bush on the 6th of August, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda  36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacksCBS Evening News reported on this leaked memo document on the 15th of May 2002. The President’s Daily Brief (PDB) has important classified information on national security. The last collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies and given to the president and a select group of senior officials.  The PDB was reported in the 9/11 Commission Report on the 22nd of July 2004. The Phoenix Memo from the 10th of July 2001 reflects on FBI awareness. The recommendations were ignored and the person ignoring those recommendations was promoted after the 9/11 attacks by G.W.Bush.  Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice  are only a few groups as part of “the 9/11 Truth movement”, rejecting the outcome of the government facilitated “9/11 Commission Report”. As mentioned in the chapter about former US President G.W. Bush, – previous US President Carter did indicate the need for new investigations as well. It never happened.

Like the Government did stick in 1964 to the outcome of the Warren Commission report for many years, US Administrations will stick to the 9/11 Commission conclusions and do not and will not contest the outcome of this Commission due to the darker secrets being the foundation of ill selected wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only this, there was a hidden crime against US citizens in New York, allowed to be happening by the US Government at the time,  as mentioned to facilitate a reason to go to war.

It is this element of decision making in the White House which is so dangerous, –  if allowed to happen in the US without implications for those being responsible. I will come back on this. The US has a very poor record in the criminal justice systems when it applies to the US establishment.

Related image

For the purpose of this epilogue let’s just summarise the US Presidents from Lyndon Johnson until G.Bush, based on the information in the past chapters:

The 36th US President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

After the JFK assassination on the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas (Texas)  Johnson (LBJ) became the new US President. The June edition of this web blog on the JFK assassination provides more detail. Whilst Kennedy declared to withdraw from Vietnam, after the JFK  assassination Johnson increased the forces in Vietnam almost immediately and with the Civil Rights Act being pushed through Congress he did win the 1965 elections easily. He ordered in 1965 the Airmobile Division and various CIA forces to go to Vietnam to enhance the fighting strength in this region, followed by an increased military fighting strength from 75000 to 125000 man. As often happens in history there needs to be a trigger to get public opinion on board when it applies to extending or starting war. We did see this on various occasions, 9/11 included. LBJ used a surprise Vietcong attack at Pleiku in which 6 American military advisers were killed and 116 wounded on the 6th of February 1965.  LBJ’s aides assisted him with a 2 stage and premeditated contingencies plan , prepared several months before the attack. The first step was a retaliation airstrike in North Vietnam and the second step was to intensify the air war as implemented in 1965. It proved that LBJ decided on this level of intervention without really considering the costs and implications. This happened later as well when G.W Bush decided to go to 2 different wars. LBJ was pushed by both the CIA and the Pentagon not to change direction and as both the CIA and Pentagon were the background powers playing a part in the JFK’s assassination with full LBJ’s approval  beforehand, he had likely not much choice to continue the way it was to get an US military victory. This was the military aim. Lyndon Johnson was a most compromised and controversial man. By the end of August 1966 only 47% in the US did approve Johnson’s Presidency. The war became increasingly unpopular. By 1968 more than 500000 US military troops were concentrated in Vietnam. The war was costing some 2 billion dollars a month and meanwhile more bombs were dropped in Vietnam than during the second world war. LBJ did fully support the JFK assassination cover up with  the installation of the Warren Commission and “highly favourable” CIA representatives running the historical show this Commission provided to mislead the US people and Congress. Whilst LBJ deciding not to be reelected anymore in 1968 this did not mean that the CIA and Pentagon’s directions about Vietnam had changed. LBJ did serve a purpose, as other US Presidents served a military purpose. Issues around the JFK assassination as a matter of “national security”were still neither to be disclosed  nor the direction of Vietnam after 1968 to be  discontinued.  LBJ not being a Presidential candidate anymore in 1968 opened the way for new background dynamics.

Both the CIA, the FBI with Hoover and  the Pentagon were profoundly against a potential Robert Francis Kennedy being US President in 1968.  RFK would have been neither an US President being compromised by the military establishment nor by the CIA or Hoover. With RFK  winning the California primaries in June 1968 he became the person who would likely defeat Nixon in 1968. Nixon was aware of this, like FBI Chief Hoover. Nixon was from CIA perspective “100% save for US military policy” and the anti-war movement needed to be broken. First by taking Martin Luther King,jr out of the picture and when Robert Kennedy increased in popularity and became the likely candidate to win the elections after the primaries in California,  the premeditated strategy was to assassinate Kennedy as he was considered to be at this stage the main obstacle for the CIA’s defined “national security”, – like his brother ( the former US President) was in 1963. The implications would be horrendous if  Kennedy would be elected President in 1968.  He was perhaps even more determined than his brother “Jack”.  Both the FBI (with Hoover still being the Chief) and the CIA could not face this prospect as with RFK being President the withdrawal from Vietnam would become a fact. Hoover would likely lose his job with everything he inflicted at the background of the various scenes in which he played a role.  However, last but not least the JFK assassination with a floored Warren Commission report would be vigorously investigated and CIA involvement with Lyndon Johnson’s part would be disclosed to the public. As such Kennedy would likely get both Congressional and public support to reorganise the CIA and  bring LBJ to justice, – besides Nixon. Nixon was involved as well in the JFK assassination and in particular ordering Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. No, Nixon was not happy either with facing a second Kennedy in a Presidential contest as with RFK potentially winning he could forget his political future as well.

RFK became a security risk. As a US Senator of New York he was of no harm but being the potential next US President in 1968 after Johnson would open all the past corruptions from the LBJ US Government, including  various other people being involved in the assassination of his brother (the 35th US President) and “Bobby” for certain would not take any nonsense.  He did not make it.  The cover up was smart and well swallowed by the American public. Americans tend to swallow easily what the Government tells them and the media control has helped a fair bit. The question is who gave the order to take him as a second Kennedy out of the picture. Days before the JFK assassination Robert Kennedy was in the process of leaking most damaging information to Life Magazine about the Bobby Baker scandal in which Johnson was clearly involved, with an earlier political assassination in which LBJ was reportedly involved. LBJ did order that particular assassination. If this would leak with the other corruption issues, it would blow his political career for once and for all. However the 22nd of November 1963 did change history for once and for all. FBI Chief Hoover assisted LBJ to prevent the Bobby Baker scandal leaking to the press after LBJ’s inauguration. Hoover was always so helpful.

Both the combination of LBJ being unpopular, the riots in Chicago and the discouragement of both African – Americans and liberals after the assassinations of both MLK and RFK contributed to the fact that former Vice President Nixon (under Eisenhower) did win the Presidential elections  from Hubert Humphrey (LBJ’s Vice President). Robert Kennedy’s assassination did  not only play Nixon  in his favour, but it played his close ally Hoover and the CIA/military establishment in their favour as well.  LBJ likewise did not need to worry about RFK anymore. The secrets regarding the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas would be even more secured with Richard Nixon than with Hubert Humphrey. The background powers in the US proved to be succesful in their strategic approach with impact on public opinion as well. Richard Nixon did win the Presidential elections carrying  32  States and 301 Electoral votes. Richard Nixon was an old close ally of both Hoover and the “old” military establishment, and they had the man in the White House they needed.

The 37th US President Richard Milhouse Nixon.

Nixon mentioned in the 1968 campaign that he had a secret plan  for a complete withdrawal from Vietnam. It could not be disclosed as yet. With the assassination of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King the main obstacles for escalating the war in Vietnam were however eliminated with the anti-war movement in part being crushed, and once Nixon became US President the war in Vietnam went to full gear. Regarding the assassinations in the US on prominent people, drop by drop new revelations were allowed. Many years later Coretta Scot King (MLK’s wife) did win a wrongful death civil trial against Loyd Jowers and other unknown co-conspirators in 1999.  Jowers received $100000,- to arrange the assassination on MLK and the Jury was convinced that Government Agencies were parties to the assassination plot. It would seem that the LBJ government was involved at setting the stage of this assassination, using James Earl Ray as a scapegoat, as publicly on TV confirmed by Jowers on ABC’ Prime Time Life.  Jowers stated that both the mafia and the US Government were involved in the MLK assassination.  Reportedly Memphis police officer Lieutenant Earl Clark fired the fatal shots. The conspiracy did include J Edgar Hoover, Richard Helms, the CIA, the Memphis Police Department(MPD), Army intelligence and organised crime.  A very key person within the civil right movement was on the government payroll, responsible for infiltration and sabotage. A Jury in Memphis,TN, in November 1999 came to above conclusion after seventy witnesses testified under oath with 4000 pages of evidence, much of it was it new. The news of one of the most national security trials was suppressed by the US Government. It was clear that the 1997 reports of the House Select Committee on Assassinations re James Earl Ray justified verdict were wrong, besides other findings. Nixon’s Administration from 1974 sustained remarkable controversy over the Vietnam war. The invasion in 1970 of Cambodia and his approval of heavy bombardments on North Vietnam took his toll in the public opinion and he signed in 1973 a cease-fire. After Nixon returned from the Soviet Union, four men were arrested at the Watergate complex as due to burglary into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. After his reelection in 1972 the Watergate burglars were convicted and several of them implicated Nixon’s closest associates. It proved that the Watergate-break-in was only one of the several acts of both sabotage and political espionage carried out by the Nixon Administration. Nixon tried to keep away secret tapes from hearings by the “principal of separation of powers”. He had however to give many of the required tapes but not everything. The unravelling of the Nixon Presidency was unstoppable now and in 1974 the “House Judiciary Committee”started to discuss Nixon’s impeachment. It proved that Nixon had engaged in extensive domestic wiretapping apart from his questionable tax deductions through which he paid almost no federal income tax in 1973. On the 24th of July 1974 the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to give the tapes he had withheld. Those tapes were supposed to contain evidence of Nixon’s personal involvement in the Watergate operations including reflections about Watergate burglars being engaged in CIA operations. E.Howard Hunt was involved. This name will come back. The verdict was that if Nixon would not leave office on his own decision, he would be impeached, convicted and removed from office. On the 8th of August 1974 Nixon announced his resignation and Vice-President Ford was administered the Presidential oath on the 9th of August.

The 38th US President Gerald Ford

Related image

Ford gave Richard Nixon a full pardon in in 1974, only 1 month in office. Ford pardoned Richard Nixon completely, avoiding as such further investigations in the Watergate burglary as this would have far more implications than the public would be allowed to know. Gerald Ford has been part of the Warren Commission with the task to investigate the JFK assassination. Gerald Ford “the CIA man in Congress” had very close links with Allen Dulles, ex CIA Director who was fired by John F Kennedy.   Gerald Ford had close links with Nixon as well, in part as he became his Vice-President at a time when there was the potential that Richard Nixon could run in trouble over Watergate. However he knew Nixon before. Not only at the time of the Warren Commission, but both were for some time Republicans being on friendly terms with each other. Nixon knew that the Warren Commission was a hoax. Ford knew this as well. Both had their involvements. As mentioned Nixon reportedly ordered Ruby to kill Oswald just after the Kennedy assassination as it was clear that further hearings of Oswald would prove that Oswald was not involved at all. Jack Ruby had close connections with Nixon as he worked for him when Nixon was a fresh Congressman. Both Nixon and Ruby had close connections with the mafia and the FBI. However Ruby had to pay for it in prison, fearful for his life as he knew that Johnson and others who did orchestrate the JFK assassination were still in power and would not shy away to kill him if there was a risk that he would speak out. Ford was fully aware.Fully aware as well about the CIA/military involvement in the JFK assassination.FBI Chief Hoover was still alive at the time. We know that Spiro Agnew had to resign but his succession was for strategic reasons vital. Gerald Ford was  very close with FBI Chief Hoover. In his memoirs just before his death he revealed besides his relationship with Hoover, that the CIA was involved in the assassination on President John F Kennedy. It should be noted that Richard Nixon and George Herbert Bush (the latter US Vice-President and US President) have been integral to the Bay of Pigs operations, which became a failure under the Kennedy Administration as Kennedy based on the utterly poor intelligence information being provided, misleading actually, did not want an escalating war on Cuba.  As Vice-President, Nixon worked under President Eisenhower, together with Allen Dulles from the CIA and other senior CIA staff on the strategic planning of the Bay of Pigs. The bestselling book “Plausible Denial” by Mark Lane in 1991 reflects on both CIA involvement in JFK’s death, as part of Kennedy ignoring CIA advise to deploy American troops in Cuba. The later President Bush  was at the time of the Pay of Pigs a CIA  operative and the FBI confirmed in documents being released many years later that Bush sr was involved in the CIA briefing the day after the JFK assassination.The role of FBI Chief Hoover in the JFK assassination is most controversial as well. Gerald Ford as member of the Warren Commission leaked all confidential information to FBI Chief Hoover. The general picture is that key CIA people were involved in both the JFK and RFK assassination with Bay of Pigs links, besides Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, FBI Chief Hoover and at the background H.W.Bush being involved as part of his CIA deployment at the time of the covert operation on Kennedy. Gerald Ford became US President after Richard Nixon had to resign.  Ford always defended the lone gunman theory within the identified cause of death by the Warren Commission. As reflected he had excellent relations with the FBI Chief Hoover at the time.  Deliberately and against all usual protocol he did help FBI Chief Hoover by providing him all the in’s and out’s of the Warren Commission  in private and “confidential”, as such allowing Hoover to keep an eye on those members who would perhaps not follow Allen Dulles verdict on the “lone gunman theory”. There were clearly 2 members of the Warren Commission having some reservations on both the process and the verdict and even though not all evidence reached the Warren Commission (Allen Dulles was in a position to avoid at least some part to reach the Commission), it was clear from the beginning that the CIA played a most controversial role.  Some people within the Warren Commission knew more than others and Gerald Ford  together with  FBI Chief Hoover were in full agreement that the truth should never allowed to become public. The truth was that it was an inside job from the CIA, authorised by the highest levels of the Executive branch of the US Government  (like 9/11 was a fully supported covert operation by the US Government). Hence the lone gunman theory was supposed to be the only possible allowed verdict for both the US and Congress. A hard lie to be swallowed. However Gerald Ford went on national television to defend the findings of the Warren Commission in a most convincing way. If the broader involvement of the Executive branch would be public knowledge with the people who had knowledge of the pending events on the 22rd of November 1963, this would have caused the most dramatic Constitutional crisis ever in US history at the time. The same applies to 9/11.The US would not accept one of its most popular Presidents being killed with gross government involvement. With Ford’s insight in the CIA and his “absolute pardon” for Richard Nixon, he wanted to avoid further damaging investigations in which the CIA would be exposed. Even 10 years after the Warren Commission report. The point is that the  “Watergate” burglars played a role in the Kennedy assassination as well and the CIA played a role in the Watergate break in as it was assumed that the Democratic Party had access to some top-secret documents and photographs related to the JFK assassination. Especially imaging from a police helicopter could slash the Lee Harvey Oswald theory on his involvement, besides this the later fully revealed Zapruder film ruled out the lone gunman theory.  The FBI facilitated payments meanwhile to the burglars via “the Committee to Reelect President Nixon” in 1972. H. W. Bush (the later President) was the head of this Committee and claimed until the last Nixon tapes being released that Richard Nixon was innocent, obviously not without a purpose. Bush as well had more background information about the JFK assassination and those who were involved.

FBI Chief Edward Hoover died meanwhile on the 2nd of May 1972. The acting Head of the FBI then L Patrick Gray was ordered to save the situation for Nixon and had to destroy evidence from the safe of E. Howard Hunt on his assignments and working schedule for the CIA. Hunt was both involved in Watergate and the assassination of JFK.  Because of this destruction of evidence after taking those documents from Howard Hunt’s safe,  L Patrick Gray had to resign from the FBI.   E. Howard Hunt then made claims at the White House as he wanted to avoid conviction, but after the suspicious death of his wife he did plead guilty to the Watergate burglary, being concerned about the rest of his family.

If Watergate would be reopened Howard Hunt’s case would be likely first investigated.  If he would tell everything he knew,  including all the connections he had with people connected to “The Bay of Pig crisis”, the CIA  and others, –  the JFK assassination would likely be far more important then the real Watergate burglary itself.  The RFK assassination could be well involved in this as well. Gerald Ford was fully aware of the potential implications as he was already a compromised person before he even became Vice President. Donald Kendell , President of Pepsi – Cola, was considered to be “the eyes and ears” of the CIA in Cuba. The day before the JFK assassination he was meeting with Nixon. The Watergate burglars were tied up with both the Kennedy assassination and the Bay of Pigs. At least one of the Watergate burglars was on the CIA payroll on the 17th of June 1972 (Eugenio Martinez). The other Watergate conspirators included ex- FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy, ex – CIA agents james McCord and E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis and Virggilo Gonzales. Hunt being deeply involved in the Bay of Pigs operations retired later from the CIA . Several reports do show that Hunt was in Dallas on the 22nd of November 1963 when JFK was assassinated. Marita Lorenz testified under oath that she observed him paying off an assassination team in Dallas the night before the JFK murder.The latest Nixon tapes are studded with deletions, especially discussions about Hunt, the Bay of Pigs and JFK.  In May 1972 Nixon disclosed on tape to his 2 top aides that the Warren Commission was “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”  Hunt later did admit on CIA involvement in the JFK assassination and he fingered CIA officers Cord Meyer, David Phillips, William Harvey and David Morales. See article about the 2011 assessment on the JFK assassination on the web blog.

Once becoming US President, Gerald Ford did promote Donald Rumsfeld (discussed in the chapter about G.W.Bush) to help him to set the priorities for his Presidential direction. His Nixon pardon was neither an act of courage nor an act to protect the law and the US Constitution. He was part of the club of Presidents to keep the Coupe d’Etat as it took place in 1963 secret and as we will see the military powers affecting US policy did gain the most from this. The culture in the CIA with all sorts of secret covert operations was more established now and the background powers were so strong that even with the election of a US president not fitting the picture of the CIA and the military background powers, there was a way out as we did see with Carter.

The 39th US President James Earl Carter.  

Related image

    

Carter  did win with a narrow victory from the sitting President Gerald Ford. Obviously disappointing for the military background powers. It’s the problem of a Republic based on democratic principles. Sometimes there is a President not fitting the picture. However the CIA knows this and apart from the good people working in the CIA, there are people ready to help to play the game in such a way that democratic principles can be managed at the benefit of the military background powers, as we did see with Nixon. As President, Carter  balanced actually very well between  things being allowed or required and those matters not being desired or required. President Carter was however behind an Anglo-CIA conspiracy in Iran installing Khomeini and the Nullahs, based on intelligence information being provided on Khomeini staying in France at the time. Considering the outcome with Khomeini’s regime and the predicaments it caused in Iran and for the US eventually as well, in retrospect this decision may be considered as an error of judgement, however again based on  intelligence information at the time. A genuine error. There are error’s with some US President’s less genuine than they are presented. The seizure of US embassy hostages by Islāmic fundamentalists in Iran with hardly any progression in the resolution of this predicament was a major problem. CIA Director in President Carter’s time was his old class mate at the Naval Academy Stansfield Turner. Turner ceased 800 operational positions and he testified for US Congress revealing many covert CIA operations’ between late 1950ties and late 1960ties. He became very unpopular within the CIA itself.  His reform initiatives did not produce results as they were largely obstructed within the CIA.The frictions within the CIA with Turner/Carter made powerful background dynamics planning a strategy to get Carter not reelected. As it appeared the  Reagan – Bush campaign was worried that President Carter would reach a deal with Iran resulting in the release of the hostages before the elections and therefore Carter winning a second term in office. The CIA was worried as well. This would not be favourable for the military establishment. Bush had good CIA connections, based on old traditions.Hence they made their own (most compromising) deal with a close relative of Khomeini during various meetings in both Paris and Madrid. The deal did include to accept fully the Islāmic Republic and non-interference in Iran’s internal affairs. In other words whist not being in power they made a deal with Iran (with no involvement of the Carter Administration) on the terms of Iran, hence the hostage crisis deliberately delayed to allow Carter being defeated and Reagan being elected. Part of the deal was to engage later in an Iran arms deal under President Reagan, which became the Iran Contra affair. US political history and the possible dynamics are most interesting, – as we see.

The 40th US President Ronald  Reagan.

Reagan became US President after winning the Presidential elections from Carter, via illegal backdoor dealings  at the cost of hostages in Iran and at the cost of long-term security interests of the US. The Iran-Contra scandal in which the Mena Airport in Arkansas was used for illegal cocaine trafficking  with full awareness of the Federal Government and the Governor at the time in Arkansas, Bill Clinton, was part of the legacy of the pre-election arrangement with Iran.

Reportedly both George H.W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Jeb Bush were involved in various cover up’s. Saline County prosecutor Dan Harmon was convicted of various felonies including drug and racketeering charges in 1997. He was released from prison in 2006 for helping prosecutors in a murder case. The allegations have been disputed, however former President Clinton failed in his duty to reveal the activities of the Reagan/Bush Administration to Congress.  The Iran Contra Affair during 1986/1987 became a dark issue involving illegal arms for hostage deals with Iran by Reagan’s senior staff, with his knowledge. It proved that Pointdexter and Oliver North (all part of Reagan’sNational Security Advisers) were involved in secretly facilitating the sale of arms to Iran which became into an arms – for – hostages scheme, where a portion of the profits from the sales were diverted to fund anti-sandinista and anti-communist rebels (the “Contras”), in Nicaragua.  As a result of the controversy Ronald Reagan’s  White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan and his National Security Adviser John Poindexter had to resign but it did however not affect Reagan himself.  However both he and in particular Vice-President G.W. Bush were fully aware.Interestingly some people involved in the Iran-Contra scandal  -who (nearly) convicted initially and afterwards pardoned   –  became then prominent members within the Administration of eg George W. Bush.  Elliot Abrams e.g.gained notoriety as due to most controversial decisions on foreign policy issues during the Reagan Administration on Nicaragua and El Salvador. Convicted in 1991 on 2 misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress in connection with the Iran Contra Affair investigation, he was appointed on February 2, 2005, by President George W. Bush to Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy. In this new position, Abrams became responsible for overseeing the National Security Council’s directorate of Democracy, “Human Rights” (we will discuss the human rights records of the former President G.W.Bush later), and International Organization Affairs and its directorate of Near East and North African Affairs. It is just one example that people owe each other in Government and the rules of justice are dealt with differently at this level.. There is still however secrecy around the Iran Contra scandal. An other example eg is Robert Michael Gates who served as the 22nd United States Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011. Prior to this, Gates served for 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, and under President George H. W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence.  Independent Counsel for Iran-Contra Scandal, issued on August 4, 1993, said that Gates “was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/Contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.  Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment. In 1984, as deputy director of CIA, Gates advocated that the U.S. should start a bombing campaign against Nicaragua and that the U.S. would do everything in its power apart from direct military invasion of the country to remove the Sandinista government. Gates was however a very knowledgable man and despite some errors in retrospect it appeared he evolved quite well in his profession, at least it would seem he learnt from his mistakes.

An other important issue for later Presidential dynamics (under the Reagan Administration) was the military support of the Taliban being provided in the early 1980s. The CIA and the ISI (Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and “by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.” There have been meetings in the White House.

The 41st US President George H.W. Bush. 

–     

Bush,sr became elected US President after Reagan served his term for 8 years in the White House. He was faced with the Iran Contra scandal which was of a highly criminal and controversial nature, Reagan’s Vice President was George H.W.Bush. Needless to say Bush had immense experience and was generally spoken “a decent man”. However there are a few things which could have been dealt with differently. We discussed Watergate already with Bush as well. Opening Watergate investigations would open the link to Howard Hunt and if Hunt would speak about the Kennedy assassination, Nixon and all the others, – all the complexities of corrupted US governments after the JFK assassination would come to daylight. Hence  George H.W Bush’s closest business partner Bill Liedtke paid Hunt the requested $1000000,- to keep his mouth shut. Hunt got the message after his wife was killed in a mysterious plane crash. Bush had close connections with Liedtke via the Zapata Corporation. As reflected both former President Bush, Nixon and Johnson had joint interest and involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Those connections have been always there. Bush and the CIA had close links in the “Bay of Pigs” association. President Herbert Walker Bush as Vice President under President Reagan had an important role at the background and he was perhaps the smarter guy, not necessarily the better man.. There were many private sessions like his son the later President George W bush had with Vice President Cheney , the last presenting his arguments and whisper in the President’s ear.   So had Reagan H W. Bush the Vice President presenting arguments and whisper in his ear. Interestingly the later Vice-President Cheney’s firm Halliburton, Brown & Root in part financed Permindex. The last is the Corporate Front which operated the assassination on John F Kennedy. Like Bush, Ford was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity – a secret society.

Bush was a member of Skull and Bones as well, again a different secret organisation. “I think Skull and Bones has had slightly more success than the mafia in the sense that the leaders of the five families are all doing 100 years in jail, and the leaders of the Skull and Bones families are doing four and eight years in the White House,” says Rosenbaum..

On August 1, 1990, Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, invaded  Kuwait. Bush “unhappy” with the invasion despite clearly favouring Iraq above Iran, began rallying opposition to Iraq in the US and among European, Asian, and Middle Eastern allies. Secretary of Defense Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Fahd. Fahd clearly fearing a possible invasion of his country by Iraq as well, requested US military aid. The request was met in the affirmative and Air Force fighter jets arrived. Iraq tried to negotiate a deal allowing its country to take control of half of Kuwait. Bush rejected this proposal and wanted a complete withdrawal of Iraqi forces. The planning of a ground operation by US-led coalition forces started in September 1990.  General Norman Schwarzkopf was nominated to lead those forces.  At a joint session of  US Congress on the authorization of air and land attacks, Bush spelled out the immediate goals: “Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately, and without condition. Kuwait’s legitimate government must be restored. The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured. And American citizens abroad must be protected.” A  fifth  long-term goal was the following: “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: a new era – free from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony…. A world where the rule of law is stronger than  the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.” With the United Nations Security Council opposed to Iraq’s violence, Congress authorized the Use of Military force with a set goal of returning control of Kuwait to the Kuwaiti government, and protecting America’s interests abroad.

In retrospect Bush gave himself an A- for Desert Storm, allowing that “there are certain things that I could have done better.” In truth, Desert Storm merits far less than this.The cease-fire ending the war was poorly managed.The slaughter on the “Highway of Death,” along which the Iraqis retreating from Kuwait, simply decided Bush to stop the war. Before the Iraq war, Bush’s ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, agreed with the President’s wish to “moderate” Saddam Hussein with incentives to get an ally in him against Iran. Secretary of State Baker dropped a line in July 1990 indicated “to take no position on the border delineation issue raised by Iraq with respect to Kuwait.” Saddam was threatening Kuwait with war if the Emir did not surrender (oil-producing) territory on his border with Iraq and forgive $14 billion in Iraqi debt. Bush and Baker’s failure to deliver a firm and clear warning to Baghdad may have been a sign to Saddam that he could go ahead. He saw an opportunity in Baker’s apparent indifference on the border issue. If he left Kuwait largely intact, but annexed Kuwaiti oil fields and one or two of Kuwait’s islands, perhaps the Bush administration would permit this. It is this profound lack of clarity in the Middle East which contributed to the first Iraq war. Bush stopped all military activity in Iraq at once and did not pursue deposing Saddam Hussein, as part of a well known policy of duplicity. Saddam Hussein in the US perception could still be a potential ally against Iran, but this was a serious error of judgement, becoming more clear during the Clinton Administration. Likewise the support being provided in Afghanistan was very dubious and provided the seeds for all sorts of dynamics being difficult to control, apart from increasing the risk of terror due to self-inflicted foreign policy not being principle centred.   Regarding the 2011 situation in Afghanistan note that current President Karzai of Afghanistan worked for former US President G.H Bush and there were longstanding Taliban connections.

The 42nd US President William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton.

Clinton took over from G.H Bush as US President. There is no point in discussing the Lewinsky matter as within the bigger picture of his Presidency this is profound trivial. There was however one thing to be noted in this matter. He could lie until the bitter end, and he seemed to be very convincing in his lies. Compromised already over the Iran-Contra scandal in which an airport in Arkansas (Mena) was used for a large illegal CIA operation, involving large quantities of drugs to be sold with the profits to be transferred to a fund to support the Contras. – Clinton always argued that this has been a federal issue and that he was not involved. However as reflected he failed to report, he failed to respond to both requests from the public and attorneys to facilitate proper investigations.The controversy is quite clear and the incriminating reason is that he did neither act in terms of facilitating Congress to make formal enquiries and investigations, nor did he support the legal system to do its work once this was requested in his own State where he was the Governor of State.

The way the Clinton Administration dealt with the terror threat in the face of the 9/11 attack due to be happening  at the beginning of the Bush,jr Administration is an interesting question. We touched on this subject at the beginning.

Did this attack came totally out of the blue?  – – Clinton always defended the Government’s position, including the outcome of the 9/11 Commission and the way information was provided to Condoleezza Rice (National Security Advisor under President G.W Bush). On the 19th of July 2004 it was announced that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Sandy Berger (US National Security Adviser &  Foreign Policy Adviser during the Bill Clinton Administration) for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room before testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned by Richard Clarke,  detailing various internal assessments of the Clinton administration’s handling of the 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said that Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003. After a long investigation, Justice Department prosecutors determined that Berger only removed classified copies of material stored on hard drives from  the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.  Berger eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on the 1st of April 2005. We need to consider that those issues have been discussed between Clinton and Berger, and that Berger was prepared to do this on behalf of the former US President.  There are however mixed story’s whether all material returned and that nothing, not even a fraction  did not return.Vital information was at stake.The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals.The House Government Reform Committee however later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of originals, not copied, not inventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.” According to the House report, Clinton “designated Berger in 2002 as his representative to check NSC documents” to the 9/11 inquiry. Berger made four trips to the National Archives.  He did so likely to refresh his memory before testifying first to the Graham-Goss Commission and then to the 9/11 Commission. Berger made his first visit in May 2002, his last in October 2003. He was allowed to have unprotected access and it is not clear who did approve this. We know that part of the 9/11 investigations  took place behind strict closed doors and that the “behind closed doors conversations” with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton and al Gore were all “private and confidential”, touching base on national security. Reportedly Berger destroyed some documents during his four visits.  “The full extent of Berger’s document removal,” reports the House Committee, “is not known and never can be known.” Brachfeld met with DOJ attorney Howard Sklamberg. Obviously concerned that Berger had obstructed the 9/11 Commission’s work, Brachfeld wanted assurance that the Commission knew of Berger’s crime and the potential ramifications of it. The 9/11 Commission was not informed. On the 22nd of March, two days before Berger’s public testimony, senior DOJ attorneys John Dion and Bruce Swartz got back to Brachfeld. They told him that the DOJ was not going to tell the 9/11 Commission of the Berger investigation before Berger’s appearance. It would seem somebody ordered the DOJ not to tell the 9/11 Commission on purpose. It is not clear who ordered the DOJ. We can’t help it to think that to keep Clinton’s version of events leading up to 9/11, (for which he had to testify privately) he had dispatched Sandy Berger to the National Archives, at the risk of Berger’s career and reputation, and to edit the official record. If we look at the broader context of Clinton being a person trying to hide vital matters becoming public (like he did with the Iran Contra scandal and the CIA activities at Mena airport in Arkansas), –  this is a reasonable assumption.

There are matters to be searched, revealing however that there were  reasons to have those discussions behind closed doors as it was felt that the public should not know. It is good that the “freedom of information act” provides via the internet various links for those being interested to do serious research, accepting however that some matters however will not be known. It proves however that the American public has been fooled on various matters the last 50 years.

The 43rd US President George W Bush.

“Bush, jr”  took over from Bill Clinton as US President. Only 3 months in office in 2001 a terrorist attack took place on New York and Washington which implicated a dramatic change on US foreign policy. I touched base on this issue at the beginning of this “epilogue”.  G.W. Bush was surrounded by former aides and veterans including Cheney, Powell, Card, Rice and a few more. Bush, sr did influence his son’s administration from behind the scenes. The Bushes “have a long memory”, as Dick Cheney liked to remind people privately.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Cheney was vital in providing the primary justification for entering into a second war with Iraq. Cheney assisted to shape Bush’s approach to the “War on Terrorism“, alleging in various public statements that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He made many personal visits to CIA headquarters, where he questioned mid-level agency analysts on their conclusions. Cheney insisted to allege links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, even though classified President’s Daily Brief on September 21, 2001 reflected that the U.S. intelligence community had neither evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks nor  “scant credible evidence” that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda. Cheney has been characterized as the most powerful and influential Vice President in history. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Rumsfeld provided the military planning and implementation of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld highly favoured to send both the smallest and effective force as possible for both conflicts, a concept called “the Rumsfeld Doctrine.”

The G.W Bush Presidency was dominated by the war against terrorism, including both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the morning of 9/11, Rumsfeld spoke at a Pentagon breakfast meeting. According to his later description to Larry King, he stated at the meeting that “sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department that contributes to… that underpins peace and stability in our world. And that is what underpins peace and stability.” It sounds too good to be true. The day before Rumsfeld declared officially that over 2.4 trillion dollars could not be accounted for in the US military budget. It “disappeared”  and 9/11 prevented further investigations in this.  A loss of  2.4 trillion dollar in the military budget  (not being accounted for) does not reflect the best accounting system at the Defence Department. The issue has not been raised in the Senate at the required level of investigations till so far. However a 2,4 trillion loss in the military budget should raise more than only a few eyebrows.

Less than 3 hours after the start of the first hijacking and two hours after American Airlines Flight 11 striking the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld increased the US defense condition to DEFCON 3; the highest it had ever been since the Arab-Israeli war in 1973. On September 11, Rumsfeld was at 2:40 pm issuing rapid orders to his associates to find for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.” — meaning Saddam Hussein — “at same time. Not only UBL” (Osama bin Laden), Cambone’s notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. “Need to move swiftly — Near term target needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not.” Bush announced a global War on Terror after the 11 September attacks. The Afghan Taliban regime was unable to get Osama bin Laden, which provided Bush a reason to order the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban regime. As reflected at the beginning  G.W.Bush deliberately missed his chance to get bin-Laden at an earlier stage and with the assassination on Massoud,  on purpose he messed up things in Afghanistan, – just to facilitate the pending attack from al-Qaeda to provide his Administration a reason to go to war against both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Bombs were well positioned at the base of all WTC buildings before the al-Qaeda attack, to make the impact worse (at the cost of many American lives!).

It shows that nothing has changed since the JFK assassination. It would seem in such covert operations nearly anything is allowed as long as “the cover up systems” work properly, which they did. The 9/11 Commission conclusions were misleading.   In his 2002 State of the Union Address, at the end of January, Bush asserted that an “axis of evil” consisting of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq was “arming to threaten the peace of the world” and “pose a grave and growing danger”. The Bush Administration proclaimed to have a right and an obligation to engage in preëmptive war, also called preventive war, in response to all those perceived threats. This would  become the Bush Doctrine. It should be noted however that the general Bush doctrine proved to be a greater danger to peace in the world. Allies have been misled and are still fighting in a war which could have been prevented, as illustrated earlier.

Reportedly later, cities subjected to allied bombing had uranium concentrations at 400% to 2000% above normal, with birth defects sharply increasing. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US and British forces used an estimated 1,100-2,200 tons of depleted uranium weaponry, with unimaginable future health implications for both Iraqi and coalition military forces. Despite the Cold War’s being finished, the Bush administration has spent at least 12 times more on developing nuclear weapons than on securing/reducing existing stockpiles or on non-proliferation efforts. The Bush Administration has also repealed the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons, rejected international non-proliferation agreements, and pushed stockpiles of the so-called “bunker buster” which in fact is a nuclear weapon. Not to speak about extensive chemical warfare programs in preparation and exercised already at various locations.

We know the history. Mid-1979, at about the same time as the Soviet Union had their war in Afghanistan, the United States gave several hundred million dollars a year to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting for the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and against  the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. The most famous of the Afghan Arabs was Osama bin Laden, known at the time as a wealthy and pious Saudi who provided his own money and helped raise millions from other wealthy Gulf Arabs.

Various warnings of a pending attack were ignored.  The September 11 attacks was not an intelligence “failure”. Intelligence deliberately allowed it to happen.  As some would say: “The actors may have been foreign. But the stage directors seem to have been all along here in the U.S.”   The purpose was to try and get both public and Senate approval to go to war.

For many years before the CIA supported the Mujahideen by spending the taxpayers’ money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan’s policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan“. Interesting was the earlier mentioned Osama bin Laden, who had a leading role with mutual support from the US. However the war with the Soviets neared its end, with a CIA build up of activity in this area and more CIA demands on the bin Laden network. After he felt likely betrayed and profoundly intimidated, Bin Laden organized  al-Qaeda to carry out jihad, mainly against the United States this time— the country that had helped fund the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Many commentators have described Al-Qaeda attacks as blowback or an unintended consequence of American aid to the Mujahideen. In response, the US Government,the CIA and Pakistani intelligence officials involved in the operation, and at least one journalist (Peter Bergen) have denied this theory. It was said that the aid was given out by the Pakistan government, and that it went to Afghan not foreign Mujahideen, and that there was no contact between the Afghan Arabs and the CIA or other American officials. Perhaps we need to take such statements with a pinch of salt. The BBC, in an article published shortly after the 9/11 attacks, stated that Bin Laden “received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.” In a 2004 BBC article entitled “al-Qaeda’s origins and links”, the BBC wrote: “During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA“. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published in 2006 that: “Bin Laden apparently received training from the CIA, which was backing the Afghan holy warriors – the mujahedeen – who were tying down Soviet forces in Afghanistan”. An article in Der Spiegel, entitled “Arming the Middle East”, Siegesmund von Ilsemann called Bin Laden in 2007″one of the CIA’s best weapons customers”.The CIA and the US Government til so far denied any connections. The UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, from 1997–2001, and Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from 2001-2003, believed the CIA provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.

Let’s face it, the US Government should have never opted to support Bin Laden with his support network against the Soviets at the time. The US and the Soviet Union were just in the process of reaching the most positive developments since decades, and the US Government and CIA supporting Bin Laden and his network against the Soviet Union was part of a policy full of duplicity and undermining activity. The US Government has been responsible for this and the terror from al Qaeda was as such self-inflicted terror. The US should have never been there in the first instance. US Presidents who would have acted with wisdom and restraint should have never allowed to get the CIA with covert operations supporting a foreign policy full of duplicity and deception. The management on those issues under various President’s has been profound repugnant considering all the implications. However it was G.W.Bush’s choice to take Massoud out of the picture and give “the green light” to 9/11. He was aware that this was going to happen and as Rumsfeld reflected in an interview, if America was under attack from terrorists, this would change the perception of the American public. The question could be raised: who were the real terrorists?

The 9/11 Commission was as much a farce as the Warren Commission was at the time of the Kennedy assassination. There has been compelling evidence that controlled demolition brought down buildings 1,2 and 7, based on thorough research and analysis. Bush, Ashcroft, FBI director said that the 9/11 attacks were not preventable, but the reality was that both those attacks and the controlled demolitions were preventable. FBI Director Bob Mueller allowed crucial steel evidence from the World Trade Centre to be destroyed as part of a criminal conspiracy at the Department of Justice to destroy evidence that could expose people behind the “false – flag terrorism of 9/11”. TIME Magazine did raise serious questions about the dealings of Bob Mueller. There are at least 11 remarkable facts about 9/11 in contrast with the outcome from the 9/11 Commission. It would need a full article to reflect on this but “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth did elaborate in detail on this.The mysterious collapse of WTC 7 has never been answered for. It was this building being loaded with Intelligence information going down without any impact of either projectile or plane. 48 % of New Yorker’s support investigation of WTC7. Many many US Military Officers did join a request  apart of millions of other US citizens to reopen thorough,impartial, open and transparent investigations. Those requests have been ignored till so far. Even President Barack Obama does not want to have any controversy about the outcome of the 9/11 Commission, as the base of going to war in Afghanistan would fall flat on its face in the eyes of the world with all those allies and soldiers from different countries being involved already. As due to the Bush Administration a problem was created there, and the Bush doctrine did not do anything else than increasing the risk of terror, with Pakistan even being ready to sell nuclear information elsewhere. It’s a potential minefield which requires a solution, but let’s put it (again!) in this way:  The war in Afghanistan was an ill selected war, based on criminal acts in which the US Government was involved. The way dynamics were both constructed and in part fabricated are a reflection of the worst possible foreign policy of the US as a superpower. Like the Kennedy assassination has never been resolved,  – 10 years after 9/11  it  would seem to be still acceptable what Bush, Cheney and Romsfeld inflicted on the US and other countries. They simply could walk away from it with prolonged government protection. Despite many people at the highest level of military service and it various other levels of society requesting 9/11 to be again investigated, it simply did not happen. The secrets of the real background of the 9/11 drama being the cause for 2 pointless wars, based on various criminal activity are still due to be revealed, perhaps after 50 years. History is repeating itself in different identities because the main problem has not been resolved and this is the US Government, – insufficient controlled by the legislative powers with insufficient law enforcement.

We know about the defining moments of the post 9/11 era. We know about the testimony of Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission leaving compelling questions about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s actions on the day of 9/11 in terms of a “stand down in security.” His testimony was suppressed by the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Chair at least concluded that the attack was preventable. We know as well that apart from many others former FBI Director Louis J.Freeh slammed the 9/11 Commission conclusions as well. But let’s for a moment forget about the 9/11 Commission. 

Major top people of the military intelligence confirm 2009 Bio-WMD Genocide. Bush did admit to illegal concentration camps. Widespread abuses of human rights.  During his Administration under the guise of national security there have been wide-spread dangerous aerosol and electromagnetic operations. Chemtrails and terror in the age of potential nuclear war.

 

People and Governments can refuse to face the truth as long as they want, but at some stage the truth and justice hopefully will catch up on them. There are enough US citizens unhappy about the undercurrents of their Government, the lack of transparency of wars eg in Afghanistan and the real reasoning for this based on pure historical facts, the last being different from the facts presented by the CIA.

Truman warned for the CIA and the power of the military establishment, so did Eisenhower and so did Kennedy. There is a major US budget deficit at present, largely based on the legacy of an unbelievable foreign policy for various decades. Even politicians tend to look only at short-term solutions, the cut corners strategy, without realising how much impact the self-inflicted past had on the US as a credible nation. What was left, G.W.Bush destroyed it. 

Both the wars in Vietnam  and Iraq and Afghanistan were not required and could have been prevented. It did cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars and did not give real security for the US.

Many Germans during the second world war did not know about the secret concentration camps. “We did not know”, was what you heard after the second world war. The US did work at the right end of the moral spectrum at the time, did act at the right end of the moral spectrum many times. However if you look at the horror inflicted by various Administrations after the JFK assassination there is no easy way to say that the US with an “over established military establishment” seems as much at risk for creating major war’s as some other countries. The problem lies at the Executive Branch and the background powers.

Where airplane crashes get enough investigations, failed and corrupt US Presidents are able to escape with everything they inflicted. This system of US Presidents not being accountable in retrospect is wrong and as long as the US opts not to change it, it is responsible for the implications in the future.

With President Barack Obama being elected US President in November 2008,  there appeared to be a new beginning as he has his roots in the movement for change and social justice, but he will be  perceived by the establishment as a potential danger if he is not in line with the military strategic direction. Both parties are still able to reason and Obama is well positioned for some change. Sometimes it takes 2 terms as US President to turn the tide as due to past failures under earlier Administrations, but the road to justice is slow and full of obstacles. With an economy in recession again and a world full of dangers it is vital to have adequate intelligence from existing Agencies, but besides this a fair degree of common sense and value systems as part of principle centred leadership are important. Even though the economic prospects are not great at present the US is best served with its current leadership at present. We may not always understand why President Obama  is managing certain areas in the way he does, why he awards eg former US President George H.W.Bush with the “Presidential medal of Freedom”, but his position does involve a lot of protocol to avoid enemies and he knows the art of politics. However when it comes to real principles to protect the country from senseless war’s or criminal covert operations he will neither hesitate nor compromise his intentions to keep the bigger picture in mind. His perceptions and expectations on the US Presidency have been perhaps not always realistic, but working with “the circles” in Washington is complex business after people have been able to digest the material discussed in the above in more sustained ways. We did see this with the 35th US President, who had too many enemies at once, who should have selected a different Vice President at an earlier stage. If Kennedy would not have had risky liaisons with various women he could have replaced Hoover, as Kennedy was vulnerable to the blackmail of Hoover. Integrity is a big thing, both at the personal level and the  level of business. Kennedy was a great President but he was not without failures. The difference between Kennedy,Obama and Carter despite their differences is that none of them had criminal intends or criminal backgrounds, whilst this can’t be said about some other US Presidents in the past.

Related image

The sad thing is that the Executive Branch of the US can have at times profound criminal infestation and that legislation is required to protect the US against itself from this point of view, besides legislation to keep the powers of both the Pentagon and the CIA in place by proper law enforcement, with the application of justice systems  for all and not injustice being tolerated for the few who support the establishment. The US Executive Branch as a whole needs to protect both the law and the Constitution, not by means of lip service, but as an ongoing effort of principle centred leadership to bring its own house “the United States of America” in order. There is both too much at stake in America and the world and the unfortunate legacy of the past needs to be a learning curve for the future. It means that the past should not repeat itself, should not allowed to repeat itself, as the operating business of the United States Government in the world as we face it to-day needs to contribute to the survival of human race, stability and economic recovery.

Like Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 saved the world somehow from a nuclear holocaust by ignoring aggressive proposals from his generals, Nixon would have taken those proposals on board and Cuba would have been attacked with nuclear retaliation from the Russian commanders in Cuba who were under instruction to fire nuclear missiles to all major cities in the US if  the US would attack Cuba.

The wrong US President when the dangers are really near and grave can even make a just war an unjust holocaust, and then we don’t speak about some unjust wars from the past. The US until Obama has been really very poorly prepared on a more positive contribution to a world with less violence, as the systems of government despite the glamour did not match the reality of the problems. The problems are far more grave because the US did contribute to those problems in sustained ways.  This epilogue is a summary of lessons from Presidential Administrations and the average score is not high as leadership at this level was neither principle centred nor in particular based on values.  At the point as where to exercise the available freedom of the world’s most powerful democracy in the more positive when this was possible to do so in the positive, a better example of the US  could have been reasonably expected, – as such an example proved not always to be possible in countries with different systems of government. Democracy in the US worked neither perfect nor optimal with even significant media control.

US Administrations “have slept” with dictators, feeding them with military intelligence including nuclear energy. The Clinton appeasement program e.g.for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. The agreement was however flawed and lacked even the most basic means of verification. In 2010 North Korea reportedly was/is using companies to export nuclear and missile technology to Burma, Syria and Iran. China is a significant culprit as well in exporting nuclear technology. More countries are culprits for exporting such technology which will lead to a menace of uncontrolled violence, if the most powerful nations do not get their act together and stop this build up of explosives destroying the world eventually.

A policy of duplicity based on secrecy and the criminal use of  Covert operation‘s will add to the risks of our global community if the aim of any US covert operation is not the prevention of either war or terror.

There is no protection, for any nation on earth against the massacre of a nuclear and biochemical holocaust and preparing for this does not mean a survival of the fittest, but destruction of even the strongest. The wrong US President at the most unfortunate time could contribute to the event of such a holocaust, whilst at the same time such a holocaust could have been prevented by a longstanding and consistent US foreign policy history, inspiring a world-wide principle centred example of “risk reduction”. With some variations it never happened as such, as US foreign policy was largely based on short-term gain and often creating long-term pain at a cost of trillions of dollars, – some trillions not even accounted for.

The vital issue at the Executive branch of the US is that decisions being made are based on sound principles, that foreign policy is based on integrity, and that the US President has the ability to keep the bigger picture in mind, and acts with wisdom and restraint. Only a few US Presidents  have being able to act with both this wisdom, integrity and restraint,  and in the world of today we need this more than ever before.

“Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice” did give an insight in some US President’s  between the 22nd of November 1963 and the 20th of January 2009. The facts are sobering and offer some history on vital Presidential choices which could have been exercised differently at the time.  Those choices do show on the character and integrity of those being in power, they do reflect as well on the rare application of courage to offer resistance against undermining elements in democracies.

Some US leaders did allow or even order assassinations  (both in the US as elsewhere)  to protect their cause of action, not being a noble cause to prevent war, – but a cause to mislead and secure the position of those who desired this to hold on to power. The last not being deserved. Sometimes the only aim was to protect the very own position of the US President himself. Democracy proved not to offer protection against this sort of injustice as the justice systems itself proved to be infiltrated and violated by those supposed to protect them. Media control did help to mislead the public.

Justice should not be “the cut corner strategy” from the past at the cost of millions who died in vain, without compassion and wisdom of their leaders. Leaders who did use the military arm of US powers to infiltrate by night and kill by day, either by war, by terror inflicted, -or covert operations being endured by far too many.

The greatest injustice is the potential of  a collective  Nuclear holocaust being created by various leaders around the globe.Those who do represent us in government are neither entitled nor obligated to use this potential for self-destruction, either by choice, by error or by twisting the facts and provoke as such a self-destructive longstanding Nuclear winter where the prospect on the continuation of life on earth is nearly limited to zero.

As a people who do inhabit this globe, we are created as part of collective energies during a moment in time. We are just an impulse of this universe, during our time and all times, – coming and going, sharing our common humanity. We inhabit this planet with all the creative energies, with all the universal principles, to protect and to preserve.  The last with leadership, – and not the management of further break down and destruction – with an increasing amount of Weapons of mass destruction spreading across the globe, eventually to be used at a large unpredictable scale.

In a larger sense, it is for us the living to be meaningful dedicated to the unfinished task still remaining, to prevent the agony of war and improve the civil rights of others, –  with similar devotion as those who died in vain, for both the wrong purpose and the wrong means being used as part of the decisions of some of those US President’s who could have done differently. Some US Presidents did neither have the courage nor the devotion to lead by principle, – guided by intrinsic justice and compassion in the larger sense as part of our International Relations here on earth. The same can be said about various other countries with different systems of government. The difference however is that the US is a Republic based on democratic principles and a sound Constitution, which raised higher expectations.

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h5-eNd6QEI&feature=player_detailpage      

 >   A  strategy  of  peace:  John  Fitzgerald  Kennedy,  the  35th  US  President <

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice. (Part 6 – former President Carter, the exception)


English: James Earl
English: James Earl “Jimmy” Carter (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The 39th Us President James Earl (“Jimmy”) Carter

 
Human rights  is  the  soul  of  our  foreign  policy, because  human  rights  is  the  very  soul  of  our  sense of  nationhood.”  – Jimmy  Carter.
The 39th US President was James Earl Carter born on the 1st of October 1924 in Plains,Georgia. After his graduation from the US Naval Academy in 1946 he served the US Navy until 1953. He took over then and expanded the family peanut business in his home town Plains.

His Christian background from an early age was a driving force in his life.  As Governor of Georgia from 1970 – 1974 he favoured equal rights, – not only for African-Americans  but for women as well.

He did win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1976  with a narrow victory from the sitting President Gerald Ford. Before his Presidency he proposed to withdraw American troops from South Korea and as a President elect he declined a CIA briefing on Korea.

Once elected President, he promised to carry out a populist form of government allowing the people a greater say in the Administration. He reflected as well on the importance of effective energy and proper health programs, apart from his commitment to both improving human and civil rights.

He emphasised further the importance of restricting the development of further nuclear weapons. His own national security team was opposed to the withdrawal of troops from South Korea as this could trigger an invasion from North Korea. CIA and Pentagon Directors/Chiefs had changed in the meantime and different people were in charge of those Agencies. However those powers obviously continued to play a significant role, but at a different level as his new CIA Director worked from a different perception.

Before discussing former US President Carter further it is worth reflecting that it proves over time when top positions in the Agencies are occupied by people with both skill  knowledge  and integrity  both the level and direction of operations do change. Obviously always with the US security at heart. It proves as well when Presidential Administrations give those agencies and in particular the CIA free play with the wrong people in those top positions, being ready to mislead the President, – that this may have devastating implications if the President is not able  to see what is happening, or when he is not strong enough to replace those persons providing him with the wrong intelligence. Or when the President is simply approving what is happening. The last may happen as long there are enough “buffers”  in the White House who take the blame when something is going wrong, keeping the US President as such out of the picture.

Generally spoken a significant issue is that foreign police matters are at some large extent depending on the type of information the President is getting from his Security Team. The quality and reliability of this team is a vital issue in any Presidential Administration. Where new CIA Directors need to be nominated, Congress should never allow people being Director of the CIA or Chief of Staff if they received a “Presidential pardon” for activities in earlier Government jobs which were against the law.  Presidential pardons for earlier Presidential team members are not rarely provided to those people who created buffers for the US President involving criminal activities for which they took the blame. The last to keep the President who approved it out of the picture. In retrospect most of those people were  pardoned for their illegal activities.

People in the highest CIA positions or members of both Security Team and Presidential cabinets need to have an absolute clear police record and their nomination needs to be subject to prove for established records on both quality and integrity.Those people are vital in Presidential Administrations and vital decisions being made on the wrong intelligence may have catastrophic implications. People who had a Presidential pardon in the past should not get a reëntry in Presidential Administrations later without justification by Congress that this pardon was based on the principles of justice  and not a backflip against the law. As we will see with later US Presidents some of those nominations were vitally wrong and people with a CIA background as Director with a history of activities neither in line with the law nor the US Constitution, besides a history of non transparency to Congress, should neither be US President later in life, nor being involved in Presidential teams. The point is that the cycle of mismanagement at top levels may continue otherwise with plenty of “buffer systems” in place to provide the US President a cover up, either arranged and approved by the US President himself or arranged by his staff and approved by himself.

Again US Congress needs to give further legislation to end the risk of both “White House” quality rules being compromised and the risk of criminal activities at the highest levels of Government being reduced.  With later Presidents it will be shown how dangerous people may become once they are allowed to join the Presidential staff after earlier convictions followed by Presidential pardons. Once you are convicted within the domain of previous activities as part of the Government Administration there has been a reason for this conviction, often providing enough reason to be incriminated again if circumstances do allow as such following a Presidential pardon over controversial issues.

If people may think that this article on President Carter will be an article about mismanagement of either the law or the Constitution they may be disappointed as President Carter within the domain of his national security operations balanced actually very well between those things being allowed or required and those things not being desired or required.

President Carter was however behind an Anglo-CIA conspiracy in Iran installing Khomeini and the Nullahs, based on intelligence information being provided on Khomeini staying in France at the time. Considering the outcome with Khomeini’s regime and the predicaments it caused in Iran and for the US eventually as well, in retrospect this decision may be considered as an error of judgement, however again based on  intelligence information at the time. It proved however that Carter did not provide Khomeini the best possible deal which would serve Khomeini against US interests. This will be discussed later in this article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UYNyuA5Uois                                                                                                                        (Carter behind Anglo CIA conspiracy  in Iran which installed Khomeini and the Mullahs)

CIA Director in President Carter’s time was his old class mate at the Naval Academy Stansfield Turner. Turner strongly favoured both Imaginary Intelligence and Signal Intelligence, and not Espionage. He ceased 800 operational positions and he testified for US Congress revealing many covert CIA operations’ between late 1950ties and late 1960ties. He became very in popular within the CIA itself.  His reform initiatives did not produce results as they were largely obstructed within the CIA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z2GKV6AaqM&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                            (The CIA’s involvement in Iran from the perception of an ex-CIA agent)

Turner was quite outraged when former CIA agent Frank Snepp published a book criticising Government officials on their competence during the fall of Saigon. Interestingly the CIA forced Turner later on to seek preclearance of his highly critical book on President Reagan’s policies. Turner had enough reason to be highly critical on President Bush, but obstructing background powers in the CIA with Bush using his level of influence  were stronger than he anticipated.

One of the main features of Carter’s Presidency was the Panama Canal Treaty and the Camp David Accords in 1978. He took a required peace deal between Israel and Egypt very personally and successfully against all documented odds. Congress however did not approve his Arms Limitation Treaty with the Soviet Union. Both the energy crisis and a high inflation besides the recession in the American economy during his Presidency eroded his popularity, with the strongest fall between 1979 and 1980. The seizure of US embassy hostages by Islāmic fundamentalists in Iran with hardly any progression in the resolution of this predicament was a major problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2S9FlG0L4uE                                                                                                                             (Camp David Accords – A Documentary)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkbZVZmeMl4&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                             ( Iran hostage crisis)

Being aware after “Watergate” that lies within public institutions as the White House are able to repeat Carter told during his campaigns that he would never lie to the public. Since his 2 terms as a Georgia State Senator he had emphasised the importance of human rights. His popularity did not sustain long and his last year of his Administration was complicated by the Iran hostage crisis, which contributed to his loosing the 1980 reelection campaign to Ronald Reagan. Interestingly minutes after Reagan’s term in office started on the 20th of january 1981, the 444 days-Iran hostage crisis ended with the release of the 52 hostages. With George W Bush being both the incumbent Vice-President and being CIA Director before Turner, the thesis is that Bush being aware of the CIA’s dissatisfaction with both Turner and Carter was able to prolong the hostage crisis at the disadvantage of Jimmy Carter. Under Ronald Reagan as US President William Casey got the position of CIA Director and Casey had the complete opposite approach than Stansfield Turner, as his focus became “Espionage”. The frictions within the CIA with Turner made powerful background dynamics planning a strategy to get Carter not reelected and the Iran hostage crisis proved the bottleneck for Carter. Hence not being reelected anymore and the hostages being released 444 days after it all started, – and all this  just minutes after Reagan’s inauguration. Vice-President Bush gave them a very warm welcome when they landed safely in the US.

Bush worked as CIA Director from 1976-1977 where he helped to “restore the agencies morale” after many disclosures of the CIA’s illegal and unauthorized activities after the Senate’s investigations by the Church Committee and he  still had high-profile contacts within the CIA.

Neither being very flexible as a politician nor being a real leader, President Carter had a principle centred Christian nature with a strong emphasis on human rights. He emerged from the aftermath of Watergate and Vietnam and of all US Presidents being discussed most likely Carter was the person most contributing to the end of the Cold War. As President he endeavoured to modernise US forces and the “Carter doctrine” as proclaimed on the 23rd of January 1980 stated that the US would use military force only to defend its national interests. Again it  is reasonable to suggest that the prolonged hostage crisis worked favourable for both the Pentagon and the CIA to resolve Carter’s Presidency by “nature” rather than as an assassination. He was replaced by Ronald Reagan after his first term in office.

As will be more clear later on the CIA needs sustained efforts and regulations to keep up its standards to support the US with the best possible unbiassed intelligence based on the best possible quality rules to get required information for US national security with optimal use of the best possible technology. Hence leadership being required to bring this stronghold in US society under control to make it work within both the domain of the Constitution and US law, besides the US need to sign the Convention of Geneva and stick to protocol not to torture prisoners in line with international law. Carter tried to change some of the CIA dynamics with his newly appointed Director Turner, but the background stream within the CIA was not in approval and these background powers obstructing change had connections with the previous CIA Director and nominee for the Vice-Presidency of the United States: Herbert Walker Bush. Bush has been both CIA Director and working for the CIA many years before he became a public figure. Besides this Bush, sr had close associations with the Skull and Bone secret organisation, which on its own had close links with the dominating culture of the CIA.

It will be clear that any incumbent US President different in nature and with different directions in mind will always struggle with the existing power base at the CIA insufficient regulated by US Congress. The culture within the CIA  requires to be principal based, neither being able to change  by a US President keen to engage in illegal covert operations, nor to be changed by background powers compromising the intent for which the CIA was designed.

Again both President Truman and Eisenhower did warn for the existing power base of those background powers. John F Kennedy in part of this was killed as he contemplated to expose the illegal activities which he perceived as “profound repugnant”. Kennedy wanted to withdraw from Vietnam whilst the CIA and the Pentagon wanted to stay in Vietnam. Kennedy despised intelligence advise being provided on Cuba, including the incompetence of some Generals and CIA officials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8y06NSBBRtY                    (Eisenhower warned for the military industrial complex)

Carter wanted to change certain aspects of the CIA and was not reelected anymore.  Herbert Walker Bush, before he became Vice-President, achieved a strategy favourable for Reagan’s victory by delaying the solution in the hostage crisis. Bush had longstanding connections with the darker CIA elements when the assassination on JFK was prepared and executed, with close links to both former President Nixon and Ford as well. Bush,sr as well who  did support Nixon until the bitter end over Watergate.  This Watergate if properly investigated opening  a can of worms over the darkest CIA activities in the past, with criminal ramifications against US citizens. President Carter reflected a clear change from existing paradigms both introduced by LBJ, continued by Nixon and at some extend by Ford. However as it appeared the  Reagan – Bush campaign was that worried that President Carter would reach a deal with Iran resulting in the release of the hostages before the elections and therefore Carter winning a second term in office, that they made their own deal with a close relative of Khomeini during various meetings in both Paris and Madrid. The deal did include to accept fully the Islāmic Republic and non interference in Iran’s internal affairs. In other words whist not being in power they made a better deal with Iran, hence the hostage crisis deliberately delayed. Part of the deal was to engage later in an Iran-Contra arms deal with will be discussed under President Reagan.

US spring would not last long.  In summary both Reagan and Bush whilst not representing the US  engaged in illegal backdoor dealings  with high level representation of Khomeini at the cost of hostages in Iran to win the elections and to get rid of President Carter and CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner.

Once in a blue moon a US President may arrive with a different agenda for the nation, however this US President  still has to balance carefully among existing background powers, still being tolerated by US Congress. Restrictive legislation to bring those powers within the strict domain of both US law and the Constitution, neither permitting nor allowing those Agencies to engage in criminal activities, is a requirement for a better balance of US power systems.

With each new President different people may have the reigns in the CIA and the Pentagon. The way of operating  and an emphasis on intermittent covert operations, neither being regulated by the US President at times as we will see with President Reagan, nor being regulated by Congress, –  is a domain of potential breeding ground for the most monstrous endeavours through which US Presidents can be profoundly misled,  if they are not already compromised to allow being misled by choice.

President Obama has been compared with Carter by Donald Rumsfeld, but this might be more a reflection on Rumsfeld than either former President Carter or current President Obama. We know how Rumsfeld feels about Carter and human rights, as Rumsfeld is the one would go to jail in Switzerland and this would for certain not apply to former President Carter. Carter may not have had the charisma of Kennedy or Clinton, but he was a good man with a profound positive legacy, after his Presidency as well in – various ways.

Former President Carter remained remarkably active on human rights issues after his Presidency of the US. He did receive the Medal of Peace” and in 1999 both he and his wife Rosalynn were awarded with the Presidential medal of freedom.  In 1989 he hosted peace negotiations in Ethiopia and within the context of his role as UN embassador he has been very active taking part in the talks with Rwanda in 1996. Apart from other rewards he received in 1993 the “Matsunaga Medal of Peace”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px7aRIhUkHY&feature=player_detailpage                                                                              (Carter – Reagan debate 1980)

Continued>>>

See chapter 7 (Part 7) on former President Ronald Reagan.

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice (Part 5 – former President Ford)


English: The swearing in of President Gerald F...
English: The swearing in of President Gerald Ford by Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. Français : Gerald Ford serrant la main de Warren Burger le chef de la Cour Suprême des états-Unis (1974). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The 38th US President Gerald Rudolph Ford:   “An American tragedy in which we all have played a  part” – “If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave.”  – Gerald R. Ford.

Born in 1913 in Omaha, Nebraska, he studied law at Yale and during the Second World War he served in the US Navy. He became a member of the House of Representatives for the Republican Party from 1949 to 1973.   By 1965 he became the minority leader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RCczaSKs9Y&feature=player_detailpage            ( Lyndon Johnson tapes: Gerald Ford on Warren Commission)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eZfS-oly10&feature=player_detailpage                 (Gerald Ford confirms CIA involvement in the JFK assassination)

He was appointed Vice-President under President Richard Nixon after the resignation of Spiro Agnew in 1973. When President Richard Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal Gerald Ford became the new President, obviously as such without electoral mandate.  He was pushed to this highest office in the US without knowing at the time of becoming Vice President that this would be his fate in the future.  He took this office on his shoulders with the responsibilities neither he nor his wife really wanted, but obviously he did it and got a lot of praise. His controversial decision to give Richard Nixon a full pardon and as such avoiding any further Watergate investigations, besides the problems in the US economy at the time, contributed generally to a low-level popularity. The further details will be discussed later in this article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r2T9IlXYUM&feature=player_detailpage                      (Gerald Ford’s testimony on the  Pardon of Richard Nixon – Part 10)

US Congress during his Presidency was dominated by the Democratic Party, and both his external and domestic policy plan’s were rejected. He served only 2 years as US President and during the 1976 Presidential elections he was defeated by Jimmy Carter.

One of his publications after his Presidency was “Humor and the Presidency” in 1987. In his memoirs just before his death he revealed that the CIA was involved in the assassination on President John F Kennedy.  Speaking in retrospect, his first publication dit fit him quite well as he had a friendly sense of humor and note that he was generally well liked, regardless his controversial decision to give Richard Nixon a full Presidential pardon for what he inflicted during his years in the White house.

Interestingly he did receive for this “Presidential Nixon Pardon”  ‘The Profile in Courage Award” at the Kennedy Library in Boston in May 2001. Why this is so interesting will be revealed later in this article as it will be clear that the perceptions on this Presidential Pardon are different, or at least valued differently.

Gerald Ford took over as the  38th US President after serving under Nixon since the 12th of October 1973 as his Vice President.  The former Vice-President at the time Spiro Agnew  resigned on the 10th of October as due to proven corruption and Nixon asked both Congress and Hoover (FBI Chief)  for advise about the succession of Vice President Agnew.

Gerald Ford had an impressive background with both good relations within the CIA and the FBI.  Only 10 years before he served within the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission initiated under President Johnson had the purpose to reach a conclusion on those involved in the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  As most of us know in retrospect,  – the purpose of the Warren Commission was to suppress the truth on the JFK assassination.  Ford was once called “the CIA man” in Congress.

Only one month into his Presidency,  Ford pardoned Richard Nixon completely avoiding as such further investigations into the Watergate scandal.  Some assumed this was an act of courage whilst others criticised Ford for doing this. What we know is that he took this decision within the first 100 days in office without – reportedly – consultation with any of his staff or other advisers.

Was the background of this decision a real act of moral courage or was there more to this decision? He made the decision reportedly on his own, based on his knowledge and his own assessment of the situation.

Let’s go back to Gerald Ford’s  role  in the Warren Commission.  Ford always defended the lone gunman theory within the identified cause of death by the Warren Commission. He had excellent relations with the FBI Chief Hoover at the time.  Deliberately and against all usual protocol he did help FBI Chief Hoover by providing him all the in’s and out’s of the Warren Commission  in private and “confidential”, as such allowing Hoover to keep an eye on those members who would perhaps not follow Allen Dulles verdict on the “lone gunman theory”. There were clearly 2 members of the Warren Commission having some reservations on both the process and the verdict and even though not all evidence reached the Warren Commission (Allen Dulles was in a place to avoid at least some part to reach the Commission), it was clear from the beginning that the CIA played a most controversial role.  Some people within the Warren Commission knew more than others and Gerald Ford (“the CIA man in Congress”)  together with the FBI Chief Hoover was in full agreement that the truth should never allowed to become public. The truth was that it was an inside job from the CIA, authorised by the highest levels of the Executive branch of the US Government.  Hence the lone gunman theory was supposed to be the only possible allowed verdict for both the US and Congress. A hard lie to be swallowed. However Gerald Ford went on national television to defend the findings of the Warren Commission in a convincing way.

If the broader involvement of the Executive branch would be public knowledge with the people who had knowledge of the pending events on the 22nd of November 1963, this would have cause the most dramatic Constitutional crisis ever in US history at the time. The US would not accept one of its most popular Presidents being killed with gross government involvement. With Ford’s insight in the CIA and his “absolute pardon” for Richard Nixon, he wanted to avoid further damaging investigations in which the CIA would be exposed. Even 10 years after the Warren Commission report.

The point is that the  “Watergate” burglars played a role in the Kennedy assassination as well and the CIA played a role in the Watergate break in as it was assumed that the Democratic Party had access to some top-secret documents and photographs related to the JFK assassination. Especially imaging from a police helicopter would slash the Lee Harvey Oswald theory on his involvement, besides the fact the latter fully revealed Zapruder film ruled out the lone gunman theory.  The Watergate burglary took place on the 28th of May and the 17th of June 1972.

Nixon used the provisions of the 25th Amendment to nominate Gerald Ford as his new Vice President. The FBI facilitated payments meanwhile to the burglars via “the Committee to Reelect President Nixon” in 1972. H. W. Bush (the later President) was the head of this Committee and claimed until the last Nixon tapes being released that Richard Nixon was innocent. The question as well is whether the later President H.W. Bush was completely honest in his assessment of President Nixon being innocent at the time, as history shows in its facts and documentation that H.W. Bush had more background information about the JFK assassination and those who were involved.

FBI Chief Edward Hoover died meanwhile on the 2nd of May 1972. The acting Head of the FBI then L Patrick Gray was ordered to save the situation for Nixon and had to destroy evidence from the safe of Howard Hunt on his assignments and working schedule for the CIA. Hunt was both involved in Watergate and the assassination of JFK.  Because of this destruction of evidence after taking those documents from Howard Hunt’s safe,  L Patrick Gray had to resign from the FBI.   E Howard Hunt then made claims at the White House as he wanted to avoid conviction, but after the suspicious death of his wife he did plead guilty to the Watergate burglary, being concerned about the rest of his family.

Coming back on history: with Gerald Ford’s background in the Warren Commission’s corruption of evidence of the JFK assassination,  FBI Chief  Hoover advised Nixon that after the corruption scandal with his first Vice President Spiro Agnew, Gerald Ford would be his best option if his own Presidency would come into danger. With Gerald Ford perhaps being the next President, any secrets of widespread involvement in the JFK murder would be kept secret, including the involvement of the CIA.  If  Gerald Ford would decide to pursue matters further with “Watergate” (both FBI Chief Hoover and Nixon were fully aware of this, the CIA included) it would both expose Gerald Ford himself to his controversial involvement in the Warren Commission, besides this  it would expose Nixon, Hoover, the CIA and the systems of the Executive powers. They all had most positive relations with Gerald Ford, who once said that he had no real enemies. Gerald Ford’s assessment was correct, he had no real enemies as he never caused any real controversy apart from the “Nixon-pardon”.

Indeed, with Gerald Ford in the White House the establishment would be secured that the status quo on the most vital Government secrets would stay the same. It would not be the best reflection on the US and the world if it would prove that the highest government levels for various reasons were involved in this crime. Whilst Gerald Ford had no real enemies, John Fitzgerald Kennedy had a number of enemies as he was quite outspoken on significant issues in the US at the time. The same applies to his younger brother Robert Francis Kennedy.

It never happened before that a US President was assassinated by a miliary related Agency of the US Government with authority from major powers within this government. The reasons for this assassination would be much revealing for the nature and standards of this US Government, hence regardless the implications all efforts being in place to suppress the truth with all possible and available means. Besides this, from one thing other issues may evolve. It never happened either that a Senator from New York being succesful in the run up to Presidential elections, with a good sense of social justice and strong anti-war sentiments, would be assassinated by the same background powers who were in this case responsible for the death of his older brother, – the late 35th US President.

If Watergate would be reopened Howard Hunt’s case would be likely first investigated.  If he would tell everything he knew,  including all the connections he had with people connected to “The Bay of Pig crisis”, the CIA  and others, –  the JFK assassination would likely be far more important then the real Watergate burglary itself.  The RFK assassination could be well involved in this as well.

Gerald Ford was fully aware of the potential implications as he was already a compromised person before he even became Vice President. Whilst in function as US President stating to the public that “The long national nightmare is over” and that “Our Constitution works” he was simply not telling the truth.  The nightmare was not over and other Presidents after John F Kennedy would make matters even worse, in different areas of secrecy being required and cover up’s being considered “normal” now from the perception of various governments

Gerald Ford simply compromised himself  (again actually) to prevent the national nightmare from 1963 and those who were involved to be exposed (through all pending hearings). This was the reason for the Nixon pardon, as “Watergate” would otherwise open “a can of worms”.

Obviously Gerald Ford protected with this the many who were involved, and even perhaps not knowing this Howard Hunt’s life, though the last was not really a priority.  If it would come either to further court or Senate hearings, most likely  Hunt would be assassinated by the CIA beforehand. This happened with a number of witnesses before. The suspicious death of Hunt’s wife was for Hunt himself a warning  not to take matters further. Gerald Ford knew about the danger of Hunt going to speak in court if so required. Hunt knew too much and was far too much involved.

Rather than that it proved the Constitution did work, it proved that the Constitution did not work. It does raise the question on which principles did Gerald Ford publicly show that the Constitution did work. Which principles did he defend?   If some speak about the courage of Gerald Ford when he gave Nixon full pardon, as such preventing that a more evil truth would become public (the evil of a corrupt government system involved in the JFK assassination), the question is then how to define this courage. It does raise the question as well what sort of Constitution did work. Needless to say that this was not the US Constitution, neither was it the Constitution of people seeking more honesty in government policy.

Time after time US Presidents would compromise the same US Constitution and mislead the public on the most significant issues of their time with backdoor dealings neither being justified nor lawful, and Congress being a lame duck, not having the political ability or determination to solve matters for once and for all.

Democracy for the US proved to be a charming Government with neither however too much substance nor integrity among  the few who were able to manipulate the opinions of the many, as part of the authority and the powers they were entrusted  based on the same US Constitution. The last so often being compromised by people trying even to manipulate this Constitution for their own secret endeavours. The way to Justice is long with many obstacles on the road and in US history many of such obstacles neglected, which made that the power of Democracy and the intend of the US Constitution suffered.

James Madison, the 4th US President, would have raised the same concerns if he was able to watch only once more over the ongoing Government corruption.  Ford was part of this, whatever he did good, – he was part of the cover up in the JFK assassination. Part of the cover up to protect Nixon to leave the past to the past. President Ford’s own press secretary resigned after his “Nixon – pardon”.

People in the US who fled to Canada to avoid fighting in  the Vietnam war as an act of conscious were either prosecuted or only got a conditional pardon. People with little or no conscious in the JFK assassination walked free, as much as possible protected. Witnessed were killed, evidence was disrupted and compromised. Prosecution was prevented by the highest officials in Government even 10 years after the JFK assassination. Ford was part of this from the beginning.   He knew it was a Coupe d’Etat and he knew who were behind it and as US President he could have made a different choice at the beginning of his Presidency, but he could not do it as too many others were involved and he did not know what it would do to the future in general, and his future as well.

Gerald Ford  did promote Donald Rumsfeld (to be discussed later again) to help him to set the priorities for his Presidential direction. Rumsfeld became the President’s right hand. If we look at history how matters evolved with Rumsfeld even coming up again in the last Bush Administration, and in various Republican Administrations before, – this choice  was not the best choice. However Gerald Ford could perhaps not know this at the time. Henry Kissinger stayed on in Ford’s foreign policy team and they worked in good coöperation.

Donald Kendell , President of Pepsi – Cola, was considered to be “the eyes and ears” of the CIA in Cuba. The day before the JFK assassination he was meeting with Nixon. The Watergate burglars were tied up with both the Kennedy assassination and the Bay of Pigs. At least one of the Watergate burglars was on the CIA payroll on the 17th of June 1972 (Eugenio Martinez). The other Watergate conspirators included ex- FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy, ex – CIA agents james McCord and E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis and Virggilo Gonzales. Hunt being deeply involved in the Bay of Pigs operations retired later from the CIA . Ford knew this. He became even the Covert Operations Chief for President Nixon.  Several reports do show that Hunt was in Dallas on the 22nd of November 1963 when JFK was assassinated. Marita Lorenz testified under oath that she observed him paying off an assassination team in Dallas the night before the JFK murder.

Obviously Nixon was most concerned  when Hunt’s involvement with Watergate (with the others)  would came to light, with the previous connections he had. Nixon’s aide John Ehrlichman was instructed by Nixon to order the acting FBI Director to remove 6 written files from Hunt’s personal safe. Gray did as he was told and burnt those files in his fireplace. He took the brunt for it and had to resign, which reflects how well the buffer systems in the White House do work as the issue was not further investigated.  John Dean, council to the President,  shredded Hunt’s operational diary.  The latest Nixon tapes are studded with deletions, especially discussions about Hunt, the Bay of Pigs and JFK.  In May 1972 Nixon disclosed on tape to his 2 top aides that the Warren Commission was “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”    Vice-President Ford was fully aware at the time as both he and Nixon had various background information on the JFK assassination.   Hunt later did admit on CIA involvement in the JFK assassination and he fingered CIA officers Cord Meyer, David Phillips, William Harvey and David Morales.

Like former US President Eisenhower and Truman warned for the military establishment, – Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs crisis did do the same. He did treat them with courtesy and respect, but he was extremely on his guard as he realised that those “groups” had their own strong agenda, not refraining from misleading a US President if it would suit this agenda. No US President in the US since JFK took those lessons seriously on board. No legislative powers even in the US took this seriously on board as if they would have done so the previous Administration would have been impeached over the 9/11 drama’s.

A  US President needs to be strong enough to rule both the CIA and the Pentagon. Most Presidents after JFK were too much compromised themselves already that rather ruling those Agencies, they became more or less puppets and allowed the Agencies to engage in activities out of all normal proportions. The last without investigations in retrospect as they were somehow able to keep Congress out of the picture.

As reflected in part in chapter 4 of these series, in retrospect there is evidence that Nixon originated the Cuban (Bay of Pigs) invasion under Eisenhower, hence his close links with those people who felt betrayed by JFK as part of JFK’s refusal not to back up this invasion with further military support from the air (once Kennedy discovered that CIA information was not correct at the time). Hence as well Nixon’s close links with both this people and the CIA,  including both LBJ and including his old friend: the notorious FBI Chief Hoover.

Obviously there is far more to both the lives of Nixon and Ford during their Presidencies and afterwards, but also before they became US President.   Whilst Nixon was at times very unpredictable, Ford was fairly balanced and actually quite pleasant. Despite not winning the elections in 1974 he took over the Presidency of Richard Nixon at a turbulent time and there have been much positives as well.

If you ask me whether he was a good man, I don’t hesitate to think that Gerald Ford had a better character than Richard Nixon or Johnson.  People make failures in their lives, and so be it.  The measure of this man is larger than what he did wrong or tried to hide, but if the question is whether he did violate justice at the time (or violate the US Constitution), the answer is 100% in the affirmative: yes, he did!

It can’t be denied that this was a touchstone of  Gerald Ford’s character at the time and that this was not the courage which is prepared to lose everything for higher values and principles being at stake. What was at stake was that the principle of truth was neither allowed nor permitted to show the darkest episode in US political and Constitutional history, and Gerald Ford correctly stated that if Lincoln was alive in those days, he would turn in his grave. He correctly stated on another occasion that he was “not a Lincoln but a Ford.” In other words he was the man who avoided in the most critical time of decision making the moral obligation to stick to the truth and the US Constitution. What could not have been expected anymore from former President L.B. Johnson or Richard M. Nixon has they passed already long before the “point of no return” could have within reach of Gerald Ford.  He may have had his reasons, but it was neither an act of courage nor a special service to his country that he acted the way he did in his full Presidential Pardon of Richard Milhous Nixon.

In his memoirs being published just before he died Gerald Ford did admit finally that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination. Ford may have been however the man who did regret his involvement in the Warren Commission in the way he did,  and in his case I do not rule out that this burden from the past was indeed a personal burden for him later in life after his Presidency was finished.  However he did not hesitate to accept the “Profile in Courage Award”  in 2001 at the JFK library in Boston, which in a way is ironic in retrospect.  The examples however of courage as described in JFK’s book “Profiles in courage” are of an entirely  different nature than reflected in either LBJ’ s, Nixon’s or Gerald Ford’s life.

Could Gerald Ford have dealt with the matter differently?

Let’s be honest, obviously he was not in the easiest place. It is a matter of choice , character and courage to do so and indeed with his Presidential pardon for Nixon he obstructed justice systems to work as they should do in the US. It would have been a major issue in the US if the Watergate scandal would have revealed the further background and links as being described, but it would have solved the matter for once and for all and if fully investigated (the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations included).  With some of the links to Bush senior on  the JFK assassination, there would have been likely neither a W.H. Bush Administration nor a G.W. Bush Administration as the principles of governance being implemented by Congress would have prevented those people to be elected US President, – besides new legislation for  the other “operating powers” in the US.  The forces for justice did prove neither to be that strong in the US during the years of Gerald Ford in the White House, nor during the Presidential years after President Carter.

Fact is that the CIA has been involved in high-profile assassinations on US citizens and this created a precedent for the powers at the background to change history against the will of the voters and against the intent of the Constitution. Still applies in 2011 that those powers need to be restricted if Congress is ready to deal with this, based on historical review of events.

Generally spoken no justice provided within any Presidential Administration in whatever effort  justifies  to hide  any of the criminal injustice of past Administrations at the level as this occurred, with the secrecy and cover up’s from LBJ  until today. If the problem would have been properly tackled and resolved at the time – with still the option today it would have meant progress for the US.  Once such dark secrets are allowed to be kept secret in Government systems it creates a precedent for even worse things to be kept secret if secrecy for illegal activities becomes part of “normal procedure” of Government activities. It would  seem in the US that when such bad things happen they are put in the freezer of history and classified documents, and secret files are allowed to be opened some 20 to 100 years later, depending how serious the matter was. This is not the way the US will grow as both a Republic and a Democracy!

The real issue is that once gross injustice is allowed to be part of government systems, greater evil will be even allowed to be applied when it suits the Government to find an excuse to go to war, even if the reasons for going to war are fabricated.

Again, WTC 7  full of CIA intelligence and most confidential papers went down during 9/11 as a result of a controlled demolition as reflected by Ted Gunderson (former FBI Chief) and Albert Stubblebine (former Major General of all Military Intelligence). Since the JFK assassination evil systems existing and operating within the Executive branch were allowed to continue its work against the interest of US citizens.

It was President Lincoln (a Republican) who warned for allowing the President to go at war for pleasure, however most of the Republican Presidents the last 40 years have been at war as most of those US Presidents had very close links with the CIA , and other organisations not serving the real interests of the US and the world. Obviously people may view this differently but the crux is that if the books would be really opened on the past Bush Administration, and the real facts came to table, including the role of Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, – and if  let’s say 9/11 was really allowed to have a full independent investigation without the usual obstructions and tampering  of past investigations and evidence not even reaching the table, it would be a mind-blowing event for all those investigators being involved.    Not to speak of all the US citizens if they would get an insight on issues which formed the base why this former US President and Rumsfeld and Cheney would potentially go to jail in both Germany and Switzerland if they would visit those countries The situation is of such nature that based on the relatively little information being available,  the former US President Bush  is already unable to travel to Switzerland without a potential arrest warrant. US citizens may get angry about the fact that a little country in Europe may convict the former US President and put him in a likely well deserved jail if he would go on holiday there,  – but let’s be realistic in terms of justice. Does this not tell at least something about the past Administration, being allowed by both the public and Congress to continue to do “the job”? We’ll discuss this later.

The US is nearly bankrupt now, bankrupt of what it robbed from the US itself.

Generally spoken former President Gerald  Ford despite his failures to overcome the injustice from the past ,  did not engage in a new war. He had a stable and pleasant personality and perhaps he has been worried that too much compromising events hitting daylight in the US at once would neither be well swallowed nor well digested. However the events around Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld in all detail being  lined up in the scrutiny of justice would be for certain badly swallowed and badly digested as well. And they are all interlinked because the Legislative US Powers did not use its full recourses to regulate the Executive Powers by law and proper law enforcement.

Gerald Ford was restricted by the past by choice. He did not need to do so. He was otherwise a good President, but he would have been a great President if he would have faced this past with dignity and courage, faced this past with the required determination to make sure that “Lincoln would not turn over in his grave” by seeing what happened and what was unresolved, allowing eventually a system of  government to help US Presidents going to war  – as President Lincoln once said – “For pleasure!”

Significant at President’s Ford credit is that after the findings of the Senate requested Church Committee, he issued Executive order 11905 with guidance and restrictions for various agencies including the clarification of both intelligence authorities and responsibilities. The later President Bush was nominated to be CIA Director (with strong opposition from Senator Frank Church) and got the job to give the CIA a better reputation. He was given 90 days to carry out Executive order 11905, which included a reorganisation and a statement that CIA activities would not be directed against American citizens. The Church Committee investigations included the question whether the CIA was involved in the assassination of domestic officials, including President Kennedy. Those dynamics were positive, but interesting as well for various reasons. President Ford did know of H.W.Bush association with the CIA at the time of the JFK assassination. It seemed a very political partisan choice to select H.W. Bush for this position.

For further insight in Gerald Ford’s Presidency see the recommended links

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rg9c4pUrg&feature=player_detailpage                                           (Ford – Carter debate excerpt)

Jimmy Carter took over from Gerald Ford in 1977 as the 39th President of the United States. The Watergate scandal was still fresh in the voters mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzgB_w1tO5M&feature=player_detailpage                                    (President Ford died – ABC News)

Will be continued>>>>see Part 6

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice (Part 4 – former President Nixon)


English: US President Richard Nixon and Chines...
English: US President Richard Nixon and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai toast, February 25, 1972 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The 37th US President

Richard Milhouse Nixon

“I am not a crook” – R.M Nixon:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M&feature=player_detailpage

RICHARD   NIXON’s   VIOLATIONS  OF 

JUSTICE

Richard Milhouse Nixon (1913-1994 was born in Yorba Linda (California) in a lower middle class quaker family of an Irish background. After his degree at Duke University he worked for 5 years as a lawyer and served in the US Navy from 1942 until 1946.

He became a Republican member of US Congress in California by 1946. Whilst campaigning he pictured his democratic opponent as communist sympathiser. His tactical abilities allowed him to make a quick rise in political circles and he was an important member of the House  Committee on “Un American Activities” whilst worker on the Elgar Hiss case. In his early Congressional years he was assisted by various people, including Jack Ruby ( as far as Department of Justice memo)

He became Vice – President under Dwight D  Eisenhower when Eisenhower did win the elections in 1952. As Vice President he was known for his outspoken exchanges with Nikita Khrushchev during a visit to Moscow in 1959. He lost the presidential elections very narrowly from John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1960. He lost then in 1962 the elections in California for the Governor position of this State.

Thereafter he became a succesful Wall Street lawyer. About 1967  he decided for an extensive tour around the world, visiting both Europe, the Middle East, Vietnam, Africa and Latin America. Whist reportedly undecided to run for the Presidential elections in 1968 he published an article called “Asia After Viet Nam” in the “Foreign Affairs  Journal” reflecting on his policy of removing American combat troops from Vietnam. In this article he projected his potential Administration opening a way to China as well.  Once decided to run for the Presidency in 1968, he mentioned in the 1968 campaign that he had a secret plan  for a complete withdrawal from Vietnam. He returned to win the Presidential elections in 1968 with only a small margin benefitting in retrospect strongly from the assassination of his potential Democratic opponent Robert F Kennedy in June 1968. The unrest on top of this at the Democratic Convention in Chicago with police forces crushing anti Vietnam war protestors created on national TV a picture of unrest in the US and Nixon promised to change this situation. The US in 1968 was a country with strong divisions with strong opposition against the war in Vietnam and by far the majority of US citizens wanted to stop this war. Martin Luther King, jr was assassinated on the 4th of April 1968. He was a prominent leader in the African-American Civil Rights movement and representing as well a growing opposition against the war in Vietnam. The New York Senator Robert Kennedy has been for months agonising on the question whether he should oppose both President Johnson and the war, but the growing and escalating violence decided him to run eventually for the Presidency at a relatively late stage, – however gaining increasing support from both the movement of social justice and those who were against the war. A large number of African Americans trusted him as because he seemed genuinely compassionate about the still existing social injustice in the US. There were however powerful groups in the US who did not want a second Kennedy in the White House and both the assassination on MLK and RFK caused the anti-war movement losing its strongest leaders. This needs to be discussed in some detail as it will show some of the forceful background dynamics pushing all in the same direction. Within this context the main obstacles for Richard Nixon’s election were resolved as the strength of the movement against both the war and for more social justice was  reduced within a climate of unrest, which was  obvious  after 2 vital assassinations in a row and the war in Vietnam still going on.  Many years later Coretta Scot King (MLK’s wife) did win a wrongful death civil trial against Loyd Jowers and other unknown co-conspirators in 1999.  Jowers received $100000,- to arrange the assassination on MLK and the Jury was convinced that Government Agencies were parties to the assassination plot. It would seem that the LBJ government was involved at setting the stage of this assassination, using James Earl Ray as a scapegoat, as publicly on TV confirmed by Jowers on ABC’ Prime Time Life.  Jowers stated that both the mafia and the US Government were involved in the MLK assassination.  Reportedly Memphis police officer Lieutenant Earl Clark fired the fatal shots. The conspiracy did include J Edgar Hoover, Richard helms, the CIA, the Memphis Police Department(MPD), Army intelligence and organised crime.  A very key person within the civil right movement was on the government payroll, responsible for infiltration and sabotage. Readers may wonder about the evidence of this revelation but this evidence was uncovered and put before a Jury in Memphis,TN, in November 1999. Seventy witnesses testified under oath with 4000 pages of evidence, much of it was it new. The news of one of the most national security trials was suppressed, as  tends to happen in the US at times. It was clear that the 1997 reports of the House Select Committee on Assassinations re James Earl Ray justified verdict were wrong: he was not the one who murdered MLK!

All parties involved did not take any chance. It was agreed that MLK would not leave Memphis alive and at the time of his assassination he was under complete surveillance with various guns loaded in his direction if the attempt from one party would fail. Like the JFK assassination, but different, it was an ambush. MLK was not only a Civil Rights activist, he was even far more than a voice against the war in Vietnam, hence authorities decided to take him out of the picture. Regarding the RFK assassination there is no doubt that Sirhan Bishara Sirhan fired a gun but it did not cause the death of RFK. Multiple shooters were in the small area were RFK’ assassination took place. At least 9 shots have been fired at the end of the night Kennedy did win the primaries in Los Angeles at the Ambassador Hotel. The LAPD destroyed key physical and photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony. LA County Coroner and Chief Medical Examiner Dr Thomas T Noguchi prepared the autopsy report on RFK where the headshot damage not only reflected a pathologic impossibility, but it ruled out as well Sirhan’s gun as the offending weapon in RFK’s death. Sirhan is still in jail, being convicted of first degree murder.

Video images identified 3 former CIA agents were very close to RFK at the time of his assassination (Morales,Joannides and Campbell). David Morales was the Chief Operations at JM-Wave, training Cuban exiles in 1963 in covert actions against Fidel Castro. Morales and Campbell have talked with each other in the in the hotel lobby prior to the assassination (witness report David Rabern). Campbell has been reportedly  in and around various  police stations in the 2 months before  the RFK  assassination. Joannides has been the Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations at JM -Wave. He had retired from his CIA position but returned back to active duty in 1978 as the liaison between the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).  Not sure who nominated him in this position but obviously Joannides failed to tell the HSCA that he ever worked at JM-Wave, as such maintain his covert identity and compromising the entire Congressional investigations. It was Joannides obstructing the HSCA to get access to vital information (crucial documents) about the JFK assassination during the re-investigations on the assassinations of JFK and MLK. The lead investigator of the HSCA Gaeton Fonzi concluded that  Morales was directly involved in the JFK assassination as due to revenge of the Bay of Pigs.

Before we start on former US President Richard Nixon note that Richard Nixon and George Herbert Bush (the later US Vice-President and US President) have been integral to the Bay of Pigs operations.  As Vice-President, Nixon worked under President Eisenhower, together with Allen Dulles from the CIA and other senior CIA staff on the strategic planning of the Bay of Pigs. The bestselling book “Plausible Denial” by Mark Lane in 1991 reflects on both CIA involvement in JFK’s death. The later President Bush  was at the time of the Pay of Pigs a CIA  operative and the FBI confirmed in documents being released many years later that Bush sr was involved in the CIA briefing the day after the JFK assassination.The role of FBI Chief Hoover in the JFK assassination is most controversial as well. Gerald Ford as member of the Warren Commission leaked all confidential information to FBI Chief Hoover. Without claiming to be correct in all details the general picture of key CIA people being involved in both the JFK and RFK assassination with Bay of Pigs links, Richard Nixon a close friend of Hoover with Bay of Pigs links, Herbert Hoover a profound RFK hater, major CIA background powers in favour of the Vietnam war etc etc give the background why RFK was killed in 1968 and how  Hoover’s extra police actions in Chicago after 2 vital assassinations in a row did prepare the road for Nixon to get elected. Nothing is foolproof in life and in theory Hubert Humphrey could have won the 1968 elections but he was too closely associated with Lyndon Johnson who was most unpopular. Besides this LBJ warned Hubert Humphrey that if he would publicly oppose the Administration’s Vietnam war policy he personally would destroy Humphrey’s chances to get the Democratic nomination. Not much luck for Humphrey with such a boss and such mighty coöperation with FBI Chief Hoover. It was in both LBJ’s interest and Hoovers interest that all government secrets would stay secret and from this point of view with LBJ’s background knowledge about Nixon and Gerald Ford  -(fully shared with FBI Chief Hoover)- ,..Richard Nixon would be the best choice to remain the status quo on secrecy and the war in Vietnam as being supported by the CIA.   With both MLK and RFK out of the way the strong anti Vietnam war movement was at least for some part broken as part of a Government conspiracy similar as happened in 1963 with JFK.   Most of the same key players were still in power.

With opposing LBJ about the war in Vietnam and running for the Presidency in 1968 Robert F Kennedy did sign his own death sentence, like MLK did when he spoke out against the war in Vietnam with so much people following him, like JFK did when he opposed the CIA and the Pentagon Generals when he despised their advise at times and decided to withdraw from Vietnam. No one can oppose the real background powers in the US, not even President Obama. This is America ladies and gentlemen, this was America and in a way it still is America. In the 1960ties there have been criminals in US Government systems neither allowing justice nor allowing peace in Vietnam at a stage this was desired. They robbed the Nation of people who perhaps not being perfect tried to do what was good in a particular time in history and the tool of the government was simply assassination and make the way free for people who would serve the needs for the American military establishment in the White house, rather than the need of the voters, – the parents who had to let their children go to Vietnam and had to receive the medals of honour when they died courageously in pointless war dictated by a corrupted government policy guided by the war heads of the Pentagon from which both Eisenhower and Truman said that their powers were far out of proportion. The US seemed to be a Republic with a Democratic image, but the real government was not a government from the people and for the people. It did not serve the people. It played the media. And when opposing powers were too strong,  when the forces towards more justice developed with fierce and without fear, it became overruled and crushed by both the police and the military. Such things do happen in countries who at least are honest enough not to claim they are a democracy. The many dirty wars of the US are not a reflection of real democracies based on the values of those who prepared the US Constitution. It is this Constitution which needs to be protected to get a better Union. Not a Union only being able to survive with assassinations of those who give to the moral values and justice within this Union.

Obviously Nixon did promise the public a secret way out of Vietnam, whilst in secret preparing for the opposite if he was elected. By adding to the general feel of unrest in Chicago FBI Chief Hoover added in a strategic way to the chances of victory for Richard Nixon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf22x5r16Zo&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                                  (The Pentagon Papers: A Primer for Top Secrets…..)

Once President Nixon nominated his campaign Director Bob Haldeman White House Chief of Staff,  foreign policy decisions were made in close coöperation with Henry Kissinger. interestingly Secretary of State William Rogers was by far not always prior aware about some of the Administrations enterprises. Speechwriter for Richard Nixon Ray Price reflected on “the light side” and “the dark side” of Richard Nixon. He was however reelected in 1972 with a large majority. His Administration from 1974 sustained remarkable controversy over the Vietnam war. The invasion in 1970 of Cambodia and his approval of heavy bombardments on North Vietnam took his toll in the public opinion and he signed in 1973 a cease-fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhtsSu9hgxI&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                      (Evidence of Revision: Part 4  -1 of 11)

A strategic arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union was signed during his Administration and he was the first President to reopen US relations with China in 1972. The Watergate burglary as will be detailed later brought his Presidency totally down.  Being the first US President to resign from office he avoided as such impeachment. The new President Gerald Ford gave him a full pardon in in 1974.

It would seem Nixon’s staff frequently conspired to keep the “darker side” of Nixon – as Ray Price reflected on – in check and obviously Nixon himself was involved in this. As it proved however, Nixon participated in some conspiracies with high level support outside the White House.

On the 3rd of November 1969 Nixon declared that his Administration would not give in to the demands of anti-war demonstrators, sympathising with “The great silent majority of Americans” to back him up in his efforts for a “just and lasting peace”.  Nixon knew how to play the game of politics by doing what “the doves wanted” but meanwhile seeking ready coöperation with both the CIA and the Pentagon.  In April 1970 Nixon ordered extra American troops into Cambodia. During a nation-wide student protest 4 students were killed by the National Guard at Ohio Kent State University. Nixon backed down a bit at the 1970 midterm elections preparing as well against the balanced and dignified Democratic senator Edmund Muskie from Maine, who wanted to run for the 1972 elections. Nixon’s state visit to China did raise his popularity. He signed 3 months later as well a treaty with the Soviet Union restricting from both sides establishing anti ballistic missile systems apart from limiting offensive missile launchers. Meanwhile however Nixon had responded already in the second part of 1971 to the publication of the Johnson Administration’s classified “Pentagon Papers”. This publication was unauthorised and provided an insight in the origins of the Vietnam war. Nixon assigned a group to prevent leaks of classified information and harassed perceived enemies of his Administration. FBI Chief Hoover proved to be very helpful with this. Some weeks after Nixon returned from the Soviet Union, four men were arrested at the Watergate complex as due to burglary into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. After his reelection in 1972 the Watergate burglars were convicted and several of them implicated Nixon’s closest associates. It proved that the Watergate-break-in was only one of the several acts of both sabotage and political espionage carried out by the Nixon Administration. Nixon tried to keep away secret tapes from hearings by the “principal of separation of powers”. He had however to provide many of the required tapes but not everything. The unravelling of the Nixon Presidency was unstoppable now and in 1974 the “House Judiciary Committee”started to discuss Nixon’s impeachment. It proved that Nixon had engaged in extensive domestic wiretapping apart from his questionable tax deductions through which he paid almost no federal income tax in 1973. On the 24th of July 1974 the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to give the tapes he had withheld. Those tapes were supposed to contain evidence of Nixon’s personal involvement in the Watergate operations including reflections about Watergate burglars being engaged in CIA operations.  The verdict was that if he would not leave office on his own decision, he would be impeached, convicted and removed from office. On the 8th of August 1974 Nixon announced his resignation and Vice-President Ford was administered the Presidential oath on the 9th of August.

Richard Milhous Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of America was supported by powerful circles in Washington when he was elected President in 1968. The US was unsettled as due to social unrest, in part due to the Vietnam war and in part as a result of the aftermath following  2 assassinations of  perhaps both the most prominent political figures (MLK and RFK) representing the movement of  social change and justice , – including the end of the war in Vietnam. I repeat this once more to put some matters in perspective.

President Johnson voiced private concerns in 1964 that Vietnam would become a second Korea but he was already so much compromised by his own past, including CIA and FBI collaborations, not being able to take a different course of action. Hence he did not go for a second term. However again, he warned his Vice-President Hubert Humphrey not to turn against the Vietnam war as otherwise his chances on the Democratic nomination would be destroyed. In a way LBJ did aid in the process to get Nixon elected.

Both the Pentagon and the CIA have the perception that Presidents come and go and as long as the military interests of the US are not compromised, they take no obvious interest who has the reigns in the White House, as long long term interest are not at stake. Those long term interests are fairly restricted to the military US interests.  Needless to say that those views may clash with the Presidential powers in the White House. Prominent people in US politics may be succesful to be elected Commander in Chief with profoundly different views on the strategic views of the US in the future, in which case  “national security” will be considered. This is the reason that both JFK and RFK became the victim of assassination plots to make the way free for persons who were able to coöperate more with those background powers.

The strategic powers of both those Government Agencies are very strong and do own all the means to drive their points in ways the public has no knowledge of. This does not mean that all people working for either CIA or Pentagon are wrong. Most of them are highly regarded professionals with both courage and integrity, however both Organisations are that large that some people at the wrong time in certain positions can make significant differences to the culture by which those Agencies work. This culture does not change overnight  with a new Chief or Director, if the previous one had a controversial impact.. The right US President at the time can make a huge difference with nominating people with high credentials in those positions, – however the wrong President at a certain time can make from this point of view devastating failures with implications beyond imagination. It clearly makes the system of US Governance not fool-proof, as corruption may as such develop at the highest levels of US powers,- whilst both Congress and the public are kept in the dark. Richard Nixon was one of those Presidents, allowing collaboration with those forces who have neither much conscious nor morality. Strict regulation and control of those powers is required as a national security interest which favours the many in the US, and not only a few in Washington. The reflections in retrospect of some insiders of both FBI and Military establishment including the CIA do speak in clear terms about involvement in terrible actions throughout decades, neither controlled by the President nor with insight from Congress.  The Eisenhower administration warned already for the excessive powers of both the CIA and the Pentagon and it has been clear what those powers are able to inflict if opposed by powerful different views, but also what they are able to inflict to regain control via the persons being elected US President.

Coming back on what has been stated before: it proved that Nixon had engaged in extensive domestic wiretapping, apart from questionable tax deductions through which he paid almost no federal income tax at all in 1973. On the 24th of July 1974 the supreme Court ordered Nixon to give the tapes he had withheld. Those tapes were supposed to contain evidence of Nixon’s personal involvement in the Watergate operations, including reflections about Watergate burglars being engaged in CIA operations. The verdict was that if he did not leave the White House on his own decision, he would be impeached, convicted and removed from office. On the 8th of August 1974 Nixon announced his resignation and Vice President Gerald Ford took over as US President on the 9th of August. Only 1 month in his Presidency, Ford pardoned Richard Nixon completely, avoiding as such further investigations in the Watergate burglary as this would have far more implications than the public knows. Gerald Ford has been part of the Warren Commission with the task to investigate the JFK assassination. Gerald Ford “the CIA man in Congress” had very close links with Allen Dulles, ex CIA Director who was sacked by John F Kennedy.   Gerald Ford had close links with Nixon, in part as he became his Vice-President at a time when there was the potential that Richard Nixon could run in trouble over Watergate. This all happened when FBI Chief Hoover was still alive. Obviously we know that Spiro Agnew had to resign but his succession was for strategic reasons vital. Gerald Ford was a very close with FBI Chief Hoover as well. This Presidential Pardon for Nixon will be discussed in the next chapter

The question as whether President Nixon did contribute to the country needs to be answered in the affirmative. As a person and a President he appeared to have major flaws. As will be revealed later he was compromised already before entering the White House. After the JFK assassination he was the second US President (we will discus this later) who should have been convicted after a full further Watergate investigation.  Nixon had a very  strong personal ambition and drive, by nature he was often unpredictable and at times leaning on his staff.

Did he violate justice at the time of his Presidency and before? The answer is yes.  He deserved to be impeached and sadly the Watergate scandal was never further investigated as it would have revealed a more darker side of Nixon than we know.

Strictly spoken by any moral standards he was not suitable for the US Presidency and in terms of timing we can be glad in retrospect that he was not the “Commander-in-Chief” during the Cuban missile crisis. The world would not have existed anymore as he would have done what Allan Dulles presented him. Cuba would have been attacked and the Russian Commanders would have ordered to fire installed nuclear missiles back to the major cities in the US.

Let’s say that history has been mild from this point of view, but history has been relentless in terms of corrupting powers at the United States government.People may have skill and talent, but if they have a lack of conscious justice gets violated and things go wrong. Error’s are always possible. Genuine people make them but they are genuine to admit them and correct them. The problem with Nixon was that he was not very genuine. It was somewhat wishful thinking perhaps when he said: “I am not a crook!”

Lets face it, the US as a country of generally genuine people is far more than the sum of the failures and corruptions of past Governments, but neither the past nor the future can take away the criminal actions which took place and processes need to be in place that this will never ever happen anymore as the US needs to raise above the standards from the past!

Will be continued>>>>>>in Part 3

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice (Part 3 – former US President Johnson)


Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office on...
Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office on Air Force One following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Dallas, Texas, November 22, 1963 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The 36th US President
Lyndon B.Johnson

“I am making a collection of the things my opponents have found me to be, and when this election is over I am going to open a museum and put them on display”  -LBJ.

Introduction

Perhaps Lyndon Baines Johnson neither needs a museum to put his assumed actions by his opponents  on display, nor does he need the archives and classified documents to support his actions, – as history will deal with this eventually when at about 2029 any of the secret documents not being destroyed over time, will be disclosed to the public.

His Presidency marked a change history would take, neither by choice of the public, nor by justice assumed to be operating in the systems of US government. His Presidency and the entire Executive branch at his time is still surrounded in some mystery.

Many historians tried to describe both the man and his years in public office, and all have been succesful in giving some details of this man in action, smart and bright in his background dealings, charming at times in private conversations, – but at the same time a man to be dealt with with caution. Lyndon Johnson would not shy away from any operation if the last would save his public career.

Whilst discussing LBJ, the question might be raised how far a person is prepared to go to compromise justice if so required, to save his personal and public reputation against any wrong doings in the past. Obviously the last depends on what happened in this past.

From any person to become US President it might be assumed that apart from the drive to power there are generally spoken good intentions to contribute to the country. Once being faced with the responsibility of the US Presidency the perception of people in this role do change in line with the requirements of this role and the broader responsibilities, – extending by far the responsibilities of being a US Senator or Governor. Still  the element of choice is around to compromise yourself based on  wrong advise, compromise yourself as result of the history you have (of perhaps being compromised already) and people being prepared to help you at the highest level as long as you know “you owe them” as well.  The scenario’s are always complex, different as well,  for each US President. Some US Presidents have been in a position never ever being compromised in the past, entering from this point of view with a clear conscience in the White House. They had nothing (“terrible”) to hide, don’t need the favours from FBI and others to protect their past from becoming public knowledge. Speaking in the present, they don’t need to “pay back” with certain favours and deals never to be made public. Strictly spoken this is the best position as when you are principal centred you can’t go much wrong, despite genuine errors and mistakes perhaps. However if this is not the case and you are already compromised before entering the White House, the level of dependence on those who are prepared to protect your history from becoming public knowledge (within the same systems of the Executive branch) are not without risk. Some may compromise themselves even further in those complex scenario’s where conscience is slowly losing control of the actions being required, even at the highest level of public office in the US.  “Review of the JFK assassination 2011″ in the June 2011 edition of this blog gives an extensive picture of the level of criminal corruption at the Executive branch of the United States of America when Johnson took over from John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th US President.

As will be illustrated on LBJ – power can be dangerous, especially if the systems of governance at times are allowed to work outside the domain of the law without being detected at the same time by the systems who are supposed to protect the law, and the integrity of public office. At times it proved that all those systems suffered from widespread criminal infestation never as such being acknowledged by the US from historic point of view.

At the end of the day it all depends on the people operating those systems at the Executive branch, however it depends as well on the people operating  the Legislative branch within the US, as both the House and the US Senate have much powers. However they proved not always to work with the public interest at heart as due to dominating powers at the background compromising this public interest.

In the above spirit US Presidents from LBJ until the latest Bush Administration will be discussed, not as an attack on the American system of government, but as a concern that the systems of governance (the physical exercise of managing both power and policy in the US) has been so weak for decades in the democratic republic of the US. It is a reflection of a deep-rooted unresolved problem where it seems that the Union of the US as a concept has neither been perfect nor optimal. The last however is a minimum requirement.

People who were or became US President did live in the White House at a certain time in history, had to face certain pre-existing dynamics and most of the time they tried to deal with this as good as possible within the given circumstances. They could make a personal choice to grow in those circumstances and leave a legacy despite some violations of justice. As an US President it is almost impossible to make always the best possible decision at any given possible time, as much is dependent on the perception and advise being created within both cabinet, advisers and Agencies. However where justice get compromised still there is the personal choice to make it better or worse, to make it better or bitter.

It is the dilemma we all face as people, however within the position of the highest executive powers this requires the wisdom to be aware that once’s actions may decide the lives and wellbeing of many others. It can make a Nation grow or break on its fundamentals, its future. It can make a Nation develop in surplus or deficit, both morally and financially.

Within this context we start with Lyndon Baines Johnson, or LBJ as he was often called.

LBJ

Lyndon Johnson (1908-1973) was born close to Stonewall in Texas and his family with a Baptist background was quite involved in State’s politics. He worked as a high school teacher and after the Japanese attack on “Pearl Harbour” he joined straight away the US Navy.

He was a “New Deal” Democrat representative in 1937 before actually joining the Navy during the war. In 1948 he did win the race to be the Democratic senator for Texas and under the Presidency of John F Kennedy he served as Vice President. LBJ has been the majority leader in the Senate since 1955 and after the JFK assassination on the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas (Texas) , he became the new US President without having initially an electoral mandate. With a huge majority he was elected in the US Presidential elections of 1964 and managed without much resistance to pass the Civil Rights Act through Congress in 1964. This bill was largely prepared already by JFK the previous year, not popular at the time. The battle for civil rights as we know has been a long one and significant incidents during the Kennedy Administration prepared the Kennedy team for the required legislative changes to pass Congress once reelected, but history took a different course of action..

Once elected with such majority of voters Johnson with the complete backing of the US military powers, ordered in 1965  the Airmobile Division and forces of the CIA to go to Vietnam to increase the US fighting strength, followed by an increase in military fighting strength from 75000 to 125000 man on the ground. This evolved quite quickly after the 1964 elections in 1965. As often happens in history there needs to be a trigger to get public opinion on board when it applies to extending or starting war. LBJ used a surprise Vietcong attack at Pleiku in which 6 American military advisers were killed and 116 wounded on the 6th of February 1865.  LBJ’s aides assisted him with a 2 stage and premeditated contingencies plan , prepared several months before the attack. The first step was a retaliation airstrike in North Vietnam and the second step was to intensify the air war.  History shows this  was implemented in 1965.

It proved that LBJ decided on this level of intervention without really considering the costs and implications. Looking at the last Bush Administration we see that history tend to repeat itself, however the triggers are different. Bush used 9/11 to go to war in Afghanistan and the second step was the war in Iraq. He as well did not consider the costs and the wider implications, a legacy which did leave the US with both a material and immaterial deficit, billions of dollars lost and not being accounted for, a multi trillion budget deficit, more than a million lives being lost and human rights being compromised at the limits against the Convention of Geneva.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx8-ffiYyzA&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (Report of the  Gulf of Tonkin incident – LBJ)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                            (Gulf of Tonkin: McNamara admits it did not happen)

As part of the slogan “The Great Society” LBJ implemented a few economic and social welfare programs, including MediCare for the elderly and legislation to improve education, whilst increasing the war efforts. He needed this public support at the domestic front to carry out in close coöperation with the military powers a most excessive war program in Vietnam, as this was the agenda of the military leaders in the US.

As a result of the huge war implications in Vietnam an active anti-war movement within the US started to grow with fast increasing levels of public dissatisfaction with LBJ. LBJ was pushed by both the CIA and the Pentagon not to change direction and as both the CIA and Pentagon were the background powers playing a part in the JFK’s assassination with LBJ’s full approval and awareness beforehand, he had not much choice to continue the way it was to aim for a US military victory. By the end of August 1966 only 47% in the US did approve Johnson’s Presidency. The war became increasingly unpopular. By 1968 more than 500000 US military troops were concentrated in Vietnam. The war was costing some 2 billion dollars a month and meanwhile more bombs were dropped in Vietnam than during the second world war.

Within this context the new York Senator Robert Francis Kennedy decided to run for the Presidency in 1968, being a major representative of the anti-war movement and social justice.

LBJ faced “a catch 22 position”. He became aware that the Vietnam was an “ugly war” after his new Defence Secretary Clark Clifford following the replacement of Robert McNamara tried to seek a political solution. LBJ was stuck. With RFK being likely a successful candidate and both the CIA and Pentagon still pushing the war in Vietnam he was facing a  predicament.  The background US powers were loyal to him as there was a reciprocal arrangement between him and the background powers regarding the premeditated JFK assassination and him (LBJ) taking over as US President.  Johnson had no other choice than to resign, in despair. Before this, LBJ did fully support the JFK assassination cover up with installing the Warren Commission and highly CIA favourable representatives running the historical falsehood this Commission provided to mislead the US people and Congress. With LBJ deciding not to be reelected anymore in 1968 it did not mean that the CIA and Pentagon’s directions about Vietnam had changed. This direction needed to be continued after 1968, with still being the issues around the JFK assassination a matter of “national security” not to be disclosed and the direction of Vietnam as part of the same “national security” not to be discontinued. It opened the way for new background dynamics neither to be compromised nor to be disclosed. The powers behind the US President were very smart in playing the democratic systems within the US at their own benefit.

The RFK  assassination including the assassination of Martin Luther King, jr facilitated elections in which Richard Nixon could be elected. Lyndon Johnson could not face the Vietnam war anymore where he could not find a way out without repercussions. He was an unpopular President and as reflected he would likely lose the 1968 elections anyway.The week after LBJ declined to accept the nomination from the Democratic Party for another term as President – Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles after winning the California primaries, which would almost secure him to get the Democratic nomination and the Presidency in November 1968.

The anti-war demonstrations were stronger than ever before and the strongest representatives of the anti-war movement were actually Martin Luther King,jr and New York Senator Robert Francis Kennedy. Both the CIA, the FBI with Hoover and  the Pentagon were opposed to the anti-war movement, opposed against a potential RFK being President in 1968.  RFK would have been neither a US President being compromised by the military establishment nor by either the CIA or Hoover from the FBI. With RFK  winning the California primaries in June 1968 he became the person who would likely defeat Nixon in 1968. Nixon was aware of this, like FBI Chief Hoover as well.

Nixon was from CIA perspective 100% save for US military policy and the anti-war movement needed to be broken. First by taking Martin Luther King,jr out of the picture and when Robert Kennedy increased in popularity and became the likely candidate to win the elections after the primaries in California,  the premeditated strategy was to assassinate Kennedy as he was considered to be at this stage the main obstacle for CIA’s defined “national security” . The implications would be horrendous if  Kennedy would be elected President in 1968.  He was perhaps even more determined than his brother John J Kennedy.  Both the FBI (with Hoover still being the Chief) and the CIA could not face this prospect as with RFK being President the withdrawal from Vietnam would become a fact. Hoover would likely lose his job with everything he inflicted at the background of the various scenes he played a role.  However needless to say the JFK assassination with a floored Warren Commission report would be vigorously investigated again and CIA involvement with Lyndon Johnson’s part would be disclosed to the public. As such Kennedy would likely get both Congressional and public support to reorganise the CIA and  bring LBJ to justice. RFK became a security risk. As a US Senator of New York he was of no harm but being the potential next President after Johnson would open all the past corruptions from US Government and “Bobby” would not take any nonsense.  He did not make it.  The cover up was smart and well swallowed by the American public. The question is who gave the order to take him as a second Kennedy out of the picture. Not unlikely there was Presidential approval from Johnson, because Johnson was prepared to pay any price to avoid history catching up on him, and so were the background powers at the same time.

Unrest outside the  1968 Democratic National Convention  in Chicago (Illinois)  with riots and protests by thousands of anti-war demonstrators (many of whom favoured McCarthy)  were crushed on life television by brutal  police force from Chicago (after the RFK assassination in June 1968), – which increased a growing sense of general unrest with the public. The police acted on strict orders from the FBI (Hoover).

Both the combination of LBJ being unpopular, the riots in Chicago and the discouragement of both African – Americans and liberals after the assassinations of both MLK and RFK contributed to that former Vice President Nixon (under Eisenhower) did win the Presidential elections  from Hubert Humphrey (LBJ’s Vice President). Johnson had warned his Vice-President that when he would oppose the war in Vietnam, he would destroy his career.

Robert Kennedy’s assassination did  not only play Nixon  in his favour, but it played Nixon’s close ally Hoover and the CIA in their favour as well, besides the Pentagon.  LBJ likewise did not need to worry about RFK anymore. The secrets of the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas would be even more secured with Richard Nixon than with Hubert Humphrey, as both Nixon and Johnson had a silent agreement on this issue as both were involved.

The background powers in the US proved to be succesful in their strategic approach with impact on public opinion as well. Richard Nixon did win the Presidential elections carrying  32  States and 301 Electoral votes. Richard Nixon was an old close ally of both Hoover and the “old” military establishment.

The level of LBJ’s violations of Justice

Lyndon Baines Johnson was a highly controversial politician to start with. Smart as a politician, but corrupt before he became even Vice-President.

His involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal did never see the public light in full and the fact that he has been reportedly facilitating an assassination to silence the person who would potentially make his involvement and other corruptions public during the time he was Majority leader of the Senate gives an indication how far he was prepared to go to save his public reputation. He had people working for him to do “the dirty work”.

His ambitions to take over from JFK  started already early in the White House and he was able to create at an early stage already a good relationship with both Hoover and the CIA.  After the Bay of Pigs predicaments he had further dealings with Allen Dulles (who was fired as CIA Director by Kennedy) and Richard Nixon (the architect of the Bay of Pigs plans in Cuba). An important “oil representative” from Texas had a CIA assignment and a growing role at the time. His name was George Herbert Walker Bush, the son of Prescott Bush (1895–1972) a vivid JFK opponent, a close friend of both Nixon and Eisenhower.

Johnson’s  relations with both President Kennedy and in particular Robert Kennedy were strained at times, the least. Robert Kennedy from the beginning was against LBJ’s nomination for the Vice Presidency. Especially both Robert Kennedy and Johnson’s relationship was very tense, – and when Robert Kennedy in his function as Attorney General got to know more about Johnson’s background including his profound corruption (and an earlier assassination)  he decided with his brother the President that the time was there to find an alternative for the Vice Presidency of LBJ  in 1964.

Johnson was actually a  very practical choice during the elections of 1960 as within his role of Majority leader in the Senate he was quite popular. He was known for his tactical approach and many background dealings and very capable in this role. Actually he had hoped to win the democratic Presidential nomination in 1960 and personally he felt he deserved it more than Jack Kennedy.

Days before the JFK assassination Robert Kennedy was in the process of leaking most damaging information to Life Magazine about the Bobby Baker scandal in which Johnson was clearly involved. It would blow his political career for once and for all, however the 22nd of November 1963 did change history for once and for all.

FBI Chief Hoover assisted LBJ to prevent the Bobby Baker scandal leaking to the press after LBJ’s inauguration.

We may assume with LBJ knowing that Robert Kennedy was in the process of ending his political career was determined to prevent this happening at all costs. As he reflected to his mistress on various occasions he felt often utterly embarrassed by the Kennedy’s and before the 22nd of November 1963 he reflected to her that this would soon over, and that it would never happen again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j5xgNH-P6M&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     (History is proving LBJ has been responsible for the JFK assassination)

In retrospect Lyndon Baines Johnson should have been never US President. With a positive public image initially of being  reliable and pleasant perhaps he proved otherwise to be ruthless, calculated, unstable, – and violating justice in the worst possible way against US Constitution and against the US law. The JFK assassination, the Warren Commission, key witnesses being assassinated, the Vietnam war etc  do cast a very dark shadow on this otherwise capable man. Being capable and being a person of good integrity not always goes well together as proved in Johnson.

His social reforms were good. It did help public approval whilst LBJ preparing with both the CIA and the Pentagon an immediate and drastic change in the Vietnam policy after the assassination of JFK. There is obviously more to his general Presidential legacy than mentioned in the above.

However concentrating on the issue of violating justice,  the measure of this man was not what he did do wrong at an incidental time of his life by error or mistake or by a relatively minor flaw of character. The issue with LBJ is what he did do wrong as a deliberate act to screw up a Nation as part of a Coupe d’Etat where he was personally involved, allowing as such the assassination of  President John F Kennedy. The orchestrated cover up afterwards in which various other people were killed are part of this history. He got his way, escaping with an FBI assisted cover up of the Bobby Baker scandal when he became President and was forced in a predicament to escalate the war in Vietnam with many American and other soldiers being killed, within a conflict which actually was the conflict of South Vietnam.

Many people in retrospect do consider the war in Vietnam an error of judgement, hence JFK reportedly -and with evidence at the time – wanted to withdraw just before he was assassinated. This was not what the military background powers wanted and together with Lyndon Johnson, supported by the parts of the Executive branch a pending Coupe d’Etat was in the process of preparation. Johnson convinced Kennedy that it was important to go to Dallas in Texas to sort some frictions out in the Democratic Party which would boost his Kennedy’s support in the 1964 elections. Kennedy was warned for going to Texas but the 1964 elections were important and the reasoning of Johnson made sense. Johnson would look after some security issues and both the CIA and FBI would prove to be helpful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD4611qW6R8&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                                                                                         (E.Howard Hunt implicates Johnson in the JFK assassination – part 1)

The Coupe d’Etat on the 22nd of November 1963 did change  the direction for the US for many years to follow, with still implications in the ruling systems, –  neither allowing nor permitting  justice about the failures of those years during various Administrations afterwards.

Likewise the might of both the CIA and the Pentagon with Presidents either unable or unwilling to tighten control, did escalate both the losses of human lives and the costs of various pointless war’s at a level to bring a Nation on the verge of total financial collapse in 2011, apart from gross injustice being inflicted over the past decades. This happened by choice, neither controlled within the Executive branch nor regulated within the Legislative branch.

In terms of US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice, the participation in the Coupe d’Etat as it happened in 1963, the orchestration of the worst possible political crime in US history buried in the graves of many, did actually create  a precedent or authority  to continue certain trends at the Executive branch increasing the disconnection between citizens and the government.

This was possible in the US and in a way it is still possible. The US Constitution is at the heart of Justice, but neither the Executive branch nor the Legislative branch did allow the justice systems to work in the US as it should be. It would benefit the country so much if this would change and this first chapter on the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson gives an indication where it should have changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGYrATdJQiY&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                         (1960ties  LBJ 1 of 2)

Continued>>>>> in part 4

Former US President Richard Nixon to be discussed in part 4

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice – Introduction (Part 2 of 11)


>>INTRODUCTION<<

The White House Southside
The White House Southside (Photo credit: Glyn Lowe Photoworks)

“Democracy…while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy.     Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”  – John Adams  (1735 – 1826)

“A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people”.  – John F Kennedy (1917 – 1963)

“I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions”.                                           – Barack Obama (1961 –   )

In addition to the first chapter the following comments are justified as part of a broader introduction.

The circles of Washington are  mysterious , dark and deep,  and each President has to balance wisely before he sleeps, – balance wisely before he sleeps.

Robert Frost  with his quote:  “The woods are lovely dark and deep, but I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep, – and miles to go before I sleep…”, – phrased it slightly differently.

However, – despite the promises  the balance of how far one can go and except degrees of injustice to meet  perhaps more justice eventually, proved different for each US President. Sometimes it takes an inch,  sometimes it takes indeed miles.  However in general much depends on the integrity, the ideology and the wisdom of  the US President, besides obviously the circumstances  to be addressed, – but also the persons being nominated (or already in place) to advise the President on matters of both domestic and foreign policy.

Many issues as we know evolve in close coöperation with a variety of advisers, apart from e.g. Agencies such as  the FBI, the CIA and  the Pentagon.  Those Agencies in good  hands  serve for certain the right purpose as long as they stick to their original assignments.

“Profiles in Presidential violations of Justice”  does  not discuss the current US President ( Barack Obama)  as such as he still is at an early stage of his Presidency.  The article “Interim assessment of a President” (within this Blog)  gives a more detailed indication on this remarkable first African American President.

Presidential dynamics have not been always the same in US history and the selection of people in key positions of the Pentagon and the CIA  (after President Truman established the CIA in 1947) are and will be  always vital where it comes to both competence and integrity within the scope of the various obligations of those Agencies, – especially where US Presidents rely on the intelligence provided by those Agencies.

“Profiles in US Presidential violations of Justice” does neither go into the finer details on the lives of some US Presidents in the past,  nor does it mention the broader legacy in any extended detail.

“Profiles in US Presidential violations of Justice”  is a reflection only on some significant incidents against the principles of justice, some worse than others. However what those Presidents did at crucial moments during their Presidency against this justice, sometimes already before entering this office,  has been a touchstone of their character. Not rarely it did effect far too many people.

Any new President at the start is facing the challenge to set up a cabinet of capable, effective and reliable people. Besides this there is the  building up of relationships with the various existing Government agencies including the Pentagon, which are all vital to set the tone for the rest of the Administration in the years lying ahead.  All those people and groups contribute to the making of a President but obviously the Presidency itself  provides the required choices to show what lies ahead. Those final choices give directions, –  either being in the positive or in the negative. Once an US President get compromised it is difficult at times to get out of it, depending on the strength of character.  John F Kennedy took e.g. the full blame of the Bay of Pigs failures which was however related with poorly provided information by the CIA.  Presidential failures still, whether they are genuine or deliberate, provide valuable lessons for the future. Deliberate actions to mislead the public with a criminal background or intend are obviously far more serious than the genuine mistakes anybody can make in such a place, as long there is evidence that  some quality ways to reach certain decisions were in place.

“Profiles in US Presidential violations of Justice” gives an insight in the complexities and different dynamics of various Presidential Administrations and the choices being made. It starts  from the 22nd of November 1963 (when President John F Kennedy was assassinated) until the 21st of January 2009 when the last Bush Administration  ended and the Obama Administration did begin.

The greater call for all Presidents was to do better for the country and serve as such, besides obviously personal ambitions. Those last 2 aspects might have been different for each President. The ways and the programs have been different as well. Likewise the level of integrity has been different for earlier Presidents being faced with the bigger questions and the larger  picture,  which did include  the Presidential coöperation with various US security Agencies and the dealings with both US Congress and US law. It proves that whatever is public knowledge is not always the truth, and that some Presidents were in principle and by principle compromised already before they took the Presidential oath to the Constitution.

Some US Presidents  did contribute towards a program for domestic reforms whilst at the same time approving various CIA covert operations at a level neither in line with morality nor US law.

Both the Pentagon and the CIA have the duty to protect the interests of the US and make recommendations  to the President, who has the final responsibility of decision-making.

Both Agencies have admirable people on board with the highest levels of integrity and duty of service where it comes to the protection of the US against dangers from abroad, – whether those dangers are inflicted by eg Al-Qaeda terrorist cells at present, or dangers of so-called rogue states who may prove an increasing danger in the future. The past showed  however under various Presidents that those Agencies were not governed (anymore) by some reasonable required standards of morality, or accuracy in providing intelligence or security information.  Neither did it prove that the Presidential powers as they were exercised were in line with the required standards given by US Law and Constitution.

“Profiles in US Presidential violations of Justice”  gives at least an insight where and how those standards with some Presidents failed, and it gives  an insight why they  failed and which areas of systems might be subject for further improvement.

Dangerous situations may arise when Government Agencies are not operating under the full control of the US President, or when e.g. the nominated persons being CIA Director or chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not have full control of both  “the culture” and working dynamics of their own organisations, or when they simply hide information for the purpose of their own agenda’s. The system fails as well when those Agencies (the FBI included)  have an Organisational agenda neither being in alignment within the Constitutional balance of powers, nor with US law.

History proves that there have been incidents in which US Presidents acted on proper and correct information of those Agencies, however history proves as well that if the US President would have acted on the intelligence provided, – the world would not have existed anymore as due to failures to give complete information as required. The Cuba crisis in 1962 is a clear example of this.

The Assassination of US President John F. Kennedy in 1963 did show many years later CIA involvement,  including  involvement at the highest US political powers in the cover up. All for various dark reasons and both – needless to say – against the Constitution and the US law.  The public was seriously misled by the Warren Commission and some do show  that the “9/11 Commission” was of similar nature with the intend to mislead US citizens. The people supposed to protect the Constitution and the law at the time,  were reportedly involved in various cover up’s at the highest levels of Government, – which is neither a good reflection of a democracy nor the justice systems being supposed to be fully operational without discrimination of any nature.

History does further show that US Presidents already compromised before they even started their Presidency, were unlikely to resist the pressures from above Agencies.  For this reason they did collaborate  in close coöperation with some of those Agencies at times the independent view and the wisdom of the President was required to make final decisions. The lack of required integrity did involve certain activities neither known by the public, nor by Congress, – and obviously profoundly against US law or common justice.

In the most positive scenario, “Profiles in US Presidential violations of justice” may support further discussion to improve the regulation systems within “the US balance of powers”. The last actually to protect the US against itself.  If those systems do not improve, some  historical events being reflected on  would be able to  repeat itself with an unpredictable and different identity.  Those situations could potentially provoke  the most dangerous situations the US as a Republic and Democracy could face.

US Presidents may fail for various reasons, as long as the detection systems (including the internal checks within the Constitutional balance of powers) do not fail, and as long it is clear that neither US Presidents, nor the CIA,   neither Officials of the Pentagon nor any other Agency, are able to work outside the powers of the law, or the Constitution, or outside the legitimate requirements of  US  Congress.

US Presidents (with full Congressional support) need  to be strong enough to rule the major background powers in the US, –  based on fair common sense and proper value systems with evidently both the broader picture in mind, together with a high level of integrity.

Within the context of those earlier Presidential dynamics including a variety of covert operations for different reasons, it is realistic to say that never ever had the US so much to lose or so much to gain, and that all decisions within the US Constitution delegated to the Executive branch should be based on merit and purpose for the US future itself.  Hence the political system in the US needs to work optimal in line with the principles provided by both the law and the Constitution.

With the fall of communism but still an ongoing Arab – Israeli conflict;  with wars in Vietnam and Iraq behind us, but still the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban as part of the war in Afghanistan (where the “war on terror” designed to defend Western values escalated into a conflict with disregard for human rights), – we now may face a reality that China may overtake the US as the world’s greatest superpower. Where the Holocaust did show  genocide at a never experienced scale,  the cold war brought us close to global nuclear destruction in 1962 through incomplete management and advise of both the CIA and the Pentagon against the dangers inflicted by the Soviets. It was wise management however of John F. Kennedy as President which saved the world due to his independent and broader views. The US needs internal protection that a history of military confrontation for the wrong reasons, is not going to compromise a  future for the right reasons.

The US has a history of many costly wars which brought the federal budget deficit at record level without any proportionate benefit, however never took it the time and the opportunity to reëxamine its own attitude and responsibility in the many predicaments it both faced and created.

It takes the wider community of US Government Executives and Controlling powers to raise the US above the standards of the past, and to embrace both the opportunities and challenges of the future with a wise balance of principle centred leadership where proper value systems are at the core of the decisions being made. The last to ease a direction towards more positive global dynamics, based on fruitful interdependence with in the end a better economy and prosperity for those nations being involved. This direction includes reduction of terror activities by at least not provoking this terror within the domain of US power.

“Profiles in US Presidential violations of Justice”  gets at the heart of this required principle centred leadership –  with examples where it went wrong against both the Constitution and the law.

Each Presidential profile offers material for sustained discussion as it does touch base on the fundamental question which direction to go in a world facing more dangers than ever before. The response on problems, crisis and disasters is as important as those pending disasters, crisis and problems itself and it will be clear that US response in e.g.areas of  foreign policy has been highly inadequate and dangerous at times.

The following 8 chapters will picture the problems and foundations of the decision-making US Presidents differently and the last epilogue will summarise some events.

Next article will start with Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th President who took over after the assassination of President John F Kennedy.

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

The Dangers of US Decay Within the Foundation of its Democracy.


English: Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stea...
English: Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stearns, Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, signing of U.S. Constitution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whilst democratic movements spread across the globe the concept of “democracy”  being potentially at risk is more clear than ever before,  – not really only by those countries  opposing the principles of democracy, but  even more at times by those who are supposed to protect it.

On a positive note for the US, the 2011 Obama Administration seems to work within the balance of powers as being  provided within the US  Constitution more at least than some of the previous Administrations, – operating clearly with more value systems at the centre. This is the way it should be and perhaps he is the first US President since Kennedy and Carter with value systems at the core of his Administration in terms of domestic policy. However the practicalities do not prove to be easy and with his level of strength and providing leadership, it is still wait and see how he will break with the tradition of the US  being involved in war’s which should not be there in the first instance.

Related image

 

Presidential powers exercised during previous US Administrations however created a precedent within the US of using the “arm” of the CIA to engage in most secret covert operations,  both within and outside US mainland and in part against all forms of human rights and/or dignity. The last with the ability even to keep Congress out of the picture with collective organised cover up’s and controlling the media, – besides suppressing  existing  justice systems as they should be able to work in a free society.

The US  is neither sufficiently protected against the phenomenal powers from some internal background forces, which does include the CIA and the Pentagon, – nor from the collective systems of separation of powers with internal checks and balances to work in alignment of the Constitution and the law. Legislation is required to change this to better ways of law enforcement at the Executive branch of the US, as such to protect the US against itself. With the wrong persons in power at the main divisions of this Executive branch, the systems of governance might turn out to be a total failure, with cover up’s in place to hide matters from both Congress the public and the world.

Presidential powers are inappropriately able to collide (largely e.g. on foreign policy issues and military operations) with the existing background powers and vice versa; whilst Congress can be kept in the dark with the required investigations or hearings being delayed,  – various justice systems being obstructed as well within e.g the FBI, – and with other help if so required.  Besides this the media can be and has been controlled for many years. As such democracy at its worst proves both to be repugnant and intolerable, – whilst no systems are in place to correct this; nor systems being in place to reopen insufficient and past Government initiated investigations and held e.g. former Presidents (including members of their Administrations)  accountable within the obligations of fair justice for all, – and not the few most powerful being excluded for those principles of the same justice.

Collective ignorance for the  profound risks  of a democracy not being exposed for its existing decay and failures (with both complete and right historical reflections on the past)  – whilst voters are either misled or do not take notice – will provoke even worse decay to come with  “the balance of power”  being more compromised than ever before. Worsening repressive systems and corrupting elements may have free play at the highest positions in the US  (if not stopped)  if the US by error may choose the wrong President as happened with the Bush Administration not that long ago. At present this former US President is not able to visit Switzerland without the risk of being arrested as due to war crimes and human right abuses, which does show that at least something went wrong. Even for some US citizens who claim their systems of Government are always right and pretend to have proper knowledge of the US Constitution. Some even claiming that President Obama is to blame for everything what is wrong. The dangers of right wing extremism are unfortunately quite evident in the US and though no Party may claim to be perfect, the Democratic Party in the US has at present the best credentials to facilitate the required reforms as the Republicans (as “an Organisation”) lost any sense of direction. Obviously this may change in the future with new talent and vision and skill perhaps arriving at some stage.

 

Some may say the US  is a Republic only. However this Republic is still based on democratic and constitutional principles of the separation and balance of powers, not being allowed those principles and common US values being compromised  by either currents within the CIA or Pentagon. Existing powers at the level of the President or Congress seem to have insufficient oversight, – if senior management within both Pentagon and CIA  are unable to get their Organisations under control and in line with both US law and the Constitution. With both the wrong President and ill selected people in top positions of both the CIA and the Pentagon the US is in danger of being an enemy of itself.

Both within the Military and CIA  are enough very highly regarded people with dignity for their own country, not willing to sacrifice the US Constitution and the implications of this Constitution on the altars of human rights abuses, whether it is in the US or anywhere else in the world. Sounds excessive perhaps but “9/11” e.g. was largely an internal job as far as former Division Chief of the FBI Ted Gunderson concerned. It was an internal job as well as far as Major General Albert Stubblebine concerned, who was the Commanding General of the United States Army Intelligence. Still many people ask for clarification on 9/11, even at the highest levels of the Military Branch as the contradictions did not add up and the most evil systems within the US itself could have been part of the massacre in 2001, to give the US President an excuse to go to war.

Related image

Related image

Preserving democracy as the best possible governance against historically profound failures of the alternatives  is subject to prove, provided by the Democracy itself. The US has to work on this to keep up its credibility, not only for its own people, but in the face of the world as well.

Secret powers within democracies have the ability within the dark corners of the world to degrade the meaning of democracy into the “bludgeoning of the people by the people and for the people”,  without mechanisms to control those powers responsible for this ugly manifestation of inhumanity.

The Greek city state Athens, once being reflected on  as the highlight of democracy, developed by its people probably the finest form of direct democracy ever being created. Obviously with its purest form this is not practical anymore in current times and places. Introduced by its popular leader Cleisthenes in about 500 BC there was the ecclesia which was inviting all eligible citizens over the age of 18 to meet on a regular base to discuss important state business by debate. In those days they would reach a decision based on the majority of those being around  by a show of hands.

Pericles, the Athenian leader,  at a funeral speech delivered 430 BC paid tribute to the constitution of those days which favours the many and not the few,  indicating  the importance of liberty and equality before the law. Political preferment should be based on merit and neither through the wealth of power and money nor class, – was his perception.

Both Plato and Aristotle warned for the potential of democracy being put at risk by those who are persistent unruly unstable  and corrupt. The lessons go through history with major powers coming up and major powers going down as due to self inflicted obstruction of justice. Not only this.  The power of imperialism with overstretched  military resources and lack of economic durability have been at the foundations of the fall of Great Powers in history, together with poorly controlled internal corruption.

If we look at history,  super powers crumbled down as a result of corrupting powers colluding within a culture of decay. Democracies are not without those risks if existing decay  is not eliminated within the process of proper law enforcement. The US needs to manage its affairs as it proved that military expenditure out with any proportion compromised economic growth within proportion. Frankly the US has increased its risk of following the similar pathway as Great Powers in the past, running out of the recourses to stay sustainable. The deepening controversy about spending priorities as shown in US Congress, with a politics of short term advantage and long-term disadvantage provide the base of potentially spiralling down dynamics.

Related image

 

At the heart of democracy lies the question of the supreme powers of state (created by the people for the people),  to protect lawfully the rights of people being restricted to prevent the misuse of powers to cut those same rights as implemented by the Constitution. This failed at unimaginable scale during the last Bush Administration. The trend of allowing the major background powers in the US to have more say in public policy since the assassination of JFK, accelerated during the last Bush Administration. The corrupting Government investigations about the realities of the CIA orchestrated 9/11 drama,  provided a ruthless US Executive Branch to go to war at pleasure, as by choice there was a stand down in the security systems and by choice there was a US controlled demolition of the various towers in the lower Manhattan area of New York in 2001. This direction could prove in US history -in retrospect – the last straw over which the US lost its potential to continue to be sustainable. The Obama Administration has to stick to the conduct of US Presidents neither being critical against those provoking powers nor to stop the war in Afghanistan at once,  without running the  risk to be assassinated by extreme right wing elements.

Related image

 

The limitations of powers by the Executive branch with its far too much dominating Agencies must be exercised with the consent of the voters, but is the only reason the US could survive as a sustainable Democracy with full backing of US Congress. The trend to be involved in various pointless war’s , apart from those who have both security and moral merit with the approval of Congress, may drive the US to bankruptcy.

Related image

 

As shown, the relation between people and state on the justified balance between might and right is still an issue after centuries of battle. Political mechanisms to make sure that those who govern at various levels remain accountable can’t be guaranteed only by regular elections and competition.

The reality of the political process and operating powers remain a concern, as some of the most basic constitutional rights and obligations have been compromised during the last decades. Often behind closed doors and in the dark corners of those places where detection was being made  difficult and operating justice systems being prepared to compromise the truth by those people already being  compromised.

Both President Truman and President Eisenhower warned against significant background powers within the US with connections deep within those separation of powers and elaborate systems of checks and balances. Those background powers decide at some extend – together with the Presidential powers being exercised – the direction of the US Government.  Sinister branches of those background powers carry a history of human atrocities in a wide variety, both within and outside the US.  When those powers were under threat by political opponents in the US, assassinations or smear campaigns have not rarely been the tools of choice to stay in control and prevent exposure.

Those  collective background powers, working somehow together, are at some extend able to attract those US Presidents who are able to remain the status quo of both secrets and society, misleading not rarely – and profoundly!-   the majority of the voters.

Democracy can be  a charming form of government full of variety,  but  not rarely full of disorder as well at various levels.

It should not happen that democratic societies are in a position to get “criminals” eventually in positions perhaps affecting  branches of government, – whilst law enforcement each country deserves is unable to extinguish the malicious effect those people may have on their systems of governance. This is decay in the foundations of a democracy as profoundly demonstrated during the last US Administration and not resolved by tighter legislation. It can happen any time again with even worse implications.

It is not in our poor power to add or detract the value of those who struggled before us and could not stay around to finish their task, those who fought for fairness and justice against the senseless acts of bloodshed which ignored our common humanity on the battlefields of civilian slaughter.

This is what happened with 9/11 and during various war’s, the last of which were “open” at times but more often they took place as part of secret operations.

The violence of the increasing decay in institutions with indifference and inaction do show the sickness of the soul of a country anywhere possible on this world with different gradations.

The US is an example of a Republic based on the principles of a democracy where more proactive management is required in terms of legislation to prevent the various abuses of power, as too many people lost their lives and to many compromises were made at the cost of an economy in shambles as a result of excessive and pointless war activities in the past.

When we can’t resist the temptation to meet disagreement with force we breed violence and this violence will breed retaliation and potential terror. We need to be strong enough to defend ourselves against any  evil powers who want to get the better of us,  but whilst living on this planet the short time we have, we need to realise that those who live in our times are our brothers and as such we need to act against inhumanity hatred or blind revenge, – as our common goal on earth is at a different level, regardless the need indeed to extinguish the dangers of terror.

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/profiles-in-us-presidential-violations-of-justice-part-1/

https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/

Review JFK Assassination 2011: An issue for both Democrats and Republicans.


 
Image result for best images of JFK
 
This article has been edited and reviewed in November 2013. See contents below:  Anniversary JFK assassination and review
 Image result for best photo president john f kennedy
Anniversary JFK assassination and review
Image result for best photo president john f kennedy

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Anniversary JFK assassination and review

Image result for best photo president john f kennedy and cuban missile crisis

Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation.

Image result for best photo president john f kennedy and peace speech

Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.

Image result for best photo president john f kennedy and peace speech

Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. The human mind is our fundamental resource.

Image result for best photo president john f kennedy on education

The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.

Image result for best photo president john f kennedy and cuban missile crisis

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Image result for best photo president john f kennedy inauguration speech

A child miseducated is a child lost.

Image result for best photo president john Kennedy on helping children

The farmer is the only man in our economy who buys everything at retail, sells everything at wholesale, and pays the freight both ways.

Image result for best photo greatest speech JFK on economy

The unity of freedom has never relied on uniformity of opinion.

Anniversary JFK assassination and review

Image result for best photo greatest speech JFK

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is also true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on.

Anniversary JFK assassination and review

 Image result for best photo greatest speech JFK on the united states and justice
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf
https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/we-dream-of-things-that-never-were-and-say-why-not/