The Art of Leadership and Lessons from the Past – Nelson Mandela


Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela (Photo credit: Festival Karsh Ottawa)

NELSON MANDELA

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”          – Nelson Mandela  

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the
only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is
great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what
you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t
settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you
find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better
and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you
find it. Don’t settle.”       – Steve Jobs

“Now if you are going to win any battle you have to do one
thing. You have to make the mind run the body. Never let the
body tell the mind what to do. The body will always give up.
It is always tired morning, noon, and night. But the body is
never tired if the mind is not tired. When you were younger
the mind could make you dance all night, and the body was
never tired… You’ve always got to make the mind take over
and keep going.” – George S. Patton
 
 
The last quote applies to “the body” of a country as well, and disciplined as Mandela was he showed this already at a personal level, – last but not least during his years on Robben Island where he continued to inspire the movement for change against the odds. Mandela has been imprisoned for 27 years as a political prisoner. It neither changed his spirit nor did it stop him from continuing his struggle to make South Africa free of Apartheid.
When he entered Robben Island in 1964 he was emotionally headstrong and easily stung. The man however who emerged from this imprisoned island was far more balanced and disciplined. At some stage he said: “I came out mature.” He smiled like he often smiled, not showing fear despite going through fear at times, not showing the internal struggle he often experienced. His life has been always at the centre of struggle. In 1994, 4 years after his release from Robben Island , he became the first democratically elected “black” president of South Africa at the age of 75. He embraced at this stage both black and white in his efforts to create unity in the damaged “soul” of South Africa. He devoted his life to the fight against domination and gave it the very best performance, an enduring example for many generations to come. An example as well that regardless of age the course may endure and the dream will never die, if we have one being large enough to add value to life.
Life only is a brief expression of the universe with endless possibilities and ideas, both in the positive and the negative. Mandela tuned into the irreversible idea for justice to be achieved for South Africa and made it his lives work, neither only justice for the blacks but denied justice as well for the whites who were prisoners of being tuned into the wrong ideology. Once a country is tuned into the wrong stuff many citizens unfortunately do resonate with the same wrong stuff, whatever it is. We did see this in Germany in the 1940ties. We did see this more recently in Syria and Libya and there is a whole list of countries without true compass, neither with justice nor with law enforcement to enforce this justice if people lack self-control. 
Whilst being influenced by the Gandhi principles on non-violence and initially committed to non violent resistance. Mandela and 150 others were arrested on 5 December 1956 and charged with treason. This slowly changed the consensus over the years within the ANC. It could prove that nonviolent resistance did not work. Whilst Mandela intended to prevent bloodshed even where opponents were the culprits of bloodshed, he could not commit himself to the principle of non-violence anymore as the Government in place allowed the (secret) police to abuse human rights in all dimensions, including all sorts of torture. Being on Robben Island and Mandela seeking obviously freedom, President Botha offered Mandela in 1985 this freedom on condition that he ‘unconditionally rejected violence as a political weapon’. Mandela released however a statement via his daughter Zindzi saying “What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts.”
Mandela added to value of life and to the culture of ideas which makes nations an enduring entity if they stick to the same principles. If the manifestation of a non dominant multiracial culture would have been achieved before the agony of apartheid the struggle now perhaps would be more in the nature of perfecting the “Union” of people in South Africa, – working in peaceful harmony together, with South Africa being a powerful reflection of a well-integrated society maintaining a strong economy for the benefit of all, with proper law enforcement being the protection for all it’s citizens.
From this point of view South Africa has still a long way to go, with “the culture of heart” from Mandela to be maintained and cherished as an ongoing example and “Compass”, long even after he has gone.
Related imageRelated image
It’s an obligation by principle for the new leaders in South Africa, to resist the various temptations as Mandela did. He did not cut corners in his approach and whilst President of South Africa, with an inclusive wisdom and both a sense of justice he did facilitate via his government a range of progressive social reforms, for reducing long entrenched social and economic inequalities in South Africa. 
His views on the world were not always free of controversies. He strongly opposed the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo and criticised the foreign policy US president George W. Bush in a number of speeches, criticising the lack of UN involvement in the decision to begin the War in Iraq. He said, “It is a tragedy, what is happening, what Bush is doing. But Bush is now undermining the United Nations.”
Related image
Mandela stated he would support action against Iraq only if it is ordered by the UN. Mandela urged the people of the US to join massive protests against Bush and called on world leaders, especially those with vetoes in the UN Security Council, to oppose him. ” What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust.” Nelson Mandela also harshly condemned British Prime Minister Tony Blair and referred to him as the “foreign minister of the United States”.
Related image
Whilst correct in his assessment on the war in Iraq, on the other hand Mandela was uncommonly loyal to Muhammad Gaddafi and Fidel Castro. They had helped the ANC when the U.S. still branded Mandela as a terrorist.
Related image
Mandela has received over 200 rewards during four decades and in 1993 the Nobel Peace Price. The United Nations General Assembly announced in November 2009 that Mandela’s birthday, 18 July, is to be known as ‘Mandela Day’ to mark his contribution to world freedom, a reflection not only of his meaning to South Africa but to the world in what has been achieved through his lifelong struggle on the road to freedom.
What can we learn about leadership from Nelson Mandela?
 
1. A particular purpose adding value to the lives of people at a certain time and a certain place.
Related image
 “The struggle is my life’,  Nelson Mandela once said. Obviously this was not his goal or meaning but it was the reflections of his endeavours to reach his mission to irradiate social injustice in South Africa, racial segregation involving apartheid, discrimination which involved black and coloured people. His life was centred around his goal of creating racial equality. It is clear this was a meaningful purpose affecting many in the positive, resonating positively in the wider context and principle of justice, considering what South Africa has gone through over various decades. As the injustice of “Apartheid” was widely felt both national and international, he did link into an overwhelming majority who felt similar and in his passion for his goal to end this injustice as peaceful as possible did attract an immense support on the road to freedom. Besides this he had the unique characteristics to embody and represent the movement for change, despite intermittent frictions about the right approach. However obviously a leader needs to be able to articulate a wider felt purpose to improve the conditions of others and the more this is tuned or aligned with wider values on the issues at the time, the more support he or she is able to create. Nelson Mandela fits this requirement in full, however this is a very general requirement and there are “Mandela specifics” adding extensively to the leadership lessons from Nelson Mandela. The true worth of Nelson Mandela was not found in himself, but in the changes, the textures and colours that came alive in South Africa as a result of what he added to the history of the people in South Africa.
2. Don’t quit, – “stick-to-itiveness.”
Related image

What dies in people while they are alive by not even attempting to give their once felt dreams the required efforts (even at the risk of not achieving them) is a sad thing. Some start their pathway with good efforts but when they meet strong resistance and times get tough they give up. They tried at least and find perhaps something else. Some would give it the extra inch being required and come on top, but even this is not fool-proof to be successful. How far to take matters is an individual choice and sometimes some soul-searching is required in the question how far to take the desired outcome and at which costs. If the goal is not a self-serving one and is able to stretch to the interests and justice for the many rather than the few who can serve themselves, there is a power in the words: “Stick – to – itiviness and don’t quit!” Even if we don’t succeed to see “the promised land” ourselves. Obviously we speak here about life changing goals and major changes as being faced with eg people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, apart from various others. For the majority of people the goals are different and may change, but nevertheless there is a fair point to stick it out if there is something you dearly want to achieve. Don’t give up , don’t give in and grow into those goals so that life can’t rob you from it.

Mandela did face many challenges and set backs but in the face of a most powerful government he persisted. His life was his argument by setting an example. Even sentenced to a long stay on Robben Island with freedom taken away, his reputation grew as the most significant black leader of South Africa. He still however had freedom, the last freedom, – the freedom of choice how to take his predicament. “You have to make the mind run the body”, tells the quote at the start of this article. This is what Mandela did. Obviously he was tired at times. Obviously he did ask the question:”Is it still possible?”. Obviously there have been times of despair. He was just a human being and who would not feel lost occasionally in the circumstances he faced. However he persistently continued certain habits. In prison, Mandela kept habits that were already in place. He did stick eg to the disciplined eating regime of an athlete, his early morning exercise and not allowing his spirit to get crushed. He performed hard labour in a lime quarry and needless to say the prison conditions were most basic. Political and black prisoners were kept separate and received the lowest level of privileges. Mandela was allowed one letter and one visitor each 6 months. With the restrictions he had he undertook a distance learning program with the University of London by correspondence and obtained a bachelor degree of Laws. He inspired young black activists imprisoned on Robben Island until authorities tried to break the what was called “The Mandela University” by separating senior ANC leaders like him, Walter Sisulu, Mlaba,Kathrada and Mlangeni from the ANC junior’s. This was in a nutshell Mandela’s response to adversity. It did not leave him unchanged, he became better rather than bitter. This adversity did cultivate both patience and maturity, both planning and timing. It was a creative response, the last choice we have. He created even meaning during his time as a black prisoner, with no real prospect in the beginning that he would ever set foot alive on mainland South Africa.

3. Dare to lead from the front but don’t leave your base behind.

Related image

After Mandela was treated for his prostate in 1985 he was separated from his his senior friends and colleagues. Sisulu and the others protested against this but Kathrada considered that perhaps something good may come out of this. What Mandela did was perhaps the most daring thing only a leader can do who keeps the broader picture in mind. He started negotiations  with the apartheid government after stating initially that prisoners can’t negotiate and that armed struggle would bring the government down. The risk of total escalating violence was such a grave perspective that he decided to negotiate with a willing apartheid government at the time, oppressors who had the same perception that thing could get totally out of control. Mandela took an immense risk at the time and with his reputation on the line within the ANC he explained to his base that the refusal to negotiate was only a tacticle move, not a move by principle. He proved to be most pragmatic as the climate was right to negotiate and he had to arrive at this position first, with his base following. Easier said than done as within the ANC there were people convinced he totally lost it. However Mandela made it. He took the long view as matters were unavoidable to change in the decade ahead. This was a most risky move which could have cost his live. Within a different context US President John F Kennedy took the long view on peace to be far more important than war, with a base being radical anti-communist. He went out of his way to avoid an all out nuclear war on Cuba and he was ahead of his time to realise that the Vietnam war was a waste of American lives and American interests, which proved to be the case many years after his assassination. His “military base” at home, including the US establishment could neither take this broader long view nor this independent President, – hence he was killed. Daring to lead from the front requires to take the base with you. It is a principle in leadership, – stronger it is a principle to survive when times are tough. As a leader at times you have to take this risk and make a move for the better, with the full picture in mind. But don’t do it on your own. Make sure your base is involved and you have the support of the majority, provided there is not an immediate crisis where you have to trust your better instincts against those who may distrust you. In those situations only quick and positive results will take the resistance away. It can be however a real challenge, but Mandela had enough credit to take this calculated move and he proved to be right.

(How was he so sure?  He was a lawyer and in prison he discovered that the worst and most cruel prison guards were receptive to him whilst offering legal aid to them based on their needs, leaving them completely puzzled and surprised, – that a black man far more educated than them was prepared to do this. Mandela sensed that when you approached those people in the right way, you could do business and negotiate with them, even with the worst representatives of the apartheid regime.)

4. Compassion inclusive of differences.
Related image

Nelson Mandela became President (1994-1999) of a divided country with hatred at both sides of the spectrum. He persisted in taking the long view as hatred is not the way forward of building the foundations of a new South Africa. Mandela’s aim was a country with racial equality and justice to all parties being part of this new South Africa. Not an easy task, especially where it comes to national reconciliation. And here we might touch base on a few “Mandela specifics”, skills or attitudes not being new but used with integrity to achieve desired results. Let’s face it, Mandela did express unique wisdom in his general approach:

During the 1994 Presidential election campaign on his way to Natal to speak to Zulu supporters, Mandela’s plane nearly crashed as due to engine failure. There was some panic indeed but Mandela calmly continued to read his news paper, which did reassure some. Was he scared?  He was terrified up there but did not show it because he felt as a leader you can’t show fear. Through the act of making the impression to have no fear, he was an example and inspiration for others in this specific situation. He learnt this at Robben Island as there was enough going on there to provide plenty of fear. However he learnt to master his fear, it’s part of being a good actor at times.The best performance is trying to be a model for others which can give strength, both to yourself and those others. Mandela knew it worked this way.*Part of best performance is to smile, rather than showing anger. There was enough to be angry about but it would not help one bit as often anger will be responded with anger. What you resonate to other people will often come back to you and Mandela knew that his relaxed smile was able to melt icy relationships. It is part of the performance understood by both Mandela and eg US President Barack Obama. Appearance like a smiling one is able to advance a message, in his case the message or symbol actually of lacking bitterness. Mandela knew the past. He knew the past of South Africa. He knew the past of being detained. He knew what happened in detention. But for the sake to achieve national unity you had to set those emotions aside. He often said to forget the past as he really meant to achieve the future, which he projected with an all-inclusive smile. It’s true, he not always felt like this. However it was not part of an empty show, –  it was his effort and struggle to embrace a modern South Africa and to move forward, building different dynamics by choice and not emotions. Compassion at a different level than we are used to, with the bigger picture being more important than personal emotions.*Mandela knew exactly when to take the next step in the transition of once being a warrior, a politician thereafter, a diplomat and finally a statesman. He was an excellent tactician and a smart politician. Obviously he did stick to his core principles and aims, but often – as he tended to say – issues were rarely a matter of principles, but far more often a matter of tactics. Gandhi as earlier discussed had a similar brilliant approach. In his case independence from Britten by the principle of non-violence to be achieved, but many other issues by the right choice of tactic. People with compassion and integrity allowing and being inclusive of differences need to use tactics as in this world you can’t do without it to get desired results, – in an environment often being hostile and not without danger.*Mandela knew what was important for white South Africans. He studied their language, their culture and was able to impress many with his knowledge and his respect being shown to them in Government. He “kept his allies close but his (potential) opponents even more close”, – as the saying goes. He had a remarkable talent to make people at ease, make them feel important with often showing interest in their personal circumstances. It was the best way to break potential “icy relationships” and setting the tune of dynamics. Many people (let’s say white people) changed their mind or opinion after meeting him, – even worst opponents from the past.

*Mandela managed to get black South Africans behind the previously hated South African national rugby team (Springboks) when South Africa hosted the 1995 Rugby World Cup. After the Springboks did achieve to win from New Zealand, Mandela presented the trophy to the Afrikaner captain Francois Pienaar, wearing a Springbok shirt with Pienaar’s own number 6 on the back. This again was a major reflection of his efforts to get increased reconciliation of both white and black South Africans. Using such a popular sport at the time more within the “white” domain to unify the country in its achievement was superseding the terminology of good tactics, – it was simply a wise move.

One of the skills in various meetings Mandela used was “The Indian Talking Stick”. An effective tool from ancient Indian culture of listening respectfully to others when they speak and speak only when it is your turn.  Mandela after carefully listening to different opinions in various meetings often spoke as the last one, providing a distinct summary so that people felt understood but meanwhile as a leader directing the outcome of the discussion in the way he actually wanted. On the one hand being led but on the other hand leading so that people could buy into the outcome. It’s a way of creatively resolving differences and get an agreement which works at the point of bonding and trust.
Related image
Needless to say that in terms of leadership there is more to say about Nelson Mandela. Both his live and his goal were one in the struggle to get South Africa out of the agony of Apartheid and with his leadership he not only succeeded, but he provided an enduring example and direction. The symbol of the man speaks at times stronger than his own words could do, but the direction should be a “lighthouse” for South Africa to facilitate a more perfect union of people, – working together for shared interests in this beautiful country down south in Africa.

Thank you!

 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf
. 

Beyond 9/11 memorial services 2011


Ten years on ... President Barack Obama embraces a victim's relative as he visits the north pool of the World Trade Center site with first lady Michelle Obama, former President George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush.
Ten years on … President Barack Obama embraces a victim’s relative as he visits the north pool of the World Trade Center site with first lady Michelle Obama, former President George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush. Photo: Reuters—————-
“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose – and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”
Abraham Lincoln
“I know for certain that we never lose the people we love, even to death. They continue to participate in every act, thought and decision we make. Their love leaves an indelible imprint in our memories. We find comfort in knowing that our lives have been enriched by having shared their love.”    — Leo Buscaglia.

—–>It came with bitterest agony, because it took them unaware!

Many organizations held really well deserved memorial services and other events for the 10th anniversary of these attacks, – now more than 10 years ago, and they were all very respectful for both the families of the victims, – for those who died in vain.

Personally I was most impressed, not only because of the service but also the way matters being dealt with by the many involved, including President Obama himself. On September 11th 2011 at Zuccotti park President Obama raised above the crimes from the past, above the divisions,  looking at it in the positive in a spirit of hope and doing this together with former President G. W. Bush.
It was the citation of Psalm 46 during his speech in New York City that seemed to make an impression, whilst President Bush referred to a quotation of President Lincoln. The biblical passage that began was: “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” Apparently Obama chose this passage believing it was particularly right to use — to read scripture this particular last Sunday. He did chose a passage that tells of persevering through difficult challenges and emerging from those challenges stronger. He used this psalm as well during the Tucson memorial speech. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble”. Therefore as the passage indicates: we will not fear, even though the earth could be moved, even though the mountains may fall into the sea.  It indicates God is in the midst of this. God shall help when morning dawns. The nations being raged, the kingdoms being moved. The God of Jacob is our refuge. He makes wars to stop to the end of the earth….
This was the message, – well-chosen!
All this said we have a duty of justice and even though 9/11 is history many questions did remain unanswered. The 9/11 Commission chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean started late 2002 to prepare an account of the conditions & circumstances surrounding the attacks. On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission issued the 9/11 Commission Report. This report reflected on the events of 9/11 and the attacks being carried out by members of al-Qaeda. The report tells as well how security and intelligence agencies were insufficient coördinated to prevent the attacks.
The report says: “We believe the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management” The Commission made significant recommendations as how to prevent future attacks. However the truth has been never fully established about the background dynamics before 9/11, like the truth has never been fully established on the background dynamics before the assassination of President John F.Kennedy. We all know that the Warren Commission was created to divert from the horrors within the US establishment and even though the funeral of John F. Kennedy was dignified and respectful for the world, the same US undercurrents responsible for his death continued for many years in US establishment and those responsible walked free as his assassination was part of a plan to change the future of the US, – like 9/11 being prepared and “allowed” as part of a plan to change US direction.
“God may be our refuge and strength” – but there are conditions of justice as well, hence  the Old Testament is a story about “God’s people” often in strive, and diverting from what is required, or what was perceived as justice.
Psalm 91 was the text for Senator Ted Kennedy‘s funeral in 2009, indicating that “whatever happens, nothing shall hurt the believer; though trouble and affliction befall, it shall come, not for his hurt, but for good… He shall live long enough; till he has done the work he was sent into this world for, and is ready for heaven….” Who would wish to live a day longer than God has some work to do, either by him or upon him? A man may die young, yet be satisfied with living….”  – The verses of this Psalm deal generally with how God protects his people. The examples given are particularly political in this specific Psalm, including gossips and snares, even conspiracies. The 1500 guests at Ted Kennedy’s funeral did represent some of the heaviest conspirators in the country, and Ted Kennedy was obviously surrounded by it.
With modern media we can both serve respect and dignity, whilst at the same time masking what actually happened that day on 9/11, now more than 10 years ago. “God may be indeed our refuge and strength” if we are committed to do right and provide justice as a people and as rulers, hence Psalm 46 was more suitable for President Obama than for former US President G W Bush, the last being a member of “Skull and Bones.”
Just coming back on one aspect of 9/11 with some closure in the direction of truth and justice. The collapse of  World Trade Centre 7  was most unusual because it was the first known tall building collapsing as a result of uncontrolled fires, in this case restricted fires only.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce. They have been investigating the falls of the Twin Towers/WTC including WTC7.  According to NIST, the investigation of WTC7 was delayed for various reasons, in part because NIST staff were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005 to work on the investigation of the collapse of the Twin Towers. In June 2007, Shyam Sunder explained, “We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The 7 WTC investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers.”

The  point  was  that  WTC7  made  a  free  fall!!

Statements that the Towers fell in eight and ten seconds have been repeated by both proponents and critics of the official explanation. WTC7 made a symmetric free fall in a 6.5-seconds plunge, suggestive of a controlled demolition, as shown in various non-edited videos. In the draft report in August 2008, NIST tried to cover up the free fall evidence, but in its last report it acknowledged the free fall. Fires never destroyed a steel skyscraper. WTC7 had a number of very restricted fires of unknown duration before the total collapse at 5:20 PM. Official reports assume that debris from the fall of the North Tower started those fires at 10:29 AM.  Having said this, again those fires were very restricted.
What we know of WTC7 is that it stored SEC files on many Wall Street investigations. Not only this, it contained as well various federal investigative files. All the files for about 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. Especially those files being classified as confidential were destroyed, without backup elsewhere. Furthermore files about Citigroup and the WorldCom scandal were completely lost. The Secret Service had its largest field office at WTC7, with over 200 employees. With the free fall of WTC 7 really all investigative files were lost. Significant evidence on all their cases was entirely destroyed.
We are only able to see a tip of the iceberg of hidden injustice behind 9/11, for which al-Qaeda was only in part responsible. Once more, in a much media controlled America this has never been fully addressed. Like the assassination on JFK it would seem systems in the US are allowed to skim the surface of some injustice, as long as the deeper layers of the same injustice keeps on file, –  in records or being destroyed and not to be disclosed anymore. As such allowing similar injustice to repeat itself. – with different identities if so required for the direction of the US (whoever decides on this direction).
G.W. Bush used one of the known Lincoln quotations for comfort this last Sunday, and those people in Manhattan needed comfort. The quotation applied to the sorrow & mourning endured during the American Civil War, and in particular at Gettysburg. However the Gettysburg battle with the largest number of casualties in the American Civil War where President Lincoln reflected on in the quotation being used, was a battle of an entirely  different nature. Any time when people die in needless conflicts or other predicaments,  comfort for those who are left behind is required. Where the battle of Gettysburg was barely preventable, – 9/11 was!
 Where Lincoln with his Administration by no means made efforts to make matters worse, – the Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld combination did so by allowing other forces to do the dirty work as part of a prepared “master plan” to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq. 9/11 provided them with the required and desired excuse to go to war, and as such 9/11 was supposed to happen.
Osama bin Laden could have been caught long ago before 9/11 and the US was well aware of this pending attack.
“The God of Jacob is our refuge. He makes wars to stop to the end of the earth”, ..as long as we don’t start them for reasons and triggers neither being justified nor legitimate. As long as we don’t provoke terror by wrong doings either in the the past or in the future, as the last will always hit back. When we have to fight the struggle being justified and not preventable we may trust on support from the highest almighty, as there is a lot of evil in this world. However a justified conflict is not always a justified war and allowing via secret missions 9/11 to happen has never been an issue for the criminal justice department, as this would hit the heart of US National Security. Hence the many requests from various officials to investigate 9/11 again have been always ignored or suppressed.
Allowing such  injustice to be ignored or suppressed is not allowing the US to emerge from challenges to get really stronger in the future, as the roots of some evil within the US has not been destructed, – like the roots of some evil within the US justice departments and US establishment was not destructed after the JFK assassination.
We put a nice face for the world and mourn, US officials included during the funeral of JFK in 1963. The Jackie Kennedy tapes, who show only a fraction, give an impression of a world where everything is possible, including a risk of total destruction whilst nobody is really aware.
“Our fore fathers brought forth a continent and a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…(said Lincoln).. “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.
Really this is the crux, this is the crux for countries which fit this picture, – as we can’t export the concept:”that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”, – and the first struggle is the government itself, those people allowing people to die in conflicts and war’s neither being nobly triggered nor nobly advanced, even by those who proclaim to be the defenders of the free world.
Video records from different angles do show that each Tower’s top began its fall precipitously, and they show the falling tops for a few seconds before they disappeared into an exploding dust of clouds. In those collapses dust clouds, showing the behaviour of “pyroclastic flows” associated with volcanoes, grew rapidly as they fell. Each cloud did consume its Tower’s top in a few seconds, and then it continued to descend, and stayed centered around the Tower’s axis. On repeated observation, each cloud had a reasonable well-defined top and bottom. The descent being timed using video records on various occasions, and ignored by the mainstream media.
NIST finally (officially) accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, considering however this being a phase in a 5.4 second interval which they claim is matching the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors. The starting point of their 5.4 second interval is totally arbitrary, and has no scientific base. This allows Shyam Sunder and Gross to undermine their own government-funded investigations.
The “9/11 Truth Movement” did widely show on the many inconsistencies as such implying a cover up and in the worst case scenario complicity by insiders.
Major General Albert Stubblebine was the Commanding General of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984.

Major General STUBBLEBINE says demolition Charges on WTC

USA American Maj. General Stubblebine tells us NO PLANE hit the Pentagon, and demolition charges took down the three WTC buildings

by: William Wagner

Major Stubblebine as can be seen did consider 9/11 to be largely “an inside job”.
After Stubblebine retired from the Army in 1984 he worked for BDM Corporation and as a part-time consultant to two government contractors, ERIM and Space Applications Corporation. In the 2006 documentary “One Nation Under Siege”  he states to the attack on The Pentagon: I look at the hole in The Pentagon , and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon, and I said:“The plane does not fit in that hole. So what did hit the Pentagon?”
Ted Gunderson joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation in December 1951 under J. Edgar Hoover. In 1973 he became the head of the Memphis FBI and then the head of the Dallas FBI in 1975. He became the head of the Los Angeles FBI in 1977. In 1979 he was one of a handful interviewed for the job of FBI director, which ultimately went to William H. Webster. Ted Gunderson reflected on many occasions on his perception that 9/11 was an inside job and the works of the CIA. He recently died.
Lev Grossman of TIME magazine once stated that support for the 9/11 Truth movement for certain is not a “fringe phenomenon”, but “a mainstream political reality.”
Mark Fenster, law professor at the University of Florida and author of the book “Conspiracy Theories:Secrecy and Power in American Culture says: “the amount of organisation” of the movement is much stronger than the organization of the movement related to doubts about the official account of the assassination of former United States President John F Kennedy. He considers this likely being due to the potential of new media technologies.
Especially former Vice President Dick Cheney, and some members of the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank, have been accused to be involved or having awareness of the alleged plot, allowing  the Bush administration the required justification for more widespread abuses of civil liberties and to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for different reasons than officially reflected.
Even former President Jimmy Carter had much doubt about the official “9/11 Commission” verdict and requested a new investigation, like many high level US military representatives who felt 9/11 was a “bridge too far” by US Government.
Started in 2011 by Senator Mike Gravel, the 9/11 Commission Campaign’s goal is to enact subpoena-capable, state-level commissions via state ballot initiatives, the last in Oregon, Alaska and California. These commissions are aimed as citizen-driven, independent organizations that would form a semi-unified grassroots national presence by exercising joint powers authority.
The US Government does not coöperate one bit in new investigations and for them 9/11 is history with the “book being closed” under the umbrella of decent memorial services with very much public attention of a potential al-Qaeda attack.
The memorial service once more was well deserved and decent, but the past operations under the previous Bush Administration were far from decent, like the L.B. Johnson dealings with the Kennedy assassination were far from decent – after and before he took over as US President.
Publicly they seem to do the right thing, well supported by a more controlled media who tend to ask fewer questions.
I am not speaking about President Obama because in the post GW Bush-era with so many people still having close links with this dark past it is very difficult to undermine the existing US establishment without serious repercussions. He did do the right thing, clinging on to Psalm 46 and reaching out to both victims and former US President Bush, like Nelson Mandela tried to look to the future and not to the past.
However 9/11 memorial services are not the same as reconciliation and it should be noted that at the time of Nelson Mandela in South Africa, whatever we may consider of the later Administrations after Mandela, – at that time South Africa was more advanced than the US as it did not try to hide secrets. South Africa as a country tried to face the facts as they were and sometimes a profound “sorry” is warranted from people in leadership positions who did do wrong.
Let President Obama do the job as US President, which he is doing fine and he needs now to keep the bigger picture in mind as terror through terror increased and the al-Qaeda risk is more clear than before 9/11 as result of the decisions going to war. Bluntly, it was the wrong decision and if Al-Gore who actually had the majority vote would have been US President at the time when GW Bush became President, – 9/11 would not have happened.
 Likewise if Adlai Stevenson was John F. Kennedy’s vice-president, JFK would never have been assassinated.
Perhaps for G.W. Bush applies as well, that with Dick Cheney he had the wrong US Vice President.
As long or will be real “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, –  the truth and justice shall not perish from the earth.
That’s the obligation of a democracy true to its principles.
Let’s hope it is, – that’s all we can say..
I hope Senator Mike Gravel will be very successful with his joint powers authority!
Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf
—————————————————-
Added on 10-12-2014:
Added on 11-10-2015:

US Presidential profiles in violations of justice. (Part 10 – former President G.W. Bush)


 
Image via Wikipedia

The 43rd US President

 
This article will focus in particular on the background and the lead up to the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq during the G.W.Bush Administration, including the triggering reason which we know as the September 11 attacks.
 
Behind the scene there were powerful persons like the US Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Romsfeld, US Defence secretary. Obviously far more people played a role, not only in the cover up of some events but also in widespread human right abuses.  The circumstances have been most controversial  and will be always controversial, like the key players in all the various operations. History will eventually teach us that the duplicity in US foreign policy over decades created both friends and enemies alike, but that some choices being made at the Executive branch of the US have  been inexcusable for anything inflicted on both American people and people at other corners of the world.
 
This article about George W Bush is a sobering article. It is not complete. The details are far more extensive and sobering as one can imagine. The abuses on human rights are notorious.  We can only say:”Never ever again. At this very present moment United States AttorneyPatrick Fitzgerald  is in the best position perhaps to collect  further evidence for further court (grand jury)procedures as justice need to be done.The difficulty in the US however is that the intelligence community keeps watch an Attorney’s if it would involve White House related issues, even from former US Presidents.
 
Operating in the elected role of the US Commander-in-Chief requires obviously skill and wisdom to deal with various and complex dynamics within the closer circles of Washington, but it requires both good nature, integrity, but also a healthy and intelligent curiosity in the facts outside the domain of military intelligence, as history proved that this intelligence has often been used for reasons contributing to a world with increasing dangers, based on the most irrational decisions of some US Presidents, – based  as well perhaps on possibly some very doubtful and incorrect intelligence being provided. People in those Agencies are obviously most of the time very skilled in doing their specific job – as ordered , but they neither have the required full picture on the justification of their orders, nor do they have right historical facts available to explain dynamics as they are. They simply do their job in which they are good at.  The New World Order as proclaimed by former US President G.H.W.Bush (sr) proved to be wrong;  full of empty rhetoric and full of duplicity including multiple covert operations to undermine both stability in te US and elsewhere.  If a General states that a war can be a success, it does not say anything about the justification of such a war. The US has been in the past  ongoing in conflict situations largely as a result of most doubtful foreign policy directions in which the public has been largely misled. Due to significant errors in the past the current Obama Administration has to solve a number of predicaments, at least  for a considerable part as due to failures of past Administration’s. The art of leadership however is now is to get out of those predicaments,  facing the facts and the past dynamics as they are and deal with it in a more  positive direction.  This applies in part to a foreign policy which is inclusive of the perception to treat countries and people with dignity and respect unless there are legitimate threats subject to prove. Provoking and supporting terror by supporting doubtful groups in covert operations or secret missions against other countries will hit back eventually in terms of self-inflicted terror. This has been already subject to prove in the past.
 
The risk – benefit ratio for covert operations need to be carefully considered and the purpose needs to prevent risk on both war or terror. US history shows that both the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan and Iraq 2 had US involvement on very dubious and controversial grounds. All those wars were preventable, like some plane crashes were preventable when they are analysed in retrospect. 
 
If in foreign policy the sense of values and the needs for humanity get lost, the result of actions on various battlefields which could have been prevented will be increasingly inhuman. Those  risks will only increase with poorly selected engagements and at the end of the day we will all suffer as a result the menace of senseless violence.
 
The “New World Order” as proclaimed and supported by Bush, sr,  – since his CIA endeavours in the late 50ties and early 60ties have supported this menace of senseless violence and Bush,jr seemed to have worked out this legacy in even more senseless detail, with a media accepting things as they were, and even Congress  (apart from the few who tried to do the opposite) supporting this direction at the time.
 

George W Bush

“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it.” – G.W.Bush.

 
“America is the land of a second chance – when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.” – G.W.Bush
 

George Bush

Born in 1946 in Connecticut (New Heaven) he graduated at Yale University and Harvard Business School. Besides extensive oil business, his family had a highly political background and his father was George H.W.Bush was the 41st US President. Both father and son were members of the secret society “Skull and Bones”.

Bush,jr was in his younger years perhaps a bit of a rascal. He was arrested for disorderly conduct  at the age of 20 after he and some friends had “a few beers” and stole a Christmas wreath from a hotel. The charges were later dropped.

At some stage a 26-year-old Bush did visit in 1972 his parents in Washington, D.C. This was over a  Christmas holiday. He took  his 16-year-old brother Marvin out drinking and I guess they had a good time. However, on the way home Bush lost control of the car and hit a waste container, but continued driving home. It was a bit noisy as the  garbage can wedged under the car. Sounds like a good story, as we all had perhaps issues when we were younger. However at the age of 26 this was perhaps slightly over the top. His dad was not pleased, the least.When his father, George H. W. Bush, called him in (you know those private consultations between dad and son), – not only for his own behavior but also for exposing his younger brother to risk, George W. (still under the influence), appeared to have shouted angrily, “I hear you’re looking for me. You wanna go mano-a-mano right here?” Before the elder Bush could reply, the situation was kindly saved by brother Jeb, who did surprise his father with the news that George W. had been accepted for  Harvard Business School. Obviously this was happy news for dad.  At the age of 30 Bush was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol  in Kennebunkport, Maine, near the family’s summer residence. He was fined US$150 and had his driving license suspended for two years.

Bush did describe his days before his religious conversion in his 40s as his “nomadic” period and “irresponsible youth” and admitted to drinking “too much” in those years. Bush reportedly quoted by saying that “alcohol began to compete with my energies … I’d lose focus”. He acknowledged that he was “drinking too much”.

George W.  Bush started his career in the oil business (Texas) and in 1994 he was elected to the position of Governor of Texas, serving nearly 2 terms. Bush was really a successful Governor in Texas from 1995 until 2000 and supported legislation for tort reform, increased education funding,  higher standards for schools, besides reforming the criminal justice system. He newly tried faith-based welfare programs and made Texas the leading producer of wind powered electricity in the US. As Governor Bush signed however more death row inmates to be executed than any other Governor in the Texas history. The average was one  death every nine days. The death penalty number was 153 during his reigns. He intervened however and commuted the death sentence of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush said that he stopped drinking after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: “I quit drinking in 1986 and haven’t had a drop since then.” He mentioned that meeting  Reverend Billy Graham in 1985 (after which he began serious Bible study) was a major trigger to change his life, apart from gentle and persistent pressure fromLaura, his wife. Billy Graham in an interview with Brian Williams said:  “I’ve heard others say that, and people have written it, but I cannot say that.”  – “I was with him and I used to teach the Bible at Kennebunkport to the Bush family when he was a younger man, but I never feel that I in any way turned his life around.” Bush later in an interview could not  remember one single word that passed between him and Billy Graham ( See A Charge to Keep : an interview from Herskowitz  with G.W.Bush)

Author Terry Reed reflected at a Los Angeles public gathering in July 1999 on a video tape during the 2000 Presidential campaign “showing George W. Bush and his brother Jeb arriving at Tamiami Airport in 1985 to pick up two kilo- of cocaine for a party. Reed said: “They flew in on a King Air 200.” Subsequent statements made by Barry Seal (see the edition about the former US President G.H Bush) recorded in Reed’s 1995 book Compromised do mention how Seal tried to make himself  “impressive” perhaps about how he had both knowledge and a video of “the Bush boys” doing coke. Other witnesses located for this story, who were in considerable official positions in 1985, have confirmed that the described Tamiami sting took place. All, in fear for their lives, have refused to go on the record. Not sure whether this story about Bush is entirely correct as the impression to be made as such is clearly subject to prove.  Bush’s previous alcohol problems are correct, however in fairness and at the credit of G.W.Bush he did overcome this problem and in his progressing career the issue of using this type of recreational drugs would have put him at a high level of risk during his Presidential campaign, which he was determined to win. In fairness there is less certainty about this than other things..

Previous chapters did reflect on the G.H.W.Bush connection in the JFK assassination in Dallas on the 22nd of November 1963. The Bush family as part of a longstanding CIA connection had a great dislike for both John F Kennedy and his brother “Bobby” Kennedy.  Special Forces and Division 4 operative’s final report ( Division 4 JFK Jr. preliminary report) do name former Presidents George H. W. Bush, President George W. Bush among others as being involved in orchestrating the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr. This however is subject to prove in court.

While John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr. was reported to have died in an accidental plane crash on July 16, 1999, Division 4’s preliminary report reveals careful details in contrast to those reported by news outlets, indicating what the team described in its report as “classic media disinformation. The final report (reportedly) said “they perceived him as a political threat and future rival…”  —  “The meeting to discuss the murder occurred in the White House oval office. The subjects named in the report who participated in ordering the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr. were (reportedly) President Clinton and his wife Hillary–both in the room, former Attorney General Janet Reno–also in the room and who JFK Jr. had publicly called to task for her role in Waco and Ruby Ridge operations, FBI Director Louis Freeh–in the room, and former President George H. W. Bush, Lawrence Rockefeller (now deceased), and three Inner Circle Council of Thirteen members who were all teleconferenced into the oval office discussion via secure White House phone lines.“ —“FBI Director Freeh left the oval office after the murder plot was discussed and met with Israeli Mossad agent Michael Harari who then met with his supervisor, General Rafael Eitan, considered to be one of the most dangerous Israeli agents who ever lived,” ( the last stated by Delbert, a former CIA Operative).  Though pre-election assassinations are difficult to prove they could be a  way for an assured (or at least easier) election victory to keep or gain power by removing a political rival from the scene–forever. Given the Division 4 reports and witness testimony on the White House assassination plot, the United States AttorneyPatrick Fitzgerald  grand jury if so proceeding on matters, will also need to start a probe of the close, coincidental time-line nexus between John Jr.’s plane “accident” and Vice President Al Gore’s “close call” the week before on Air Force Two. About one week before JFK, Jr’s death on July 16, 1999, Vice-President Al Gore’s Air Force Two jet lost power and had to make an emergency landing while flying through heavily congested air space near Chicago. Gore’s plane going down would have resulted in another pre-2000, election-related “accidental” death almost overlapping John F. Kennedy, Jr.  Intelligence sources have alleged that Gore’s plane was vectored, possibly resulting in loss of cabin pressure related to some sort of software technology, in a failed attempt to “clear the field” for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential race. Whilst JFK,jr based on the documentation for certain did not die as a result of an accident, the revelations of the ex CIA Operative Delbert do call for careful investigations, as those really very serious matters are subject to prove.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nXv6tFwNkk                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The assassination of John F Kennedy, jr in 1999

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuO5oUMJfT                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                United States Attorney’ Patrick Fitzgerald : “The Untouchable”

The Bush family is interesting and has been always pushing for certain interests in the US, more balanced towards military endeavours both large and small.  George H. W. always denied being involved in Iran contra. But according to General Bowen, “investigators obtained copies of Colonel Oliver North’s diaries which documented Bush’s role as a CIA supervisor of the contra supply network”. In 1988 Bush issued false statements to Congress, testifying he knew nothing about the illegal supply flights.  The issue of  private teams of foreign assassins available to do the political bidding could be true, like assassins have been available for other US Presidents. Hopefully Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s “court” will find more about this eventually as the circumstances in which those assassins are used require careful consideration. However White House incrimination will be extremely difficult to prove as the US justice systems tend to work favourable for those who have worked at the highest positions and the US has a history of unresolved political assassinations.

Bush raised some eyebrows with various people by asking Dick Cheney as his running mate for the Presidential elections in 2000. Not unlikely after discussion this with Bush,sr, who knew his son a bit better and wanted perhaps strong background support for a succesful Presidency, serving some family ties & traditions as well, such as the New world order (politics).

Within this context it is good to say something on this powerful man Cheney, a man with an impressive business background. Cheney served in the White House during the Nixon Administration. He joined the staff of Donald Rumsfeld as well, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity from 1969–70. Cheney advised on various options in a memo to Rumsfeld, including use of the US Justice Department which  the Ford administration could use to minimise damage as a result of an article in The New York Times. In this article reporter Seymour Hersh reflected that US Navy submarines had wired into Soviet undersea communications as part of a highly classified program. Cheney was Assistant to President  Gerald Ford. When Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, Cheney became White House Chief of Staff, succeeding Rumsfeld. He became selected as well to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. Cheney expressed public concern that nations such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, could acquire nuclear components after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. As Secretary of Defence Cheney did oversee the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other operations. He became officially nominated by the Republican Party at the 2000 Republican National Convention, as the running mate for G.W.Bush.

Whilst the focus of this article  is the Presidency of G.W Bush, it is good to discuss Dick Cheney further. It is important to get a bit more of the total picture  in the lead up to a few things under the Bush Administration as he was the most influential US Vice-President in US history. We have to divert attention therefore briefly to “Halliburton”.

Halliburton  is almost the world’s largest  oilfield services corporation with more than 70 countries involved in operational activity, reaching over the 500 subsidiaries, affiliates, branches and divisions worldwide with over 50,000 employees. A most powerful company.

After Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the Pentagon, led by defense secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services  close to $9 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones. In 1995, Cheney replaced Thomas H. Cruikshank, as chairman and CEO at Halliburton. Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya in the early 1990ties, selling these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya. After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties. Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries in 1998, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush (former US President G.W.Bush’s dad) was a director of Dresser Industries (now part of Halliburton); Former president George H. W. Bush, worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948 to 1951, before he founded Zapata Corporation. As you see there have been high level business connections.  In both the JFK assassination, Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair, Zapata associates were involved, with considerable CIA connections. It reflects perhaps some cultural aspects.

In 2001 The Wall Street Journal showed that a subsidiary of Halliburton Energy Services (Halliburton Products and Services Ltd) opened an office in Tehran. Whilst Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he may have violated the Trading with the Enemy Act. Headquarters of Halliburton are in the North Belt office in Houston, Texas, and since 2007 in  Dubai, United Arab Emirates (opened March 2007). KBR, is a major closely associated company of refineries, oil fields, pipelines, and chemical plants. Halliburton announced on April 5, 2007 that it had finally broken ties with KBR, which had been its contracting, engineering and construction unit as a part of the company for 44 years. However in November 2002 KBR was tasked to plan oil well firefighting in Iraq.Critics contend that it was a no-bid contract, awarded due to Dick Cheney’s position as vice president. Others contend that KBR won “in a competitive bid process.” The contract was actually invoked at the convenience of the Army. KBR had not the best reputation. Halliburton in 2003 revealed in SEC filings that its KBR subsidiary had paid a Nigerian official $2.4 million in bribes in order to receive favorable tax treatment. Interestingly KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) announced beginning 2006 that it was awarded a $385 million contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build “temporary detention and processing facilities” or internment camps. In line with the comments from  Business Wire, this contract was to be executed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Opposing groups point to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp as a possible model.

It is fair to say that Dick Cheney had interesting connections. Halliburton became the object of various controversies around the 2003 Iraq War with the company’s ties to former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney was interested in the Vice-Presidency of the US and retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign. He received a package worth $36 million. In 2004 he received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.  Once more Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000.  (>Still not ready as yet with Dick Cheney and Halliburton. It will take time to get the picture.<)

Bunnatine Greenhouse a civil servant with much contracting experience, had complained to the Pentagon on various occasions that Halliburton had been unlawfully receiving (preferential  treatment)  for work in Iraq, Kuwait and the Balkans. Criminal investigations were opened by the U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Pentagon’s inspector general. It was stated that Military auditors caught Halliburton overcharging the Pentagon for fuel deliveries into Iraq. It was stated as well that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld‘s office took control on all aspects of Halliburton’s $7 billion Iraqi oil/infrastructure contract. After the testimony Greenhouse was demoted for poor performance. An internal report released by BP into the Deepwater Horizon Incident claimed in September 2010 that poor practices of Halliburton staff had contributed to the oil disaster. Halliburton was jointly at fault along with BP and Transocean for the spill. The cement that Halliburton used was of poor quality, and caused eventually  hydrocarbons to leak into the well, causing the notorious explosion that started the crisis. The Nigerian government filed corruption charges against Cheney in December 2010 because of his role as the Chief Executive of Halliburton. It did relate to an alleged $182 million contract where a four-company joint venture was involved to build a liquefied natural gas plant on Bonny Island( Southern Nigeria). In 2009 already , KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, agreed to pay $402 million after an admission that it bribed Nigerian officials. Halliburton paid $177 million to settle allegations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission without admitting any wrongdoing. The case was settled when Nigeria mid December 2010 (not that long ago) agreed to drop the corruption charges against Cheney and Halliburton in exchange for a $250 million settlement. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission stated that the $250 million would include about $130 million frozen in a Swiss bank, and the rest would be paid as fines. Needless to say that Dick Cheney, still being active despite poor health, has been a powerful man with an interesting…background so to say. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were the powerful men in the US Presidency of G.W.Bush and before we start to discuss the controversial Presidency of G.W.Bush it is worthwhile to give on Rumsfeld some background information as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dha4tCnji5k&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyK73YYCWgM&feature=player_detailpage

Donald Rumsfeld was in Congress until 1969 — his fourth term — to serve then  in the Nixon administration. He was Assistant to the President: officially “Counselor to the President” in December 1970, besides Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. Nixon was recorded saying about Rumsfeld in 1971: “at least Rummy is tough enough” and “he’s a ruthless little bastard.

After a different position Rumsfeld was called back to Washington in August 1974 to help the transition for the new president, Gerald R. Ford. He was Ford’s close confidant since the time Ford was House minority leader in the House of Representatives. During Ford’s presidency, Rumsfeld became later White House Chief of Staff until 1975, In October 1975, Ford changed his cabinet as due to the Halloween Massacre. Rumsfeld became the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense. George H. W. Bush however (became Director of Central Intelligence Bob Woodward‘s in his 2002 book Bush at War, reflected on the  rivalry between the two men and “Bush senior was convinced that Rumsfeld was pushing him out of the CIA to end his political career.” At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld was skillfully undermining Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at the SALT talks. He implemented the development of cruise missiles, the B-1 bomber, and a major naval shipbuilding program. Rumsfeld was from 1990 until 1993 the  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation which was at that time a leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and control technologies for cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasting applications. The company pioneered the development of the first all-digital high-definition television (HDTV) technology. From January 1997  Rumsfeld was the Chairman of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Gilead Sciences which was the developer of Tamiflu (Oseltamivir), which is used in the treatment of bird flu and influenza. The drug does attack virus and prevent it from spreading in the body. Rumsfeld’s holdings in the company increased massive when avian flu became a subject of general public anxiety during his later term as Secretary of Defense. Following standard practice, Rumsfeld directed the Pentagon’s General Counsel to issue instructions indicating that he could not be involved if there was bird flu pandemic and the Pentagon had to respond. Rumsfeld was later part of the ABB’s board from 1990 to 2001. ABB—based in Zürich, Switzerland—is a European engineering giant formed through the merger between ASEA of Sweden and Brown Boveri of Switzerland. In 2000 this company sold two light-water nuclear reactors to KEDO for installation in North Korea, as part of the 1994 agreed framework reached under President Bill Clinton.   The sale of this nuclear technology was a high-profile contract. ABB’s CEO, Göran Lindahl, visited North Korea in November 1999 to announce ABB’s “wide-ranging, long-term coöperation agreement” with the Communist Government of North Korea. Rumsfeld’s office said that the Secretary of Defense did not “recall it being brought before the board at any time.” But ABB official Björn Edlund told Fortune that “board members were informed about this project.” In other words Rumsfeld was fully aware, but Clinton as well, obviously.

When Rumsfeld visited Baghdad on December 19–December 20, 1983, (as part of Reagan’s Special Envoy to the Middle East) he and Saddam Hussein had a 90-minute conversation of various sorts. They were at large in agreement to oppose Syria’s occupation in Lebanon, preventing as well Syrian and Iranian expansion, besides preventing arms sales to Iran We know how Reagan got the US Presidency with a special pre-election deal with the Islāmic Republic of Iran and delaying the Iran hostage crisis, in which former Vice-President G.W. Bush with his established CIA connections played a role. Rumsfeld offered that U.S.-Iraq relations could improve with the U.S. supporting a new oil pipeline across Jordan. Iraq has never been in favour but was now willing to reconsider as the US appeared most willing to be of assistance in other important matters. Rumsfeld told  Tariq Aziz (Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister) that: “Our efforts to help were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us … citing the use of chemical weapons.” Rumsfeld gave many gifts from the Reagan administration to Saddam Hussein. Interesting gifts as they did include  pistols, medieval spiked hammers and a pair of golden cowboy spurs. Until the 1991 Gulf War, these were all displayed at Saddam Hussein’s Victory Museum in Baghdad which held all the gifts bestowed on Saddam by friendly national leaders. It was Saddam’s perception that the US would  accept the invasion in Kuwait, based on the existing relationship, based on the forewarning he provided, and based on the fact the US did not give a warning. Rumsfeld signed a PNAC letter on the 29th of January 1998, calling for President Bill Clinton to carry out “regime change” in Iraq. As part of the  Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, chaired by Rumsfeld in the first part of 1998 the conclusion was that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea could develop intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities within a time frame of ten years and that U.S. intelligence would hardly have any warning before such systems were deployed. If we put matters in a historical framework, the US dealings with both Iran ,Iraq and Korea were asking for trouble down the line. The first dealings were wrong in the first instance as there were all sorts of mixed agenda’s involved, it was a reflection of poor foreign diplomacy with a view on longstanding instability and increasing dangers. It was a “cut corner” strategy and some countries had to endure the implications of the shortcomings of various US Administrations in a row. Simply stupid errors have been made as agreements with dictators do not work. Short term financial gain can lead to longterm strategic pain!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oLuTQEL3ec&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo&feature=player_detailpage

Back now to George W Bush, as he became the new US President with those powerful people behind him.

George W. Bush did win the elections narrowly from Vice President Al Gore, with a controversial ruling in which the State Florida played a role.The Court reversed a Florida Supreme Court which ordered a third count Florida. This was stopped  as an ordered statewide hand recount on violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The machine recount revealed that Bush did win the Florida vote only 537 votes out of six million. Although Bush received 543,895 less votes than Gore nationwide, Bush did win the election with 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266. While the election outcome was not clear as yet, the Bush-Cheney team could not get public funding to plan a new Administration. Cheney opened a privately funded office in Washington to find candidates for all important positions in the new Bush Administration. According to Craig Unger, Cheney proposed Donald Rumsfeld for the post of Secretary of Defense to balance the influence of Colin Powell at the State Department

In comparison with the Clinton years his policies moved right off the centre. His domestic policy did include various tax cuts and 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. Bush,sr had a significant background impact on his son’s foreign policy.  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 Afghanistanand Iraq. This article will be concentrated on both 9/11 and the wars thereafter, apart from some (but not all) human right abuses for which both G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld could face trials for those abuses when they would visit eg certain countries in Europe. Needless to say there are more culprits. It is impossible to tell everything what happened, but let it be clear that the US Government did by far not reach the standards of being operating at the right side of the moral spectrum. It will be discussed in this article, but it is only a “tip of the iceberg.”

On the 20th anniversary of the first Gulf War, historian Geoffrey Wawro considered the poor planning and mistakes made by George H.W. Bush and his advisers explained in part why American troops have fought there until recently. (The former H.W. Bush administration’s vacillating policy toward the Iraqi dictator may have encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait. As Vice President H.W. Bush had organised much of the U.S. military and economic aid to Saddam during his eight-year war with Iran, trying as well since 1989 to get Saddam in an agreement with the US against Iran. The Administration was aware of Saddam’s potential move into Kuwait but as has been mentioned earlier failed to give a firm warning. Cheney did consider at the time that the first Iraq war was likely to face the US again in the future.  The US left however a mess in Iraq.

Let’s put it in this way: if the US Administration would not have made a pre-election deal with Khomeini and accepting the Islāmic Republic in Iran (to steal the election from Jimmy Carter by delaying the hostage crisis on purpose), there would not have been a reason to get involved in any dubious other deals with Iran, neither would there have been a reason to get involved with Saddam Hussein later on and providing him with money and weapons in exchange of a deal against Iran who could not be trusted anymore. The duplicity approach to Iraq before the first Iraq war created false anticipations from Saddam Hussein and failing to give a firm warning, based  upon US security information being available at the time that Iraq had plans to invade Kuwait created this obviously notorious invasion. However in retrospect it was in the American interest to rally support from their allies to start the Gulf war. It could have been prevented by both wise management and leadership.Commander-in-Chief Bush Sr. (widely praised for the invasion) approved dumping 375 tons of depleted uranium (DU) weaponry on Iraq during the war, despite foreknowledge that the radioactivity as a result of this would make food and water in the bombed regions unsafe for consumption on an indefinite basis (DU remains radioactive for millions of years). Depleted uranium is also suspected to be the cause of significant higher levels of birth defects and cancer cases among those in bombed areas, likewise a significant connection with the many health predicaments for those soldiers serving in the first Iraq war. US forces also destroyed electrical grids that powered 1,410 water-treatment plants for Iraq’s 22 million people. A summary from “Strategic Attack,” a 1998 US Air Force document, explains: “The electrical attacks proved extremely effective … The loss of electricity shut down the capital’s water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River.” A US Defense Intelligence Agency document in 1991 reflected: “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” predicted how sanctions would then be used to prevent Iraq from getting the equipment and chemicals necessary for water purification, which would result in “a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population” leading to “increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.”

Important now for the lead up to those wars the Clinton Administration needs to be considered as well. It is nearly astonishing. Clinton strongly supported the  sanctions against Iraq that led to hundreds of thousands deaths of Iraqis. When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked in 1996 about the roughly half a million Iraqi children that died as a result of the sanctions, her response was “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

If we look at both wars in Iraq in terms of a plane crash (with investigations “where exactly” things went wrong),it can’t be denied that “pilot error” was in place at the highest Executive branch of US Government in the dynamics leading up to those wars. This was not a plane crash which costed 200 lives, this was blundering Government policy which costed millions of lives.

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.”

The day before Rumsfeld declared officially that over 2 trillion dollars could not be accounted for in the US military budget. It “disappeared” and 9/11 prevented further investigations in this. 

Let’s say 2.4 trillion dollar lost in the military accounts is a disgrace for those who are supposed to manage both budget and accounts.

Interestingly during  House Armed Services Committee hearings, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-4-GA) that China has financed the entire Iraq War by purchasing U.S. Treasury notes. This even is raising further questions. 

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. In his January 29, 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.

Reportedly later, cities in Iraq 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.

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.

It was during the Reagan Administration with G.H.Bush being the Vice-President that in the late of spring 1986 in California two men were heading to the Hilton Hotel in Sherman Oaks, Caon. They would meet representatives of the Mujahedeen, the Afghan fighters resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Those 2 men were Ted Gunderson (both FBI Head of the Dallas field office from 1973-75 and FBI Chief of the Los Angeles field office from 1977-1979 , providing  as well services to various CIA and National Security Council operations at the time) and Michael Riconosciuto. They was there to discuss and assisting the Mujahedeen with MANPADs,-Man Portable Air Defense Systems. Stinger missiles were one possibility. If the U.S. would approve their export, Riconosciuto (a very capable man with close CIA connections) could adapt the Stinger’s electronics. In such case the guided missile would  be effective against Soviet aircraft, but would for sure not be a threat to U.S. or NATO forces. Riconosciuto through his connections with the Chinese industrial and military group, Norinco  could get the basic components for the reassembled Chinese 107 MM rocket system. These could be manufactured into a man-portable, shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft guided missile system, being produced then in Pakistan at the “Pakistan Ordinance Works”. In this case the Mujahedeen would  have a lethal weapon against any Soviet aircraft. At the hotel two representatives of the Mujahedeen were waiting to discuss their armament needs. One of the two was named “Ralph Olberg.” The other one was called Tim Osman.  “Ralph Olberg” was an American business person (working at U.S.State Department at the “Afghan desk”.)who was the head of “facilitating” American weapons and technology on behalf of the Afghan rebels. Olberg looked after the Afghanis through the “MSH – Management Sciences for Health”.The other man was a 28-year-old Saudi. Tim Osman better known now as Osama Bin Ladin. “Tim Osman” was the name provided to him by the CIA for his visit to  U.S. military bases in search of political support and armaments. This was all part of the CIA and Government policy to support this group against the Soviets, at a time Reagan was really friendly with Gorbachev, the Soviet leader.
Ted Gunderson and Riconosciuto (the last extremely bright for various reasons) had obviously some conditions for their help. There is not much for free in this world.  They had both  bad and good news to discuss. The Mujahideen needed to be willing to test those new weapons in their fight against the Soviets and to return  their experience as research project, complete with photos. The bad news was that some factions of the CIA did not really believe that Oldberg and Osman’s group were the true representatives of the Afghans. Well, I guess we can imagine this with  Ralph Oldman. He had with his US State Department background interesting dealings with Osama Bin Laden. Upon hearing however the disbelief of both Ted Gunderson and Michael Riconosciuto  Osama Bin Ladin and Ralph were quite indignant. It was part all of the game. They wanted to round up other group members and do Congressional and White House lobbying effort in Washington, D.C. This would convince “the other party” (the CIA) that they were genuine and serious. It was really serious business. To make a long story short there is a fair sign that Osama Bin Laden and Ralph Oldberg even visited the White House, after a CIA briefing. Osama bin Laden with his given CIA name Tim Osman did visit some U.S. military bases and received special demonstrations of the requested equipment. In 1991 Riconosciuto was arrested on fabricated drug charges. Fabricated as this type of man with his high-profile background and inventions had no interest whatsoever in drug crimes. Obviously this happened for a reason. The Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case tried to cover up Riconosciuto’s intelligence background by claiming to the jury that he was “delusional man.” Obviously there was a bit more to it. The TV Press came and pointed a camera out at the desert at Cabazon. Viewers could hear them saying:  “Riconosciuto says he modified the PROMIS software here.” Well, let’s be honest. This is not what the CIA wanted to get public. The AUSA [assistant U.S. Attorney] told reporters Riconosciuto had been diagnosed with a mental condition. In other words: “He’s making all this stuff up”. The Department of Justice  lied to the jury. Justice Department official Peter Viednicks threatened if Riconosciuto would cooperate with the Congressional investigation of PROMIS. PROMIS can give a complete rundown of all federal cases where lawyers have been involved. (Inslaw ,Promis)
Michael Riconosciuto went to prison. Not sure how matters evolved around Ralph Oldberg but at some extend we all know how matters evolved with Bin Laden and for certain if he was captured alive there would have been a lot he could have disclosed which as far as US CIA officials was not suitable for the public domain. What we know about Rconosciuto is that he notified the FBI in Miami about pending east African bombings, which took place on the 7th of August 1998. He was ignored. Two days before the bombings he requested being allowed to call ECOMOG security headquarters to warn African officials. Riconosciuto was again ignored by the relevant government authorities. Parties being including (the Miami FBI office as well) were all along aware that the bombings would take place. It was the planning that they should happen, for a purpose. The same seems true for the September 11 attacks. It 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. If properly investigated an act of “high treason”.
Riconosciuto made further claims about Bio-Rad corporation which had taken over Hercules, California. Riconosciuto said that they were covertly engaged in bio-warfare research – producing some of the deadliest toxins known to man. The focus of Bio-Rad’s research was said to be bio-active elements which could be tailored to attack those with certain types of DNA. Weapons as such to be produced were specifically designed to wipe out specific races or genetic classes of human beings. Some may wonder which races to be irradicated and what sort of plans have been on file. Obviously all classified as “top secret”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkyYZDR0sFo&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E&feature=player_detailpage

It can’t be denied that at the time the Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States supported the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents with several hundred million dollars a year fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan Mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987 said:”It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. 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. This management has been profound repugnant considering all the implications.

Throughout the 80ties Bin Laden and his network  was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.” The US Government and the US continued to deny any connections. In a discussion with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto reflected that Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, also stated that Bin Laden appreciated the United States help in Afghanistan. As far as the Iranian state-owned Press TV, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been sacked from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed the United States was on intimate terms with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia. Bin Laden once said “the collapse of the Soviet Union … goes to God and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan … the US had no unmentionable role,” but “collapse made the US more naughty and arrogant. From this stage the relationship changed in profound ways, as part of a US policy of mixed agenda’s and duplicity as mentioned in the article about the Bush,sr Administration. The involvement with the Taliban to support terror against the Soviets at a time the 2 super powers agreed to ease tensions was both highly controversial and planted the seeds for anti-American terror eventually which apparently seemed to be required to provoke a war with a stand down of all defensive systems and the CIA providing the actors on the scene free play, followed by controlled demolition of the WTC buildings by the CIA itself. This provided the US an excuse to go to war. There is far more to say and to add. Without spending to many words however it would seem that the Bush Administration by choice elaborated on certain currents within the the Military Establishment with both Cheney and Rumsfeld being driving forces, “to go to war for pleasure” as President Lincoln once warned for. It was the culmination of both profound and criminal misleading information, both in the public domain, and within the intelligence community. The last  based on a most controversial foreign US policy for years leading up to those costly drama’s, both in terms of human lives and increasing reckless budget deficits, contributing to widespread instability on the world markets. A terrible legacy for the US, a terrible legacy for the world and the next US President. Not a legacy for former US President G.W.Bush to enjoy peacefully retirement in Dallas,Forth Worth. Ironically the same place where John F Kennedy was shot in an ambush of Government facilitated crime in which both the CIA and Bush,sr were  involved as well.

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 say more 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. Former US President Jimmy Carter expressed however support for new investigations into the 9/11 attacks in 2009, but till so far no progress has been made.

We know about the defining moments of the post 9/11 ara. 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. During his Administration under the guise of national security there have been wide-spread dangerous aerosol and electromagnetic operations as reflected in the YouTube video about Chemtrails. Chemtrails and terror in the age of nuclear war.

The question is whether this Bush Administration lost both their mind and their conscience at the cost of many victims inside and outside the US. Both Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are neither able to go to Germany or to Switzerland as there would be a risk they have to stand trial. The question is why the US did not open new investigations in some drama’s from the past, to prevent them happening in the future again.

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 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 look 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.

Whilst a good defence system is vital,whilst prevention of terror is essential, there is no need to provoke it, or provoke conflicts and get without need involved in wars. It is both a matter of reason and a matter of choice.

With a major  federal budget deficit President G.W.Bush left the White House on the 21nd of January 2009.

A few video YouTube presentations follow underneath. There are many. Some are good original quality, some are poorly edited. The first one being edited and not that ideal in quality perhaps is raising issues which do call for further investigations: many things being raised are true, some are for certain not proven (!) but do call for further investigations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL-ejf2_LFw&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdZlIEVtzN8&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcfmWaCjNzE&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj3AECSKmhU&feature=player_detailpage

Next chapter (Part 11) will be the last chapter of these series: “Epilogue”

There is nothing special or noble about what some U.S. government leaders have done to America since November 22, 1963. The “New World Order” as proclaimed by Bush, sr and supported by various Administrations by the means they tended to operate and control systems of government inside and outside the US had little to do with what the voters intended when they did chose their US President. Some of those US Presidents were seriously out of touch with reality and the needs of their country, not to speak about the real needs of this world where they could have made a difference.

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 8 – former President H.W. Bush)


George H.W. Bush as Vice President of the Unit...

George H.W. Bush as Vice President of the United States, official portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The 41nd US President Herbert Walker Bush

 
 “America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the nation and gentler the face of the world”.   – H.B. Bush.
 
Again an interesting US President for various reasons. An impressive background, highly intelligent, smart in his various dealings. Reportedly not without a sense of humour.

Every US President has at least some positives, however for most of them can be said that certain activities could have been dealt with differently. In the run up to their US Presidency all those President-elects had different backgrounds, different roles and as such within the context of earlier roles different perceptions.  Lyndon Johnson claimed that ” after each success there is a crime.” Personally I am not so sure about this, but he was  “a wise man” with lots of insights in the dynamics of power and how to meet and support power within the circles of Washington. However, I would suggest to state that some success is based on crime and other success is not based on crime. For certain not “each success” is based on crime, and if it would prove for US Presidents being elected that after their success there is a crime, it becomes time to change this for the future of the US.

As explained earlier (for each of these articles), not the total legacy of the Presidency as such will be discussed. Subject of the discussion is the violations of justice in general, and in some occasions more specific against the law and the Constitution. Obviously with some of the implications.

In the range of violations of justice there have been various levels in which justice, the law  or the Constitution, can be violated. This applies to the former US President H.W. Bush as well. Bush,sr has been valued in different ways, from different point of views.  When President Bush lost the 1992 elections to Bill Clinton, he retired from public service. He worked together with Bill Clinton since the latter’s retirement from the presidency to raise money for the tsunami victims in Thailand (2004) and for the victims from Hurricane Katrina (2005). He is an elderly and frail man now.

Born in Milton, Massachusetts, 1924 as the son of a most influential Connecticut Senator (Prescott Bush, – more senior even!), Bush served from 1942 until 1945 in the Navy. Besides this he was the youngest pilot. At Yale University he received a degree in Economics and established then an oil company in Texas. Bush in his Yale years was elected President of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity, a secret organisation (later more about secret organisations). During the race for the Senate in 1964 against the Democrat Ralph Yarborough, Bush condemned the Civil Right act of 1964, regretting however this condemnation later in life. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1966 and in 1970 he became US embassador to the UN. During the Watergate scandal with former US  President Nixon being involved, Bush was the chairman of the Republican national Committee under the Nixon/Ford Administration (1973-1974). This Committee aimed to help with the re-election of Richard Nixon. Both Nixon and the Bushes had close family ties as friends and common interests.  Bush was a profound defender of Nixon in the Watergate scandal with much background knowledge as well that Watergate could show more than desired as due to some particular  CIA agents being involved. Bush knew who were involved, including a dangerous connection with the past better not to be revealed to the public as this could mean jail for many. In the real Watergate burglary the lead CIA agent being hired to the job was  E  Howard Hunt, together with a few others .  This special CIA agent Howard Hunt was involved in the JFK assassination as well, with various significant Bay of Pigs connections. The Bay of Pigs did show on a failed invasion in Cuba at the early start of the JFK Presidency.  Nixon had Hunt to lead the Watergate operations as due to suspected JFK assassination material potentially to be found in the Democratic Headquarters of the Watergate building. Hunt knew exactly what to look for.  However once Hunt was caught he demanded from Nixon $1000000,- and to be kept out of jail, otherwise he would tell everything about the JFK assassination. Nixon was not very happy with this prospect. He told the FBI to stop investigating Hunt as he was seriously worried that Hunt would blow the whistle about the Kennedy assassination. Nixon was one of the people being involved as he was actually the architect of the Pay of Pig Invasion planned already under President Eisenhower, in close coöperation with Allen Dulles, – the CIA Director at the time. As we know Nixon was Vice President under Eisenhower and had a quite powerful position with powerful CIA connections.  Besides this it was the father of H.W.Bush being so influential that he commended Eisenhower to run for President and take Richard Nixon on as his Vice-President. It happened as he advised. Both Nixon and the Bushes were close. They did owe each other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dcHwMqc5pTA                                                                                                                    (George H.W. Bush’s connection with the JFK assassination)

Prescott Bush, the father of G.W Bush and the granddad of G.W Bush (or Bush, jr) was strongly opposed against a Kennedy Presidency and Nixon did receive substantial campaign support during the 1960 elections from Prescott Bush, who has been an influential Senator. As we know the invasion in Cuba failed as JFK being instructed by the CIA that the Bay of Pig invasion would be an easy thing without US forces being required, refused to use US forces when it appeared that the Bay of Pig Invasion became a disaster. Kennedy did not want an escalating war on Cuba and was dismayed about the way he was misled by the CIA. As a result of this Kennedy sacked Allen Dulles due to poor provided intelligence. Allen Dulles had both very close connections with Nixon, Bush and Johnson. Since the Bay of Pig disaster JFK has been on a collision course with both the CIA and the military leaders, and ignored advise to attack the missile sites on Cuba during the 1962 Cuba Crisis. Many years later Russian intelligence proved that the missile sites in Cuba during this crisis had already nuclear missiles and Russian commanders in Cuba were under the instruction to fire those missiles to major US cities in case the US would attack Cuba.  In retrospect this intelligence information was reportedly available within the CIA at the time,  but never tabled for discussion as some hardliner generals wanted to attack Cuba.

Through backdoor diplomacy JFK  was actually able to save the world from a nuclear holocaust. His Generals however became increasing unhappy with Kennedy when it became known that he was intending to withdraw from Vietnam. The dynamics leading up to his assassination are in part reflected in an article which can be found in the June archive of this web blog.

Bush,sr (G.H.Bush) was part of the CIA, being fully aware of the pending assassination in Dallas. He was involved in a full CIA briefing the day after the assassination, as reflected in a formal FBI memo being later released. Howard Hunt had paid off the hit team and Richard Nixon was involved via the Bay of Pig connections, who “hated Kennedy”. The former Vice-President Johnson who had a background of corruption via the Bobby Baker scandal was in the process of being fired by the Kennedy’s after Robert Kennedy leaked evidence of LBJ’s corruption to LIFE Magazine, before the assassination of his brother. Both FBI Chief J Edgar Hoover, close friends of Johnson and Nixon, and those who controlled the CIA did consider JFK as a danger and it was decided to take Kennedy out of the picture with a stand down of the CIA in Dallas on the 22nd of November 1963 and a hit team being hired. Vice-President Johnson was involved at a very early stage, with CIA background dynamics and high level contacts, including close Nixon/Bush and Allen Dulles links. Besides this he was more than willing to escalate the war in Vietnam. LBJ always thought that he should have been the US President and not Kennedy. His large ego was hurt when Kennedy got the Democratic nomination in 1960, but Kennedy did chose him as his running mate to help him to combat the southern states. It is correct that Johnson had far longer experience and besides this he was the majority leader in the Senate. Once in the White House as Vice-President (with great dislike for both the Kennedy brothers), he connected with old friends and enemies alike to serve a common purpose. Nixon being the former Republican Vice President before the Kennedy Administration (and architect of the Bay of Pig plan’s under Eisenhower) had powerful friends in both the CIA and FBI as well. FBI Chief Edgar Hoover was his friend, he shared this friend with Lyndon Johnson.

Opening Watergate investigations would open the link to Howard Hunt and if Hunt would speak about the Kennedy assassination, Nixon and all the others, with all the complexities of corrupted US governments after the JFK assassination would come to daylight. Hence  G.W. Bush‘s closest business partner Bill Liedtke paid Hunt the requested $1000000,- .

Bush working in very close coöperation with Nixon as head of his re-election committee at the time of the Watergate break-in was obviously aware of the reasons behind the Watergate break-in. If it would prove that the Democratic Party had access to aerial photographs/”video” at the time of the JFK assassination, proving that the Oswald theory in connection with the JFK assassination was fabricated, he would be eventually inflicted as well. Liedtke was the Texas finance chairman for both the Presidential campaigns for Richard Nixon.  Bush had close connections with Liedtke via the Zapata Corporation, -as mentioned. As reflected both former President Bush, Nixon and Johnson had joint interest and involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Obviously therefore it was in Bush’s interest as well that Hunt would be silenced. Jack Ruby (who killed Oswald)  worked for Nixon when Richard Nixon was a member of US Congress (under the name of Jack Rubenstein) and reportedly Nixon ordered Ruby to kill Oswald, with full backup from both the FBI and Mafia connections. Those connections have been always there, with whom both Bush and the CIA had close links in the “Bay of Pigs” associations.

President Herbert Walker Bush has a most interesting background and played a most important role as Vice President under President Reagan. 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.

As one may see, the world is small in “the circles of Washington”. The dynamics and interconnections are interesting.  Jack Ruby before he died in prison with no reason to lie or being afraid anymore was interviewed just before he died and said a highly interesting thing, confirming other sources on the important background role Lyndon Johnson played in the JFK assassination. He said on video tape:  “If Adlai Stevenson had been Vice President, there never would have been an assassination of President Kennedy.” The reporter asked: “Can you explain that?”

Ruby answered:    “The answer is the man who is in office now.” He did indicate on President Lyndon Johnson.

If we look now in retrospect on the assassination of Robert F Kennedy by the CIA, the background history of both Lyndon Johnson, J.Edgar Hoover at the time being the FBI Chief, and Richard Nixon the Republican candidate for the US Presidency, we can’t deny that there have been various interested parties as well not to have Robert F Kennedy being the next US President in 1968, and all major background forces working again together as well on this point to prevent this from happening, as everybody till so far mentioned would be “screwed up” with an RFK Presidency as RFK would not be the person to resist justice where justice should be applied.

Once Nixon got the US Presidency in 1968,  G.H. Bush was appointed ambassador for the UN by President Nixon and reportedly he did this with great pleasure and enthusiasm. He served then as US envoy to China (1974-1975), followed by a nomination to CIA Director in 1976 under President Gerald Ford.  (Like Bush, Ford was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity as well – a secret society).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDbnrr_Jt_8&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                                   (Bush at the CIA, as CIA Director)

Nominating Bush to CIA Director was a political choice for Ford to prevent further leaks via the CIA, with a reflection to improve the image of the CIA. Preventing further leaks was most important for Ford as well as he played a highly misleading role in the Warren Commission, with him leaking all confidential information to FBI Chief Hoover. Bush’s Directorship of the CIA lasted until 1977 and was first perceived as most controversial by Senator Frank Church who did lead Senate investigations in various political assassinations in the US, including the JFK assassination (the Church Committee).

During his time as CIA Director Bush established an assessment of the Soviet threat by a team of non governmental security specialists in comparison with the official CIA estimate. This actually alarming assessment of non governmental hawks was obviously brought to the attention of Ronald Reagan when Bush became his Vice-President.  During the Republican Presidential nomination in 1980 he lost from Ronald Reagan, however becoming  as mentioned his Vice – President with a significant impact on Reagan, – as illustrated in the edition about Ronald Reagan. Officially the influence of H.W. Bush as vice-President has been always played down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbW61a3YGzE&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                             (G.H.W. Bush sold illegally missiles from Israel to Iran)

In 1988 after Reagan’s second term in office,  Bush,sr defeated the democratic candidate Michael Dukakis and became the next US President. Needless to say that his election was a profound bonus for both the CIA and the Pentagon. His Administration from 1989 lasted for 4 years and was centred around an aggressive foreign policy including an invasion of Panama in 1989 to get Manual Noriega replaced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=22YnJxDFUQE                                                                                                                               (The Panama Deception Part 1 /12 parts)

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 if so required.  At a joint session of  US Congress regarding 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bleWRYGg6f8&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                               (Part 1: Operation Desert Storm -“The Persian Gulf War”)

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. Generally spoken note that when “you sleep with dictators”, neither sleeping on your right side or left side is comfortable and in foreign policy you need to be double aware of the risks. By principle it is better to refrain from this as the purpose will defeat the principle on other occasions, as illustrated in the full recognition of the Islāmic Republic in Iran in exchange of foreign assistance in a Republican Presidential victory for Ronald Reagan, apart from weapons etc and the Iran-Contra scandal.

It is this lack of clarity in the Middle East which contributed to the first Iraq war.

In retrospect the first Iraq war could have been prevented by a more proactive US approach, but this approach failed as due to a shared interest against Iran, being likely the determining reason not to give more clarity to Saddam before the war. Besides this some do consider the invasion of Kuwait providing the US an excuse, deliberately not preventing such an invasion, which could have been done by a more forceful message as soon as te CIA was informed that Saddam made preparations to invade Kuwait. Bush stopped all military activity and did not pursue deposing Saddam Hussein, as part of a policy of duplicity

Despite his reservations as Vice – President under Reagan about the approach to the Soviet Union, Bush himself as President was able to have a good relationship as well with Gorbachev  eventually and he signed a nuclear arms limitation with the Soviets. In 1992 he did help the North American Free Trade Agreementwith Canada and Mexico.

Economically, Bush did put himself into a hard spot with his campaign promise: “Read my lips: No new taxes.” However, he had to sign a bill into law to raise taxes to try and cut the deficit. Bush signed into law a bail out plan paid for by taxpayers after many savings and loans were failing in 1989. His domestic achievements were considered not to be significant and in a climate of economic recession and public disappointment he lost the Presidential elections against Bill Clinton.

In summary the major events during his only 4 years term in office were the Invasion of Panama (1989), the Savings and Loan bail out (1989), the Exxon Valdezoil spill in Alaska (1989), the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990),the Break up of the Soviet Union (1991) and finally the Persian Gulf War (1990-91).

With the Bush statement to Congress defending the first Iraq war indicating the importance of  “a world where the rule of law is stronger than the rule of the jungle”, – still there are questions and remarks in the total picture leading up to the Presidency of G. H.W. Bush:  

1.  How did the plane from being controlled by Barry Seal, the most notorious drug smuggler in American history, to becoming, according to state officials,  a favored airplane of Texas Governor George W. Bush and what was the Bush family connection with the Iran-Contra-drugs scandal?
 
2.  Did the CIA indeed give proof that Vice President George H.W. Bush at the time was a key decision maker in illegal Contra support operations connected to the acquisition of this plane   and that his staff participated in the most vital financial, working and political decisions?
(A murderous cover-up featured Seal’s public assassination by a hit team. The members, when caught, reveal to their attorneys during trial that their actions were being directed by the National Security Council staffer – Lt. Colonel Oliver North then  –  see last edition about Reagan. If this would prove to be the case it would seem normal practice to use criminals to do the dirty work, take advantage of it, and once they are used for a dirty purpose to get rid of them as their evidence being provided in court or in a hearing of the Senate could be most damaging for the US Government. If this would prove to be a pattern the death of bin-Laden could be questioned as well as the same person (Tim Laden) was on the pay list of the CIA years before the 9/11 attacks. More will follow about this.)
3.  In a 1998 CIA Inspector General’s report of Contra-era cocaine trafficking , the CIA admits to “briefing” then Vice President Bush on how they lied to Congress about cocaine trafficking by its agents. It becomes clear that former President G.W.Bush had secrets to hide from the American public. The CIA Inspector General’s report into allegations of Contra cocaine trafficking is a non-classified document.
 
“If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down

the streets and lynched.”

George Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter
George Bush with  CIA agent Felix Rodriguez a.k.a. “Mr. Gomez” who ran the Mexican part of the Iran-Contra guns and drug running operation
 
4.  Early1982, Barry Seal began flying private planes into an airport in Arkansas ( Mena). He was hooked up with the CIA and moved the base of his operations from Louisiana to Mena airport.  The CIA was keen to use Seal’s fleet of planes to carry both legal and illegal supplies to Contra camps in Honduras and Costa Rica.
5.  Several other planes being used by Barry Seal were owned indirectly by the CIA airline Southern Air Transport (SAT). SouthernCongressional and public records find Air as a CIA proprietary being connected to Casey,George H.W. Bush, Secord, Singluab and Rodriguez.
 
6.  Attorneys in Arkansas wanting to have an investigation in matters evolving at Mena airport did not receive any support from the Governor at the time William Jefferson Clinton.  A public request for further investigation was ignored and once President, – Clinton was neither correct nor truthful to the press about any of his involvement or knowledge, claiming that it was a Federal Issue which had nothing to do with him, and that he provided all support to have the matter properly investigated, which was claimed not to be true by the attorneys who said that their ask for funding an investigation was ignored. In other words, what are the Bush – Clinton links in the Iran Contra scandal for which an airport was used in Arkansas (Mena) for a major CIA coördinated drug trafficking scandal?
 
7 .  Interesting is the list of people being pardoned by the former US President H.W.Bush. On December 24, 1992, he granted executive clemency to six former government employees implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s, most prominently former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Weinberger, who had  to stand trial on January 5, 1993,  due to criminal charges related to the Iran-Contra scandal, was described by Bush as a “true American patriot”. In addition  George H.W. Bush pardoned Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. McFarlane, Elliott Abrams, and Alan G. Fiers Jr. They were  all  indicted and/or convicted of criminal charges by an Independent Counsel.
 
7.  All three generations Bush  have been and are members of a most powerful and most secret society. It’s called The order of Skull and Bones. Skull and Bones is an undergraduate senior or secret society at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. It is a traditional peer society to Scroll and Key and Wolf’s Head, as the three senior class ‘landed societies’ at Yale. Judith Ann Schiff, Chief Research Archivist at the Yale University Library wrote: “The names of its members weren’t kept secret — that was an innovation of the 1970s — but its meetings and practices were.” Among the prominent  members are/were President and Supreme Court Justice William Howard Taft (son of a founder of the society), former President George H. W. Bush, his son former President George Bush and many others.  “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. 
 
8.  Did the Bushes help to kill JFK?
 
Bush denied his position of being a high-ranking CIA official at the time of JFK’s death. During the assassination he has been identifies at Daley Plaza.  See first Youtube listing of this article for further information.
 
We started this article already with the complexities of various involvements.

Just a bit of further history:

Reportedly Prescott Bush (G.W.Bush’s dad) gave Averell Harriman on the 19th of March 1934 a copy of the New York Times that day. The Polish government was in the process of trying to sell Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company. There were profound reasons for this linked with the German Second World war history.  The Polish government requested the new owners of the company with over 45% of Poland’s steel production, to pay at least its full share of back taxes. Prescott Bush and Harriman would hire attorney John Foster Dulles to help cover up “any improprieties” that might arise under further investigations being pending perhaps. For more background see provided by Toby Rogers: http://www.clamormagazine.org/issues/14/feature3.shtml

We make a little jump in time, but for a reason as to illustrate the strong Dulles connections with the Bush family:

Six months after the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968, Prescott ( G.W.Bush’s dad) writes a letter to Clover Dulles, wife of Allen Dulles, blaming  the Kennedy’s for the failure of the Bay of Pigs. Both father and son had strong interests in the Bay of Pigs invasion being succesful against Castro. As earlier mentioned Richard Nixon was a strongly interested party as well.

In the 1950’s Prescott and the Harrimans became the founders of CBS. In 1963, CBS reporter Dan Rather makes his career break with the Kennedy Assassination by lying to the American public that he had seen JFK’s head moving violently forward on the Zapruder film. To hear Dan Rather lying click here.

The lie is not really strange as the Zapruder film was bought by Time Life and kept locked away from the public for some 15 years. Time Life was founded and operated  by Henry Luce, interestingly a member of Skull and Bones as well. We just discussed Skull and Bones. An oath to Skull and Bones is an oath and people within Skull and Bones help each other. Henry Luce had many friends including General Edward Lansdale, a known covert operative for the CIA. Henry Luce and his wife  Clare Booth Luce ( Congresswoman) were  personal friends with another high-ranking covert operative for the CIA David Atlee Phillips, known within the CIA for his powerful help with the overthrow of the Guatemala regime in 1954 headed by Jacoba Arbenz.

Edward Lansdale and David Atlee Phillips are widely accepted as key planners of the JFK assassination. Sam Giancana’s biography “Double Cross” (to read the page click here) gives a further insight in David Phillips. David Atlee Phillips continued to work for the CIA and became the mastermind for the CIA staged coup by Pinochet in 1973.  Phillips had a highly regarded CIA reputation. He  worked closely with CIA officer E. Howard Hunt. We discussed Hunt earlier in both the Watergate burglary, knowing to look for after his involvement in the JFK assassination.  In the 1950’s and 1960’s, Phillips was the CIA case officer for the anti Castro Cubans in Havana and Mexico City. He was also the CIA controller for Lee Harvey Oswald and James Files. James Files has confessed that he fired the shot into JFK’s head from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll in Daley Plaza. This story is ignored by a somehow controlled  mainstream media.  David Atlee Phillips rises later to CIA director of Covert Operations for the Western Hemisphere. According to his nephew Shawn Phillips, the famous musician, David Atlee Phillips confirmed to his brother James Atlee Phillips that he was in Dallas the day Kennedy died.


The following document  being  declassified the other day, puts George H.W.  close to Dallas within 2 hours of JFK’s assassination:

The above document (as it shows as well in the first YouTube listing in this article) places Bush in Dallas on  the day and night of 22nd of November 1963.

This is an F.B.I. memorandum, dated November 29, 1963, is from Director J. Edgar Hoover to the State Department and 
is subject-headed "Assassination nt John F. Kennedy November 22, 1963." In it, Hoover reports that the Bureau had briefed 
"Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" shortly after the assassination on the reaction of Cuban exiles in Miami. 
A source with close connections to the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, 
using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities.

George H. W. Bush is bringing up the name James Parrott. 

Who is James Parrott? Bush wants to keep his telephone call confidential. If he thought Parrott was a serious threat for Kennedy in Houston, why is this warning revealed after the real assassination at 1.45 pm? Actually Kennedy had just visited Houston the day before on the 21nd of November 1963. FBI reports do show that they prevented a plot in Houston. The document states that Bush stayed at the Sheraton Dallas Hotel intending to return to his residence on the 23rd of November.  There is photographic material available that he was positioned close to the entrance of the Texas School Book Depository at Dealy Plaza in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination. Obviously there is a story about Bush to the Kennedy assassination of which we don’t know the finer details, and those details have never been publicly disclosed. Bush did tell Chief FBI Hoover about a conspiracy involving pro Castro Cubans in Miami on the 29th of November 1963. He gives the image to help, but both he and Hoover do know better. The assassination had nothing to do with pro Castro Cubans, as both Bush and Hoover knew at the time. It was just distraction public attention from reality.       Is it possible that above document provides Bush with an alibi or other denial? 

The interesting thing is that thirty years later the same James Parrott is linked with Bush’s presidential campaign against William Jefferson Clinton.
The FBI agent that took Bush’s call was Graham Kitchel, a favourite of FBI Director, J. E. Hoover who was briefing Bush of the CIA on November 23, 1963 . On the 13th of October 1999, Bruce Adamson called Kenneth B. Jackson the FBI agent who investigated Parrott and received Bush’s complaint. Interestingly Mr. Jackson refused to return Adamson’s phone call.

The plots to kill both JFK  and RFK do have both  their origines in forces working closely together on the Bay of Pigs and the plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. Various of these forces had their own reasons to recapture Cuba and to hate Kennedy, whom they also blamed for the failure of the Bay of Pigs apart from other things. It can’t be denied that both JFK and RFK in the total picture of things worked at the better end of the moral spectrum in the circles of Washington, against all odds, – against a highly criminal infestation of the highest levels of Government and Governments to come.  These groups were 1) The CIA with the approval of some of the highest government officials (like Johnson, Hoover, Ford and Nixon) 2) The anti Castro Cuban exiles 3) Mafiabosses Sam Giancana , Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante and 4) wealthy industrialists and Texan oilmen like H.L. Hunt, Syd Richardson and Clint Murchison. George H.W. Bush has documented connections to all four groups.

Sam Giancana states in his biography that he knew Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon personally (to read the page click here), as well as the aforementioned oil millionaires and George Demohrenshildt (to read the page click here), , and that they planned the JFK assassination together. James Files, the confessed grassy knoll assassin who fired the fatal shot into JFK’s head, did not only work for Sam Giancana, but was recruited in the CIA to train Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs, by none other than David Atlee Phillips. He claims that one of his later senior supervisors in covert operations was George H.W. Bush.

Bush was part of this Government corruption, for years to last.  Neither former Presidents Johnson, nor Nixon, nor Ford, nor G.H. Bush were at the right end of the moral spectrum. They played all their part in the Coupe d’Etat as it took place in Dallas on the 22nd of November 1963. Mainstream media has been controlled on various issues.

We can say that life continued with incriminated people in power at the highest level of executive Powers in the US. It is as Michael Corleone once said to his wife Kate commenting on the family business of his father in the film “the Godfather”. When Kate said that Senators and especially Presidents do not kill (in comparison with Mafia bosses), – he said: “Kate you are naïve, Presidents do kill, like mafia bosses do kill.

Both the Senate and US citizens have been naïve about the operations of US Government for many years.

With all the glamour of the US Presidency, the way media do present it, the secret undercurrents in history which damaged “this special Office” have never been changed as both the CIA and other Agencies do impact both domestic policies at some extend and foreign policies at a large extend. Even if  ” reason”  was trying to protect the US, there have been so many occasions that reason did not protect the US, not by error but by calculation.

If patriotism means loyalty to people at the wrong end of the moral spectrum and those people get pardoned without proper investigation, being nominated in later Governments with greater responsibilities, there is the risk that the cancer of injustice is further spreading, despite perhaps the charming presentation of Government.

History will show that the years from Johnson until G.W Bush did shed a dark light on the political system of the US. 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.

Real security of the US can be only established by a total shift in perception on the world and America itself, but this requires vision and voters being ready to buy into such an attempt as it will cost in Winston Churchill words: “‘Blood sweat and tears'”.  It is however the only solution  to avoid moral and financial bankruptcy, and the Presidency of Obama gives the US at least a chance to start again where the lives of both JFK and RFK were taken away by murderous plots.

At the end of  G.W. Bush’s Presidency it seems he became to realise that it is US interest to reduce the tensions in the world. He played his part in history with moments of victory and disaster. He was brought up in the perceptions of the cold war, and those perceptions played part in the many choices he made, but at the end he became to the next step of required awareness.

All this however does not take away that he played part in a broader context within the assassination of a US President, that he played part in/or coördinated a highly controversial way to get the Republicans with Reagan in the White House through facilitating a deal with Khomeini by recognising the Islāmic Republic of Iran with a non-interference policy in exchange for prolonging the hostage crisis in Iran to defeat Carter in the Presidential elections. This time not a Coupe d’Etat by assassination but a Coupe d’Etat by compromising the political system in the US. He played a key role in the Iran Contra scandal with planes full of drugs landing in Mena (Arkansas) at the time Bill Clinton being the Governor of this State. This was an illegal and criminal operation. Whilst playing favours towards Iraq and Saddam Hussein as he realised that the Islāmic Republic in Iran could be less trusted than the Iraq Government, he failed to warn Iraq not to invade Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was under the impression that he could make this move and the US was aware that he was preparing for this move. A firm US warning could have prevented the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, could have prevented the first Iraq war, could have prevented all the deaths being involved. However “the non principle centred leadership of Bush” with his high level CIA connections and  no sense of proper direction assumed that Saddam could still be an ally against Iran, hence the war not being properly finished. It proved that the policy of Bush to try to attract Iraq as an ally against Iran and failing to clarify what is justified and not justified on border issues with Kuwait, followed by war against Iraq when Iraq indeed crossed the lines, did not allow any leverage anymore for the US with Iraq.

Knowing what sort of dictator Saddam was Bush failed in the objectives of this war allowing Saddam to become a real enemy. Unless there was a reason to do so which we do not know. Hence a second war against Iraq has been in preparation for some time after the Bush,sr Administration, which will be discussed later.

Poor foreign policy not being principle centred and allowing scope for plenty duplicitous is a disaster for the US, both financial and in terms of human lives. The background of the powerful Bush family with historically strong CIA ties and ties with secret organisations reflects a trend of adding to duplicity, corruption, lawlessness and both human right abuses and assassinations. A good father can look well after his family, can look well after his friends, but if he commits crimes outside the domain of his family he needs to face justice. However like Johnson and Nixon did not face justice, neither Nixon nor Ford nor Reagan and Bush,sr faced justice.

Justice has been seriously compromised both under the Bush Administration and his predecessors well, apart from Carter. The assassination on both JFK and RFK did create a precedent to allow and permit high level criminal activity  in the White House. This is what Robert Kennedy on behalf of his brother John F Kennedy was trying to prevent. His mission was to keep the Administration clean, hence his efforts to get LBJ replaced for a different Vice-President.

What happened then was an enduring culture and legacy of those people and their Administrations to be continued in key positions at later Administrations and the tool has been various Presidential Pardons for people with criminal or controversial actions who did do the President a favour by taking the brunt for illegal activities being approved.

It has been no coincidence that a number of Presidents have been elected as such as they had the support from background powers with media control. They know how to make it look great from the outside, but the truth about background dealings in the past is repugnant. As Lyndon Johnson claimed that “after each success there is a crime” was true for both himself,former President Nixon, former President Ford and former President George H.W. Bush.

If the US is neither able to cherish values and principles at the level of the White House, nor cut the excessive level of influence of both the CIA and the Pentagon on policymaking by people with integrity  not subject to prove, – the systems of executive powers will be again and again  corrupted with various cover up’s and assassinations and this will undermine the credibility of the US more and more. Not only as a Democracy not being true to its Founding Fathers, but both as well as a corrupting financial power who robbed the country from its wealth and innocent lives, by many CIA directed war’s  neither being with a true purpose nor with any reasonable sense. If the US had lived up to to virtue of integrity and wisdom at the level of the “Commander in Chief”, the US would not have been required to be involved in any war since the second world war as the undivided strengths of wisdom and integrity at the top executive levels would have been able to avoid both Vietnam, both Iraq 1 and 2 and finally Afghanistan. The US created an enemy in itself, a most powerful enemy in the Union guiding the US to those wars and now the US has to face the implications. Implications which can’t be expected from the current President to be resolved. If you get a new captain on a sinking ship, it will be a miracle if this ship remains floating, it will be a miracle to close the various holes which caused this ship to become a sinking ship.

Eventually the power of the US may crumble as a house divided in duplicity does not stand the chance for Democracy,  not even for a fake Democracy.

On February 15, 2011 Bush,sr was awarded the Medal of Freedom—the highest civilian honor in the United States—by President Barack Obama. However it would not surprise me if this reward was a strategic choice as the Bush family seemed to have most powerful connections within the CIA and I guess the last words about Bush,sr are not spoken as yet.

Next chapter (Part 9) will discuss former US President “Bill” Clinton.

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 7 – former President Ronald Reagan)


Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan
Image via Wikipedia

The 40th US President Ronald Wilson Reagan

 
“Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction” – Ronald Reagan.
 
“Government is not the solution to our problems;government is the problem”  – Ronald Reagan.
An interesting man and an interesting US President. Perceived by many as one of the greatest US Presidents over the last decades, and Republicans often proudly refer to him. There is however more to him than the strict public image as cherished by many, but it proves that public image and the reality of some background events are not always the same and sometimes easily forgotten. Or sometimes not even published or known. Needless to say that Reagan was interesting , with an unusual background and an extremely level of high achievement at elderly age. Amazing actually the move he made from the film industry to the business of politics and even getting elected US President. But how?

Ronald Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, in 1911 and in a family with an Irish background. He signed up as a film actor by Warner Brothers in 1937 and moved to Hollywood making his début in “Love is in the air”. He participated and starred in about 50 films, including “Bed time for Bonzo” and”The Killers”.

Despite being an admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt  he became a republican once getting interesting in politics and especially after his second marriage in 1952 with the wealthy actress Nancy Davis.  Joining the Republicans in 1962 he made an impressive television appeal  for the Republican party and Barry M  Goldwater during the Presidential campaign in 1964.

In 1960 Reagan actually already campaigned for Richard Nixon, – she he got the flavour of all this besides some experience.

By 1966 Reagan became elected Governor of California and served in this place for 8 years. He did loose the Republican nomination to Richard Nixon in 1968. In 1980 however he managed to defeat Jimmy Carter within the turbulent economic situation of the US, together with an Iran hostage crisis dragging on without being resolved.  Ironically hours after his inauguration the hostages were released, as part of a pre-election deal with a close relative of Khomeini in both Paris and Madrid with representatives of the Reagan/Bush campaign team, if they were not themselves involved. As will be reflected later on with President G.W.Bush, this was somewhat controversial the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG1iCCS7gDo&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                                  (Iran-hostage crisis – Discovery channel)

Both Bush and Reagan were most worried that President Carter would be reelected and they offered as non official US representatives a better deal to Khomeini will full recognition of the Islāmic Republic in Iran and a policy on non-interference, in return for prolonging the hostage crisis until after the US Presidential elections. This would defeat President Carter, as it did. Obviously this was strongly undermining the Presidency of Jimmy Carter  at the cost of hostages and at the cost of long-term security interests of the US and at a cost of any morality standards. The last  will be shown as well in 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. Reportedly both George H.W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Jeb Bush were involved either by participating and/or 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 show the activities of the Reagan/Bush Administration to Congress.  Bush as Vice-President with close CIA connections was fully aware as it was a large-scale CIA operation.

Reagan’s first year in office did show the greatest changes in priorities since the “New Deal” of Roosevelt.  The economy and recession were significant problems. Reagan managed to cut taxes and carry out economic reforms, apart from building up the US defence systems to “allow the country to negotiate from a position of strength”. The invasion of Grenada in October 1983 did boost US self-confidence. His 6 National Security advisers did include Admiral John Pointdexter and marine Colonel Oliver North. The last 2 interesting advisers will be discussed in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Following an assassination attempt in 1881 and despite much economic problems not being resolved still, President Reagan became reelected in 1984 with a record majority. By 1984 however the economy was on the mend and his program on domestic issues involving tax cut and deficit financing did contribute between 1983 and 1986 to the improvement of the economy. It did not last however as military spending increased. Close to the end of Reagan’s second term in office there was an unprecedented government debt. The Gross federal Debt had increased from $900 billion to $ 2.7 trillion. Ford and  Carter combined did only double Federal debt  and what took almost 31 years to make the first postwar debt tripling, Reagan managed to this in eight years. The question with federal debt is still where the priorities are, whether the budget needs to come at least for quite some part at the benefit of US citizens or whether a disproportionate part is used for both (often proper) military activities, besides many  illegal covert operations, – wasting  lives and resources in often pointless conflicts. The Khomeini/Reagan deal was a short-term solution for Republican election benefit, but a disastrous long-term solution for US interest in Iran considering the size and dangers of the military in the current Islāmic Republic. The US has a history of supporting the wrong countries with the wrong  leaders for short-term benefits as illustrated in the war against terror during the latest G.W. Bush Administration. The spiral of violence, the risk of terror, and the military costing will only increase with such an approach with an equal loss in American lives and others as due to ill-advised selections to go both to conflict and war.

During his second term in office and most positive however, Reagan managed to build up a good working relationship with the Soviet leader  Mikhail Gorbachev and signed an agreement on scrapping the intermediate nuclear forces. The Iran Contra Affair during 1986/1987 became a dark issue involving illegal arms for hostage deals with Iran by his senior staff with his knowledge. It proved that Pointdexter and Oliver North (all part of his National 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 his White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan and his National Security Adviser John Poindexter had to resign but it did however not affect Reagan.  However both he and in particular the Vice-President G.W. Bush were fully aware as it was a fully approved CIA operation, with part of it still being related with the “Khomeini” deal to get the US Presidential election for Reagan and defeat Carter. Again, – the Iran-Contra affair was a highly illegal and controversial operation with drugs being imported as part of a huge CIA operation on Mena Airport in Arkansas.   Bill Clinton at the time was Governor in Arkansas, with “the former President Clinton” being fully aware and neither responding to the Arkansas Committee requiring investigations, nor supporting Polk County Prosecuting Attorney Joe Hardegree and Charles Black by any funding of required investigation. An illustration as well how people at the highest political level are neither willing nor permitting essential justice being done for the sake of allowing compromising CIA activities to be concealed, and not damaging their own political ambitions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jiRiGgA9Ljk                                                                                                                                    (Reagan meets Gorbachev)

Reagan once said that his actor talents served him well in the White House and being described as “The great communicator” he proved to use the modern media quite well.  Vice-President Bush with his background to carry out President Fords Executive Order 11905 in the past in his function as CIA director was supposed to improve the image of the CIA under the Ford Administration, but obviously he did not stick to the principles of this Executive Order when he became Vice-President under Reagan. In actual fact this is not that surprising as Vice-President Bush at the time had high level contacts with the “hawks” in the CIA, people who knew him longer and people he knew longer. Some of the contacts were still based on the early 1960ties.

Whilst Reagan did support the Contra’s,  no formal evidence could be found that he approved the diversion of moneys to the Contras. The White House buffers did work well, as is apparently a need for US President’s engaging in illegal activities. Oliver North reflected in his later book that Reagan really knew everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35KcYgMPiIM&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                                (Iran Contra Coverup: 1 of 8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ug0IL7k3elQ                                                                                                                              (Oliver North  Questioned)

Interestingly some people involved in the Iran-Contra scandal who (nearly) convicted initially were afterwards pardoned, and even became then prominent members within the Administration of eg George W. Bush. Elliot Abrams 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. 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. 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=k-kLt9l2cQg                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         (Bush, Reagan let drugs flow free to US from Nicaragua – ex dealer)

The contra militants in Honduras were heavily involved in the guerilla war to topple the government of Nicaragua.Their warfare was consistent with widespread human rights abuses, including murder,torture,mutilation,rape, kidnapping destruction and arson. At the time Iran was amidst the Iran-Iraq war. There is evidence of Israeli involvement when the US government approved the sale. Besides this it has been clear in retrospect that CIA covert actions became more favourable within the Reagan Administration with William Casey being the Director of the CIA. Executive Order 1233 in December 1981 gave the CIA exclusive rights to conduct covert action unless the President would choose that a different Agency would be more effective to reach specific goals. Whilst CIA covert operations flourished at various places around the world, with the rice of Gorbachev, Reagan was able to symbolise a new beginning with the Soviets and an arms reduction treaty was signed during the 1988 Moscow summit. Despite hard-liners in the Soviet Union and his own Government (vice-president Bush), the personal bond between Gorbachev and Reagan contributed to the end of the cold war.

The last on the more positive illustrates how important fruitful relations are at international level. Interestingly Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey played initially a large part in Reagan’s foreign policy, based on a book “The Terror Network” where the USSR was perceived as the world’s worst “terrorist activity providing” country. Despite other CIA evidence that this was actually black propaganda by the CIA itself, Reagan went along with Casey’s book after he got it approved by a professor. Again an illustration on the importance to have trustworthy people in the top positions of the CIA as the agenda from the CIA is different from the agenda of the US President and even within the CIA some branches have different intelligence, contradicting at times. For a US President does not apply to pick his choice which suits him best, but to get the best possible CIA Director providing him with unbiassed and correct information as  manipulation of the truth with wrong factual information can create a potential of disasters.

Strictly Casey was the architect of the arms-for- hostages deal. Hours before Casey had to testify before Congress about his knowledge about the Iran-Contra affair he was admitted in hospital “as he could not speak anymore”.

Despite a “charming” Reagan, the US not only increased its involvement in the Middle East by providing arms to both Iran and Iraq in the war against each other, but there was an increasing involvement as well in various conflicts around the world including South America. Whilst Reagan’s policy at home was strongly “anti-drug orientated”, the CIA accomplished a large narcotic smuggling ring within the United States of America with Reagan approving the coöperation between the CIA and the Contra’s. After years of Federal investigations by the Kerry Congressional Committee the CIA finally admitted in 1998 to its involvement in drug trafficking in the US.

Under the Reagan Administration the CIA was allowed to do things in homeland America not seen at a level before. The CIA had even the right to infiltrate in any political organisation in the US itself as well. US citizens who became aware of CIA activities and disclosed them to the Press could be put in jail for 5 years. The fact that the CIA was used within the US against other groups in not new as former President Nixon used CIA connections as well with wide-spread wiretapping and in actions at the Watergate complex against the Democratic Party.

As history will show Republican Governments until the latest of George W. Bush (the son of H.W.Bush) do show certain patterns neither being legal nor desired for the US. After his election in 1980 Reagan overturned an arms embargo imposed on Guatemala by previous US President Jimmy Carter. Reagan permitted Guatemala’s army to buy 3.2 million dollar in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981 and to help this sale he simply removed the vehicles from the list of military equipment which was covered by the human rights embargo. Obviously Reagan approved this, however again in very close consultation with his Vice-President G.H.Bush.

With US support the Guatemalan Government was able to drive its regime of political repression with its army and escalating its slaughter of political dissidents and their assumed supporters to unprecedented levels. Whilst general Efrain Rios  Montt seized power in a coupé d’etat in March 1982, Rios Montt was praised by Reagan as a “man of great personal integrity”. In October 1982 however Rios Montt gave secretly carte blanche to the feared “Archivos” Intelligence Unit to increase “death squad operations”. The Reagan Administration tried to hide the crimes.The US embassy claimed on the 22nd of October 1982 that the Guatemalan government was the victim of a communist orientated “disinformation campaign”.

There are various other dark sides of the Reagan administration despite evidently positive achievements in the relationships with the new Soviet leader eventually.This was vital for the world.

The CIA however got even more control in- and supervision over – covert operations both within the US as elsewhere.

Reagan left the White House after 2 terms in office on a very popular note but his Central America policies apart from his domestic social programs were the least supported. When George H Bush took over as the 41 st US President he faced a record budget and trade deficit.

Both Reagan and Vice-President Bush got into power based an illegal pre-election deal with the Islāmic Republic, based on full recognition and non-interference, undermining the real US President Jimmy Carter to get a solution with the hostage crisis. Bush and Reagan with CIA support (as the right-wing section of the CIA did not agree with the CIA Director nominated by President Carter)  delayed the hostage crisis on purpose with a better deal for the Islāmic Republic of Khomeini and an election outcome in favour for the Republicans. Once in power those particular Republicans achieved some reasonable things. However the underlying corruption, the lawlessness, the double standards and supporting human right abuses seem to be the tragic trend in some of those Administrations, whilst great Republican predecessors did live up to the standards of the US.

They didn’t.

As US President you are the civilian and elected US leader, but once in the White House some US Presidents meet the real challenges of getting agreement with the military leaders and those within the CIA. Reagan had nothing to do with the history George H.  Bush had with the CIA. Reagan had neither the most influential background contacts and powers Bush,sr had and Bush,sr played a most influential role in the Reagan Administration.

However the choices being made in the key persons of both the National Security team, the Director of the CIA and the Chief of the Military staff are vital for the integrity of any Administration as it can make the difference between “the ride of your life” or the ride of your death. Not only the death being meant literally as happened with JFK, but also “the death of your soul” if you are compromised through the most evil things being possible within the domain of power as US President. Those teams within Government to deal with, those people with different agenda’s, besides the politics of Party and the Nation is a huge challenge. Some do grow in such a challenge and become a real leader of people, some however are not more than bad managers in positions they should never have aimed for.

Illegal pre-election deals with other countries for own election benefit may however be considered as a touchstone of the character of this Administration and whether it came from Bush or Reagan does not make any difference. The fact was that it was approved by Reagan, against US interests. Despite the charming Reagan, his ability to make the impression of being trustworthy, – history may note marked reservations on the integrity of his leadership.

The fruitful relationship between him and Gorbachev and “the product” in terms of ending the cold war and “the Berlin wall”, was however a reflection of Reagan’s determination (against advise of his inner circles) to do eventually the right thing, and this was a blessing for the world. Like Gorbachev at the time was a blessing for the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK30k2WTxY0&feature=player_detailpage                                                                                                                      (Ronald Reagan: “Tear Down This Wall”)

Interestingly the Reagan letters leave in retrospect a remarkable insight on Ronald Reagan as a person, different from the US President who approved so many illegal operations.

As we know there are many background powers in Washington, and getting elected US President is one, getting your ideas across is two, but getting a new direction implemented without compromising yourself or your own conscience is a matter of character and courage, besides an intuitive talent to nominate the right persons in the right positions at the right time, apart from the choice of the Vice Presidency. All this either works in favour of the Administration or at the other end of the spectrum may profoundly works against the Administration with the US President being tangled up in various cover ups, the last being succesful depending on the buffers being created in the White House.

Without Bush at the background Reagan would not have survived his first term, which is not necessarily a compliment for G.W.Bush but more a reflection on his knowledge how to use the systems beneficially to keep the Republican for 12 years in the White House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vLlQxVpeHHs                                                                                                                          (Bush, sr said Reagan helped the new world order)

Next chapter (part 8) will discuss former US President G.H Bush.

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 – Front page (Part 1 of 11)


Presidents of the United States, before 1868

Presidents of the United States, before 1868 (Photo credit: Penn State Special Collections Library)

Front page of  “Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice”. Part 1.

Introduction:

“Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice” gives an overview of some previous US Presidents from the perception of  violations of Justice,  the last including both the law and/or  US Constitution.

The facts are actually somewhat sobering perhaps and offer an insight at the Executive branch of the US where vital decisions are made for both the US, with a considerable impact at times for the whole world.

Those articles are aimed to show certain Presidential dynamics from a different perspective, both to allow discussion on acceptable standards, – however really fully accepting that the perceptions on those Presidencies can be seen from various perspectives and that it is important in all cases to view the broader context, – the last being fair to history itself and the people who tried to give it their own best efforts once they were elected as US President. They did all work in their own time with the dynamics and questions of their own generation and with their own personal struggles. The last should not be forgotten.

Against all wrongdoings there are considerable achievements at various levels, regardless whether we agree or disagree. It is up to historians to judge the wider picture with the available information at the time.

Since the assassination of President John F Kennedy in 1963 the military arm of the US has been increasingly involved in foreign policy making, not rarely with the use of various covert operations at different levels.  See for instance: >>>>>: https://paulalexanderwolf.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/beyond-911-memorial-services-2011/  and  Anniversary JFK assassination and review  <<<<

The impact of both this influence and the combination of some US Presidents to be discussed has not always been that fortunate.  The profiles on those earlier US President‘s will explain this in  some  detail.

Those profiles on violations of justice however are only restricted to certain aspects or dealings of  those US Presidents, mainly obviously during their years in the White House.

They are, again,  not intended to comment on their legacy in a broader sense.  

Some of those people who were once “US Commander-in-Chief” passed away, others are in retirement. They left behind  valuable examples in areas which could have been dealt with differently. However areas also where they increased the risk on conflict or war, – besides human rights being abused on various occasions.

For certain at times they did  contribute in a wider sense to both the US and the world.

“Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice” can be found in the webpages below:

“If  angels  were  to  govern  men, neither  external  nor  internal controls  on government  would be  necessary.  In framing  a government  which  is  to be administered  by  men  over  men, the  great  difficulty  is  this: You  must  first  enable  the  government  to  control  the governed; and  in  the  next  place ,  oblige  it  to  control itself.”

James Madison, 1788—

Related image

 
“Lincoln  was  not  a  perfect  man, nor  a  perfect  President.  By  modern  standards his condemnation  of slavery  might  be  considered  tentative.”
 —Barack  Obama, Chicago  Tribune,  June, 25, 2005
Related image
->>>>>>>>>>>
 

>Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice – Introduction  (Part 2 of 11) on July 4, 2011

Related image

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice (Part 3 – former US President Johnson) on July 16, 2011

Related image

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice  (Part 4 – former President Nixon) on July 19, 2011

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice  (Part 5 – former President Ford) on July 20, 2011

Related image

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice.  (Part 6 – former President Carter, the exception) on July 28, 2011

Related image

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice. (Part 7 – former President Ronald Reagan) on August 1, 2011

Related image

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice. (Part 8 – former President H.W. Bush) on August 6, 2011

Related image

US Presidential profiles in violations of Justice. (Part 9 – former President W. J. Clinton) on August 9, 2011

Related image

>US Presidential profiles in violations of justice. (Part 10 – former President G.W. Bush) on August 13, 2011

Related image

Related image
—–>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the article below President Barack Obama is discussed as a prime example of setting better standards since President John F Kennedy. This however is not within the context of “Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice” as the last goes from President L.B. Johnson until President  G. W. Bush. It is only an addition or example how things can be different at this level of executive power. The article about President Obama is an interim assessment before his re-election. Whilst every US President will be faced with confidential injustice, for every person in this position applies at times the question how much justice can be  served with injustice. Keeping the right balance between those paradoxes and utilising the choice of serving the best possible justice with a candid exposure of the facts at both inner-team level and the public will give the best possible reflection on each US President, as long ethical the best possible choices are made. This does not take away that for President Obama e.g. applies as well that he has an agenda which he wants to push through amidst the separation of powers in the US.
Related image
Whilst the separation of powers are aimed to protect the US, it insufficiently protected the US during the last decades. History will show in retrospect how President Obama played the bouncing ball game of tensions and dimensions at this level to get his agenda for more social justice through.
Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

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/

Interim assessment of a President


Introduction.

President Barack Obama addresses the House Dem...

President Barack Obama addresses the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference in Williamsburg, Virginia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With the 2012 US Presidential elections in sight, we are now slowly closing in on the first 1000 days in Office of the current 44th US President Barack Hussein Obama, – borne the 4th of August 1961 in Hawaii.

Upon taking office Barack Obama was seen as a refreshing alternative for his predecessor  President  George W. Bush, the last being embattled both as due to an increasing and soaring national budget deficit, apart from and unpopular war in Iraq.

With the midterm 2010 elections for both the Senate and the House of Representatives the Democrats lost ground to the Republicans, creating more challenges for the Obama administration in terms of required legislation.

Related image

Various Presidents have been assessed on their performance after they left the White House.

As described in “The Presidential Difference” – written by Professor Fred I. Greenstein – there are 6 quality indicators which largely relate to a Presidential job performance,  regardless whether he or she is popular or not.  With a minor variation and adding the quality of “courage” (being part of integrity)  those quality indicators are applied to President Barack Obama in this article, – being mindful however that this is just an interim assessment of a dynamic Presidency not being completed as yet.

Related image

The Presidents ability first as a public communicator is presenting actually the outer face of leadership, as it provides both  the ability to energize the creative resources and intellectual skills of  various groups of people in society.  It is by far an important quality to be assessed because if the President in his role is able really to offer sustained vision, direction and hope,  – he will prove to have a lot of leverage at significant levels of people, –  both at home and abroad.

Related image

The second quality is the President’s ability to select and organise an effective team, – working in alignment with his vision.  Professor Fred Greenstein calls it: “to organise the inner workings of the Presidency”.

The third important quality of any significant leader in a country is his or her political skill, to make manifest real “vision” in public policy that works.  It is a skill requiring and maintaining a wise balance  between both supporters and opponents.

The fourth skill of a President is his ability to have access to – and to filter and use the relevant daily information, – with a view to work effectively on a day to day base, besides preparing his or her strategies for the future towards meaningful purposes.

The quality of courage enables a President or Prime Minister to do what is right and just at a specific time and place – despite opposition and despite risks of not being elected anymore, not to speak about other risks. This quality of courage or >”Grace under pressure” <(as once called by Ernest Hemingway)  is closely interlinked with the integrity of a leader.

Related image

Andrew Jackson once said: “One man with courage makes a majority.”  Examples of this did include both Churchill and Roosevelt, besides many others. This quality is not only a virtue in times of war, but for certain today rather a virtue at times of peace, to prevent the dangers of war, and to aid progress to reduce both the risks of our time and increase prosperity at different national and international levels, – with the inclusion of proper law enforcement.  At times it means a firm choice for the benefit of a whole country amidst gross opposition. There are many “people” examples in the past, not rarely as such being only recognised in retrospect, – sometimes many years later.

Related image

Barack Obama made history on its own by becoming the first African-American President, with an unusual background as an American born in Hawaii.

Being largely raised by his white mother following a divorce from his Kenyan father in 1964, – he moved to Indonesia after his mother remarried a Geography graduate from Indonesia in 1966, who took his new family to Jakarta.   Until 1971 Barack Obama attended primary school in Indonesia and returned afterwards to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents. His maternal grandma died 2 days before the 2008 US Presidency elections.

With a background of various political science studies on US mainland,  Obama studied eventually law at Harvard University and graduated magna cum laude.  He married Michelle in October 1992 and amidst  his  position as a senior lecturer at the Chicago law school he joined a Chicago law firm specialising in civil rights, litigation and neighbourhood economics. His work before in the poverty-stricken areas of Chicago neighbourhoods made him realise that the scope and the domains of his actions were fairly limited and that a different direction of development was required.  This work in the poorest areas of Chicago was at the personal level most important for him. He decided not to be willing to be limited by America’s history but to change it.

He became a State senator for Illinois, representing the 13th district on Chicago’s south side. Between 2005 and 2008 he was a US Senator for exactly 3 years and 11 months, before being elected US President, – defeating the Republican nominee John McCain.

His movement for change to “>A  better Union<” is and has been in some sort of way an expression of  an older US movement for justice,  with roots going back to the movement which brought forward various people, – including e.g. Chicago’s first black Mayor, Ref. Martin Luther King,jr and Senator Robert F Kennedy. The tradition however goes even further and has  links with the Lincoln legacy.  –  Abraham Lincoln’s  Presidency has been always a source of inspiration for him.  Barack Obama’s inauguration on the 20th of january 2009  did show the spirit of some of his most remarkable predecessors.

>BRIEF SUMMARY OF PRESIDENTIAL ACHIEVEMENTS TILL SO FAR<

Related image

Shortly after his inauguration and within the context of America’s deepest recession since Roosevelt, Obama signed the American recovery and reinvestment act as part of an economic stimulus program in February 2009.

President Obama himself was quite surprised receiving in October 2009  the Nobel Peace Prize, however it was perceived by “The Nobel Peace Prize Committee” that he already contributed in significant ways to peace.

Various other legislation followed, including the Tax Relief, the Unemployment Insurance  Reauthorization, – and Job Creation act.  Besides this the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Consumer Protection and the Dodd- Frank Wall Street legislation and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal.

Obama was able to gradually remove combat troops from Iraq. He increased however troop levels in Afghanistan after close consultation with his military advisers and signed an Arms Control Treaty with Russia. Early 2011 he ordered an enforcement of the UN sanctions-no- fly- zone over Libia and on the 1st of May military forces under his direct command killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

President Obama seeks to be reelected in 2012.

In summary President Obama has been quite active on various domestic policies, economic legislation, healthcare reforms and foreign policy. Main obstacles apart from the US economy are the war in Afghanistan and a “humbling” 2010 mid-term election, where the Democratic Party lost 63 seats and control of the House of Representatives. The US combat mission in Iraq has been finalised in August 2010, with still support for counter-terrorism and training security forces in Iraq. Regarding the 10 year old war in Afghanistan President Obama replaced the military commander General David D  McKieman with former special forces commander Lt general Stanley McChrystal in May 2009, as this would help the increasingly required  counter insurgency tactics in this longstanding war. After an incident with McChrystal’s staff criticising White House staff in public, – he was replaced by David Petraeus in June 2010. Anticipating troop withdrawals some 17 months from now it seems likely that David Petraeus may be nominated as the next Director of the CIA eventually, unless perhaps he opts to run as a Republican for the US Presidency in 2012

The Middle East with ongoing unrest in the Arab world as a result of various national uprise against oppressive governments are subject for intense US surveillance on balancing strategic interests and support of legitimate liberation movements. The policy on Libia and restrictions upon Syria are examples of this. Attacks by NATO war planes are continuing in Libia and there is a  international arrest warrant against Colonel Gaddafi.

The arrest of the IMF leader and potential Presidential candidate for France (in the US) did lead to significant upheaval this week, reflecting that US law in some cases does not discriminate.

Obama’s approval rate jumped recently with some 11% following bin Laden’s death but the slowly economic recovery remains a  significant factor in America’s judgement and approval rate. However in general, –  job creations have trended up with some 16% from March 2010, with the last 3 months an average of 250000 new positions being in place. Recent market gains have been due to higher earnings but US home values reduced further. The CPI index gained only 0.4 % in April 2011. Earnings and increasing jobs are essential with innovation reforms being required to sustain the popularity of President Obama, but the pace remains slow. A comprehensive immigration reform will be  one of the most turbulent political issues. As part of Obama’s long-term plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, he will enhance a strategy to continue expanding safe oil production within US territory, with lessons drawn from the BP Gulf disaster.

Before the death of bin Laden President’s Obama charisma as a leader was not satisfactory in the view of public opinion. It is this public perception which requires ongoing attention within the context of the pending 2012 US Presidential elections.

Leadership skills are evidently there and particular circumstances are able to aid those skills to become more obvious and public. Many President’s in the past were faced with issues where bold decisions were required, based on integrity. The last however is already an existing and profound feature of the current US President.

>THE PRESIDENT AS A PUBLIC COMMUNICATOR<

Related image

There are various references which do show that the 44th US President has exceptional  communication skills. Obama is connected with millions of Americans on a human and personal level. During the elections in 2008 he proved being able to underpin his public presentations with a bold vision around his “Politics of Hope.”  He knows that facts, details alone, will not move the people, –  and many of his communications and speeches are of an inspiring nature.  He has a willingness to listen in an emphatic way with a profound ability to hear different opinions in a respectful manner. In his communication he appears quite confident, but for certain not arrogant. He is aware of the importance of being deliberate thoughtful and not losing “his cool” under pressure. He has largely a relaxed communication style, being passionate at times to get his points through. Despite being under pressure at times, you never see it.  It proved that he is very much under control. He tends to take a pause before answering challenging questions. Even by those who do not agree with everything he says, he seems well liked by (most) Americans for his communication style.

>ORGANISATIONAL ABILITY<

Related image

In line with President Lincoln, Obama did select wisely a cabinet of rivals where he appears clearly the leader in an environment of team discussions – with at times strongly different views. Within his own inner circle he became an increasing respected figure and though much has changed since a brilliant campaign organization in 2008, the political people advising him are still at large the same. He trusts his inner circle and they trust him, both at managerial and organisational level. His team seems to be  in alignment with the planning and vision for the future, – within a context of various obstacles and a significant loss in the House of Representatives. Though discussions can be intense, – the President appears not to have  much difficulty rallying support from his own Cabinet for the same ongoing purposes. Both his ability to listen and his relaxed communication style (with a good sense of humour as well)  is able to ease tension or potential tension. This seems to apply as well with his working relationship with his military advisers and the CIA.

>POLITICAL SKILL<

Obviously President Obama has evidently very profound political skills which are hard to be argued. He is well able to balance  among political opponents. As the second phase of his Presidency will be different from the first, he has to continue to balance wisely between various dynamics until he is secured of his second term in Office. Consensus over reforming corporate taxes including some concessions, – and highlighting revenue issues are pending matters. The debt ceiling fight will be full on within the House of Representatives, with leadership at the centre of the direction to be taken.  The decision to be against any tax increases and support the Bush “things as they are” on tax cuts will put more pressure on the debt ceiling, with a 14.4 trillion debt at present. President Obama is much aware of this and politically balancing through the economic pressures, – he seems to reveal himself as both the defender of sound and sober principles, where the Republicans have failed to come with a  helpful and united alternative. The President seems most pragmatic and is willing to take what he is able to get.

>INTELLECTUAL AND  EMOTIONAL  ABILITIES<

Related image

The current 44th President proved very resourceful in sifting and selecting the required information for the effective use in his day-to-day activities. He operates from a sound belief system, well grounded in the contradictions of day-to-day reality. He is definitely able to relate to people from various classes and backgrounds, with effective emotional skills, – stable enough not to make similar errors as being made by some of his predecessors with the potential of embarrassment at the personal level. With both this balance of emotions, spirit and mind, – he is well positioned for the challenges in his position. He seems well-integrated at the “Centre of power”, cooperating wisely with both his Generals and CIA, – but not accepting inappropriate reflections or behaviour of any kind.

>LEADERSHIP<

To support the needs of US society and international developments,  the second term of President Obama – if reelected – will offer a sound base to provide more leadership than during his first term till so far. However he proved already a willingness to make tough decisions and the strength and decisiveness of leadership. The BP oil disaster nevertheless could have been taken up more proactively by accepting expertise abroad at an early stage. It is to early day to give a full assessment on this quality. Till so far he seems to be more a good person and a good politician with good intentions, – however the strength to unify the US over the edge of a further economic downfall and away from the pointless war in Afghanistan will test his skills to be the leader the US needs. The last  after the  previous Administration corrupting both the law and the US constitution in various incriminating ways, – apart from a total irresponsible way of overstretching the national budget with various war’s for the wrong reasons. This is the background  for the challenge in the hours of increasing heat which will enable steel to harden, but as the level of leadership may increase the level of personal danger may increase as well as the existing establishment is reluctant for the change being desired. Leaders following a line not in tune with the major background powers in the US are at risk of being assassinated, like this happened with President John F Kennedy in 1963.

>COURAGE<

Related image

Ernest Hemingway described this once as: “Grace under pressure.”  The courage to stand up and to stand out at times of controversy were quite clear in 2008 when Senator Obama did raise the issue of race and religion as the 2 most toxic subjects in politics.  His ties to Mr Wright were put in the nations controversial racial history, which started with slavery and still continues today in the school achievement gap and ongoing discrimination between banking service and law enforcement. Courage whilst embracing the required actions on the needs for the future generation is a need for the person who fills the position of the US  “Commander-in-Chief”. The virtue of courage reflects on the spiritual capacity or integrity of the person being in charge, and this will prove even more to be within the domain of President Obama when circumstances will face him in the future in which he has to act, – and when times are more testing. This goes together with the quality of leadership.

As Robert Parry wrote on the 1st of May: >”No black man in the US who makes a serious run for the White House can be described as a coward or lacking guts.”- “He has taken on this role with full acceptance and knowledge of the risks. He is targeted by extremists, whilst living in the spotlight of the world with his family. Governing a nearly ungovernable country with the most obstructive House of Representatives, – left with a legacy of the worst economy of the century in the US.”

Indeed, – much of the criticism is profoundly undeserved and whatever happens President Obama keeps his smile and correct approach. President Lincoln went through the scrutiny of criticism and has been perceived in retrospect as one of the greatest Presidents the US ever had.

Likewise if President Barack Obama will be reelected and push forward the concept of social justice and a “More Perfect Union”, together with the required economic reforms – against the testing times of pending  increasing international political tensions  – he has the potential the be seen in retrospect as the first African-American President who made a real difference, at a time this was really required for both the US and the world.

From my point of view he is the best US President since JFK with perhaps slightly more favourable personal dimensions. He has the capacity to reach far beyond his current dimensions, depending on time and opportunity.

History will tell!

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander

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