Tag Archives: President of the United States

Both International And National Security Starts At Home – US in the picture.


The Peacemakers.

“I have not seen anywhere else in the world a gun lobby that has the same level of influence on its own government as the NRA does in the United States.”    –Andrew Feinstein.

“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of insidious forces working from within.” – Douglas MacArthur.

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all” – John F. Kennedy

The topic for today is the importance  of both increased national and international security and the nature of leadership we need in a changing world. However the focus will be on the first one, with an example of things starting at home in the US. Both with proper legislation and law enforcement within the domain and control  of US Congress. The US here is just an example and different examples do exist all over the world.

Related image

When times are economical challenging, foreign policy matters are rarely the topic of discussion. But in recent weeks issues on both foreign policy and security worked their way up within the public domain of attention.

During the crisis with North Korea in which China played for certain a role of influence for the better, – we had first the Boston Marathon bombings with the related questions about terrorist connections.  This is relatively a new element that from areas where you don’t expect it, people find their way on US ground and evolve in personalities able to prepare bombs with the intention to kill indiscriminately. And so they did, as others may do again anywhere.  Both inside the US and outside the US.

Related image

Whilst the airliner plot over the Atlantic and  World Trade Centre attacks are unlikely to happen anymore in the identity as they evolved, – the prospect of terror from a different kind seems to be more of an issue in the future.

It is terror of a different kind than 9/11. But it is the terror on top of increased gun violence in the US anyway, and from both sides of the spectrum there is easy access to guns, assault weapons and other tools to inflict destruction.

Related image

It’s a warning that dynamics in society are changing and that we need to be mindful of the fact that we are simply not ready for this.

Proper legislation in line with the spirit of our time and similar law enforcement need to be in place.  This being prepared in a proactive way by anticipation on the dynamics in society.

Related image

Within those recent dynamics in the US the civil war in Syria did break the news with a high index of suspicion of chemical warfare being used against the opposition in Syria. This followed by an Israeli bombing near Damascus to prevent the transport of missiles and chemical weapons close to the borders of Israel.

At the same time Congressional hearings in the US provided more detail about what happened in Libya when the US ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans were murdered during a terrorist attack. Lacking the total picture, some Republicans claim that the White House should be held responsible for either insufficient protection or misleading information.  It would seem that the dynamics within the domain of some Republican members of US Congress go that far that they would like any effort to try to impeach President Obama on this issue, if they could.  A reflection of a “House Divided” where some members of this honourable branch of Government lost touch with both reality and the priorities of this country.

Related image

It illustrates the dangerous paradox in this country, the downfall of democracy when Congress is misaligned on some major topics and obstructive elements are able to block progress against the will of the majority of voters.

Related image

This is not new and it may happen anywhere in countries with democracies. It might be considered as the play game of democracy but in some events it’s a dangerous play game setting the tone for more little fruitful dynamics in society…

Whilst not proven perhaps, there is more chance a society at peace or stable in itself at times of peace, – will sustain the disharmony at times of no peace better than the kind of society already divided in itself.

It illustrates somehow as well the sad thing that people often tend to stick together in crisis only, but go their own way when there are no dangers on the horizon.

We live however in a world where simple escalating events may lead to massive drama’s all around.

For this reason the  topic to be discussed today is an interesting one as the perceptions about leadership, democracy and security are almost as different as the dimensions about security and leadership on its own. Issues about eg Israeli’s and Palestinian security have different perceptions all around the world. History shows that people can make a difference within certain positions.

Interestingly we had recently 2 US Presidential candidates with different perceptions and personalities. The person who started his US Presidency in 2009 was able to continue in 2013.  The perceptions of one leader and the choices being made on behalf of international security may define the outcome of many future dynamics. Likewise within the US,  US Congress may define the outcome on other dynamics.

It’s a matter of leadership and being proactive, with inclusive views.

The nature of fast growing  and increasing  economic and financial interdependence of countries around the world, with all sorts of growing  interactions, –  need a far stricter international security than ever before.  It all starts in home land activities, to get grip on those things we don’t want, those things being disruptive for our well-being in the countries where we live, – the things affecting national security.  An issue for all of us, wherever we may live.

Both National and International security are in ways connected.

Related image

Speaking about security at a challenging time in US history, we only need to look back some 150 years ago.

A time where US Congress and legislative issues paved the way for the dynamics leading to the US civil war in the 18th Century.

President Lincoln would not have been the person history remembers if he would not have been challenged after his Presidential election to lead his country through one of the most difficult times in US history.

He was the unexpected President exposed to the worst, which through a combination of circumstances made him the best!

Some would say that the American civil war in those day  was a security and a significant emancipation issue for the US as a Union.

Emancipation still to be remembered, still to be remembered by those members of the Republican Party who are unable to see that emancipation and  inclusive progresses are ongoing issues in history. Running behind the important social and political events of time will catch up with those who have to deal with the implications in the future. History learns that not being proactive comes at a cost.

Related image

Being true what he said in his inauguration, President Lincoln did not allow a minority to disintegrate the Union, –   but he preserved the Union, by which he followed through with his planned declaration of Emancipation to end slavery.

He succeeded as part of the Republican movement at the time to create the next endeavour in US history, keeping the right balance on the required issues of national security in his days.

Whilst generally Southern Democrats were obstacles for Emancipation in the 1860 ties, – Northern Republicans are generally stumbling blocks for 21st  Century US progress. Both with exceptions within  each party in the days of President Lincoln and today. True is that the Republicans were the driving force for progress  one and half century ago.

Republicans should take this on board.

The last still in a most divided America.

Related image

Congressional choices long ago by overturning the so-called Missouri compromise which intended to restrict slavery, played part in the  evolving drama in the 1860ties, before it actually happened.

Today we jump a fair bit in time. To illustrate that divisions can go one way or the other but unresolved within the required legislation will lead to all sorts of processes in society hard to contain.

Also an issue subject to  Congressional choice.  The choice either being proactive or reactive.

It is not long ago  the National Rifle Association moved to block a UN treaty on gun control. The NRF serves strongly the interest of both national and international arms deals, with a high level of influence in US Congress.  Clear is that  US Congress has been willing to serve the power position  of the NRA by simply not approving Presidential proposals to revise gun legislation. The majority however of US voters wants a change in the current legislation on gun control as increasing gun violence disrupts a nation and may compromise eventually national security, the last because the current legislation is not aligned with changing dynamics in US society with more gun related violence and deaths, – both at the cost of children and adults.

.Related image

Whilst some 700000 people died during the American civil war at the time of President Lincoln,- more even died as a result of unlawful gun use in the US over various decades.

The downfall of a democracy is that a minority may act against the will of the constitutional rights of voters. Voters to have their voice  properly represented in the legislation a country deserves.  It is true that the ignorance of a few voters – in the words of John F Kennedy –  may impair the security of all. In some cases the security of a Republic.

Congressional ignorance on the issue of gun control may disregard national security interest where it comes to the protection of US citizens. Voters want to reduce the risk  of more generalised and increasing gun violence in the US as the extremes will come together in the context of changing social dynamics. The last  as part of increased globalisation. Congress is not allowing those facts to be considered within the concept of national interest and as such  tolerating  the death toll of existing gun violence, –  eventually debilitating the US ability to keep control in own house. Getting worse when the forces of external terrorism meet existing dynamics in US society with more or less free access to unrestricted guns and assault rifles, enabling massacres at large scale.

A matter of national security.

Congressional choices may define future dynamics whilst the US President is almost powerless to change this at a time this being required.

It’s a matter of poorly understood national security of the United States of America. The dynamics of society turning into  increasing and senseless massacres, – the last often caused by  ill minded and mentally disrupted people from which the statistics say they are only on the increase.  Meanwhile US Congress allowing to be influenced more by NRA interest, and not  taking the dynamics in society or the wishes of voters on board.

Related image

Douglas MacArthur within a different context reflected once his concern for his own great Nation; “not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within”.

He was right in one sense, but today the danger comes from 2 directions, – both from threats within and without,  and with the current Congressional attitude towards increased gun control as is today, – this is a potential menace to the security of the Union.

Lincoln would have turned away from this, – if he could!   It is a matter of emancipation, constitutional emancipation.

Where history changed with new dilemma’s to be sorted, – the ask of true leadership is more profoundly needed all over the world.

But it all starts at home to have the required legislation and law enforcement in place.

We are faced with different dilemma’s this century.

True leadership is required today when the proper balance gets disrupted with lots of things being at stake. And often as it proved in history it falls back on people with a distinct personality and attitude, – bright in their assessment and determined in their actions.

The last applies for US Congress as well. An honest and fair assessment being required, both based on the choice of people being represented and the dynamics in society.

If we speak about the issue of security in a broader sense:

Not only  increased globalization is asking for stricter national and international security, but also  a new political economy with shifting influence from west to east and a population growth hardly possible to sustain, – with an increased unstable relationship between our fragile global civilisation and an increased depletion of our resources.

The last will become vital in the future.

Hence from an international perspective, international security in the Asia-Pacific region can’t be allowed to be compromised by nuclear dictators as eg in North Korea.

Related image

Similarly US security can’t be compromised by increasing gun violence inflicted by more  people turning their hatred on society,  with the same easy access to guns and rifles because Congressional legislation did not follow the trend in society.

Rifles and gun’s being far more advanced than when the Constitution was written. Dynamics within society and international far more different than they have ever been. The US more at edge than ever before.

The issues of both national and international security are getting more important as more things can go wrong at the same time with wider implications faster speed and greater destruction and disruption.

Without the right tools, the right brains and the best possible  assessment, – we lose both momentum and direction for a more stable world.

Related image

And again it all starts at home.

If we look at the Middle East, the situation in Syria is a prime example of major dangers and the potential of an escalating conflict. Civilisation and reason totally lost.

There have been dangers and evils in the past, so will there be evils and dangers in the future and we need to recognise them at an early stage.

When Lincoln made his Emancipation declaration amidst the American Civil war, – it took still hundred years before the Civil Rights movement got its way into proper and equal legislation for each American citizen.

I hope the desired emancipation on gun control and the required restrictions on gun related violence will not take an other 50 years in the US.  It would be a massive drain on society, both for victims and their families, but also for those who have to work in authority within the given restrictions of  incomplete gun legislation.

Related image

People in the police force have families as well.

Fortunately there is no room for racial hatred anymore, but whilst the last  belongs largely to the past new issues of friction and potential hatred arise at the spectrum of social development, – with mixture of cultures and religions, and increased travel from various countries around the world.

Being multicultural in one sense is good and has the potential to bring the goodness of different nations together. The downfall could be when people from poverty stricken area’s in today’s world travel at different countries, – with at times the narrow and restricted perception of only blind hatred. Receiving in some occasions terrorist training in their homeland of origin,  with a mission to destruct and destroy.

Related image

Alqaida has eg booklets designed to help terrorists overseas to make bombs and strike and kill in various ways. The target quite often seems to be the US  and its allies.

We might be horrified to know of what is possible to happen, – but most of us get horrified when it happens. Whilst we need to love our neighbour as ourselves, we have to denounce the persons and groups inflicting violence and terrorism. Similar with countries deliberately exporting this sort of people or ideology to be held accountable in line with international law, – the last subject for renewal and change at various levels to combat the dangers of our time.

But again it starts at home.

Insufficient restrictions on international nuclear control and allowing more countries to have access to nuclear weapons by lack of internal law enforcement is asking for more dictators or other countries “pulling the trigger”, – like allowing more people in the US to have access to lethal rifles and other dangerous guns, – is asking for a more unstable society, – creating a situation with potential “mass pulling of triggers” where the US army may have to act against its own citizens at times of national unrest.

Related image It seems correct that the Bush Administration prepared for FEMA concentration camps in case of social unrest. More important is that the triggers for social unrest never escalate in the use of massive gun violence in one society, – just for the sake of civilisation and protection of citizens. The law simply needs to be adapted to prevent an almost unlimited access is some States.

Again a matter of Congressional choice, but it would not seem they see it this way with some members of this establishment even devoted to get the Obama Administration down on what happened in Benghazi, Libya. Not being able to take the long view but using the short-sighted view to debilitate proper Governance at a time this being required makes jurisdiction stagnant.

 

Just an illustration how members of Congress can add to a “House divided” by not getting the priorities right.

It happened in the past, with US civil war just 150 years ago. It is for some part up to Congress to prevent this ever happening again by reducing increasing gun violence in a similar divided nation on different issues by proper legislation in line with the spirit of time.

With eg the Boston bombing just recently behind, an alleged terrorist rail  plot being foiled in Canada, sarin – gas being possibly used in Syria, and North Korea “one click away” from pushing the launch button of firing ballistic missiles, – it is clear that changing international patterns are evolving into more risk involving scenario’s waiting to become reality. both national and international.

This is what I mean when I say that at some stage  the extremes are coming together, both from outside the country and inside the country.

At the end of the day the means to have control is largely a  matter of the right legislation being in place with the proper law enforcement and the proper people right for our time. This both applies at the arena of national and international politics.

National Security starts at home and coming back on the US, Congress should act in favour of increased gun control.

A matter of civilised and effective legislation to support both national security and the safety of US citizens.

On the extremes outside – and within the context of international security and coöperation against terrorism  – it is  encouraging that President Putin from Russia emphasised the need for increased international intelligence coöperation,  as prevention at an early stage is the better substitute.

Related imageG8 summit in Ireland, June 17, 2013

Some nations posses the power to abolish any form of human poverty but also any form of human live.  Both  a matter of responsibility and choice, – a matter actually of priority to support any extended nuclear freeze proposals,  and contain the current level of nuclear experience where it comes to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.

Whilst most nations appreciate the responsibilities on this and have already reduced their nuclear arsenals, new powers arise with the wish to have those weapons as well, – and with a clear intent to either use them or apply international blackmail.

Those countries are an issue of serious concern. They need to be stopped at the earliest possible stage through reason and if reason and sanctions do not help, through force if so required, – in line with international coöperation by those nations committed to stop the dangers to multiply.

The UN plays a central role.

International security on this is based on the practical choice not to allow any new country to develop those weapons, – regardless the question whether it is good or wrong that other countries do already  have those weapons. It is clear that with increasing countries having access to nuclear or chemical weapons it is getting more difficult to keep the world secure.

Same applies with providing at times even more unpredictable people an almost free access to fire arms, – as such creating increasing difficulties to prevent massacres of any kind as result of gun violence, the last with a potential domino effect.

Related image

Stable we can make it through more succesful partnerships on the issues we face in the 21st century. US Congress is not much familiar with succesful partnerships on this issue of restricting gun violence.

Science is able to unleash the powers of destruction by human choice, unless we prevent humankind and powers to make this choice, – by restricting at least the powers who are able to destruct each other.  Most of them who are nuclear now do realise that the choice of such destruction means self-destruction,  involving all humanity.

Likewise science provides terrorists the means to unleash powers of more limited destruction, both by senseless shootings or bomb blasts at areas of their choice. However the means by which terrorists are able to apply this destruction in the future is by no means sure and increased international coöperation is required to recognise at an early stage the features of certain persons and groups committed to terror

Whether terror is provoked or inflicted by guns or bombs makes in essence not much difference when we consider the lethal outcome on both children and adults. School shootings where people die are as terrible as disrupted sport events where people are killed through the hands of terrorists using bombs. Those tools need to be be banned from the street with the restriction (if the Constitution can’t be changed as yet) of gun’s being controlled, registered and only in the hands of mindful people, – and assault rifles being excluded in any case for “civil use”.

We live in a world insufficient prepared for terrorism, – which does not mean we have to learn to live with terrorism as if this would be our fate.

Related image

 

Both National and International security starts at home in our own countries with the things we can control, with proper legislation and law enforcement on issues being required in the context of changes in society, changes in the way children are brought up and the way they become adults, apart from the changes related with globalization and the technology which brings people down from different countries.

Whilst it is hard to change or control the mindset to take lives for no reason, it is easier to control or limit the means by which we are able to do this.

This applies both to guns and nuclear weapons, –  and it all starts at home where we are privileged to make choices on restricting the tools and dynamics of violence.

US Congress should reconsider the issue of effective gun legislation for the benefit of a more secure society where people are becoming slowly less at risk of violence as due to unlawful use of bullets, – regardless whether those bullets come from US citizens or people who travel from overseas to inflict violence for the reason of hatred against US society.

Waiting for escalating gun violence in the future, wherever it comes from, is pointless. The warnings are there, written already in the hearts of many people who lost loved ones in this repetitive cycle of non-required violence, –  waiting to get worse only.

Related image

We have neither right to inflict suffering nor death on another human being unless there is an unavoidable necessity for it and any culture or country which endorses the right to bear arms amongst it citizens has blood on the law provision it provides on this and will pay at later date a price being higher than initially intended at the time those laws were made.

Related image

The clause on the right to bear arms in the US Constitution is a serious defect considering the time spirit of the 21st Century and lays the foundation of the potential destruction of it’s culture through internal destructive forces, – if not adapted.

Thanks!

 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

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

 

 

Advertisements

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 6 – former President Carter, the exception)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued>>>

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

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could Gerald Ford have dealt with the matter differently?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will be continued>>>>see Part 6

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

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

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

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


>>INTRODUCTION<<

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

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

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


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

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

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

Related image

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Related image

Related image

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related image

 

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

Related image

 

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

Related image

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

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

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

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


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

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

Anniversary JFK assassination and review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image result for best photo president john f kennedy on education

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

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

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

Image result for best photo president john f kennedy inauguration speech

A child miseducated is a child lost.

Image result for best photo president john Kennedy on helping children

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

Image result for best photo greatest speech JFK on economy

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

Anniversary JFK assassination and review

Image result for best photo greatest speech JFK

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

Anniversary JFK assassination and review

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

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

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/