The Realistic Threat Of North Korea: a different approach


Related image

Tonight once again, once again the same old discussion. The discussion being heard so many times but so little effective action being taken.

The discussion about the pending and increasing dilemma’s as how to deal with North Korea. North Korea perceived as an increasing threat, – North Korea being an increasing threat.

Related image

North Korea, with snowy mountains in the north and rugged ranges in the east with swift rivers flowing to the sea. A country ideal for growing rice and other crops, but being harsh in winter. A country with mud coated and thatched cottages being bleak, and black pigs lolled by barns, – and the digging of soils still being carried out by the kind of spade used by land working men.

Men and women, – like us, like everywhere.

Related image

The country where fishermen converge like seabirds in tiny fishing boats to catch a share for thousands of families to sustain the living conditions in an exploited land full of stricken poverty, – and malnutrition of far too many children.

A country once invaded by the Russians and denied free elections in history, with iron curtains dividing both the south and the north.

A country once invading the south with the US and Japan coming to the rescue of the south, – with finally the south and the north controlling each their own zone… Isolated now, close to the borders of China, – not only isolated in terms of trade and other good things with the outside world, – but foremost isolated as well as a country in terms of rational international diplomacy.

North Korea in 2001 still the country remaining communist, closely spied by its Government, cut off from almost all outside contacts and over and over armed.

One new young leader now with a massive war machinery behind him, in a way fragile and not mature as a person, – but coming forth from a family tradition of maximum power and ambition. Encapsulated in various inflated views about the world of North Korea and the real world.

Related image

Encapsulated by historic traditions within the army, a powerful army, – but the last powerful as well where it comes to keep up existing doctrines, which do not work.

Neither do they work for the many people who are poor in North Korea, the families with children and malnutrition being the events of the day, nor do they work for the outside world, – as North Korea is one of those nations enduring great difficulties to face the challenge to become civilised, and responsible, – in the way they deal with matters.

Related image

It is one of those countries who perceive in their isolation threats from the outside world, – perceive their family neighbour from the south as an enemy, – perceive the US as an enemy. And in all this are preparing for conflict, – being both irrational and pointless.

The facts are now that North Korea will conduct its third nuclear test soon, – that North Korea did sent a satellite into space in December and are preparing for both long range missiles eventually having the ability to carry nuclear and/or other weapons.

Related image

Reason does not seem to work as North Korea is perhaps the worst enemy of its own ideology, but reason never reached North Korea as isolation created fear and fear created the potential for major confrontation where nobody as head of any civilised state apart from China did visit North Korea in the eye of its Parliament.

It takes courage to prevent war and create dialogue. History showed on a few occasions that the actions of men are able to this, as once illustrated in the Israelite Parliament with the visit of a seemingly almost forgotten Egyptian President, who stood up for Peace being the last rationale argument to fight for.

Different circumstances though, the last, but the examples are there of men and women, people and Presidents taking action with a bigger interest at heart, proactive in style and determined to win their case, – as a lost case being the case of war goes at a cost of millions who are innocent and did not ask for it.

In the eyes of North Korea both the US and South Korea are earth enemies for reasons never being really clarified in face to face communication. Face to face communication with both modesty and strength, to reach both out and to try to diffuse inflated perceptions. Face to face communication – like eg happened in dialogues between Reagan and Gorbachev at a crucial time of the cold war right in the face of all hard-liners, – all hard liners being surprised of the break through being created at the time.

There is a situation now not being the place for making any threats, – as words lead to provocations and provocations lead to war and war leads to an instinct of willing to combat by every means.

It’s pointless, – pointless as it proved so many times in history!

Lets face it, we are not living any more in time of guns and bullets only, but the guns have been replaced by potential missiles and the bullets have been replaced by plain potential nukes, – either dirty or clean, but in both cases devastating in its implication once used by people who lead wars from behind their computer, – blind for the destruction of human life and culture

The new US Secretary of State John Kerry liked engaging North Korea in the past at the time he was a Massachusetts Senator and this is the only way forward. Kerry, who replaced Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined with South Korea and Japan in calling on the North to end its “provocative behaviour” or face “significant consequences from the international community” in a statement Sunday, – but he did not make endeavours to visit North Korea as yet. Being only joint by Japan and South Korea, statements of this nature have no impact on North Korea at all!

Related image

Media presented threats do not help. “There’s a reluctance in the White House to have a deal with North Korea only to have it repudiated again,” said James Acton, an expert on nuclear non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. However, – some risk is required as the risk of war and not being able to end the process once the last is implemented is a greater risk, and again we are not simply speaking about guns. North Korea will master a delivery system for nuclear weapons, and it will join Russia and China as the only non-U.S. allies with such capabilities, – besides Iran perhaps. Kim Jong Un seems to shrug off pressure from most of the international community, including North Korea’s main ally, China, and go ahead with a third test. Bruce Bechtol, a former Pentagon intelligence analyst, said it is really not up to the United States solely to alter the North’s behaviour. He said Kerry’s instructions from Obama will likely be to work closely with the South Koreans and have them set the tone.

However the US needs to go into a straight dialogue with North Korea and Kerry needs to visit and speak to the Communist Parliament as only a minor shift in perception may change events in history, the last being of greater impact when a delegation of South Korea would visit the North. The reasoning behind this is that North Korea wants to go nuclear as part of its military deterrent in its confrontation with the United States, which it describes as “the sworn enemy of the Korean people.”

Related image

Long range missiles are not aimed for South Korea but are on the long term aimed at the US and its citizens and the only way is working on a shift in perception, – a shift of perception delivered perhaps even by the US President in North Korea.

The new US Secretary of State John Kerry would be well able to visit first, and discuss with the North Korean leadership the issues of concern. Such a visit will have a major impact and may help the required shift in perception which enables parties to reconsider existing strategies. Besides this benefit it will create some element of goodwill, – noticed by both Russia and China, as the US goes out of his way to avoid confrontation. However one should be watchful for this oppressive regime

If no change afterwards it will help the US to get both China and Russia on the same page of the international agenda to stop North Korea with its dangerous endeavours, leading simply to an avoidable war, – now.

Leadership by providing a change of perception works stronger than sanctions as sanctions proved to be the cut corner strategy not having an impact on historic based perceptions in this case, – the last neither being changed by media delivered warnings nor by measures being perceived as provocative

North Korea is able to test two devices at the same time, one with plutonium and the other with uranium, both then with more technological information and political damage being provided, – apart from the single fact that they are not far away from testing a thermonuclear device more powerful than any of their earlier devices being used, and again, – again straight on dialogue and working on a shift in perception with coöperation being the aim is a short-term goal of eminent importance, – even if this is against Pentagon advise.

Politically the new regime of Kim Jong-Un is more defiant to U.N. dictates than his predecessors, – just by still pursuing his nation’s nuclear aims. Neither stronger sanctions, nor the likely discontent of both Russia and China with his behaviour, appears to change North Korea’s young leader from its military driven aim and it is clear that only straight on discussions on both dismantling and cooperation might be helpful to change the perception that the US is not not the number one enemy, – as this is an inflated perception not based on any realistic facts, – unless the facts do change by further provocations by North Korea.

This is what the military leadership in North Korea needs to understand or facing the implications if North Korea indeed is going to face a nuclear threat for the region, with growing pressure from both China, Russia and the US.

The UN proved to be of no value to North Korea.

The aim is to get both China, Russia and the US on the same page of the strategic agenda as by not achieving this shift in perception with the North Korean leadership, this nation becomes a vey unpredictable nation at the potential cost of millions of people inside North Korea and outside its borders.

Related image

Hence steps of courage being required at the personal level to change those possible dynamics in history, as history will judge both in retrospect and relentless, on what “we” did to prevent “the North Korean problem” from evolving into a worst case scenario.

Thank you!

 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

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

 

 

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


 
Image via Wikipedia

The 43rd US President

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

George W Bush

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

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

George Bush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comparison with the Clinton years his policies moved right off the centre. His domestic policy did include various tax cuts and only 3 months in office in 2001 a terrorist attack took place on New York and Washington which implicated a dramatic change on US foreign policy. Bush,sr had a significant background impact on his son’s foreign policy.  G.W. Bush was surrounded by former aides and veterans including Cheney, Powell, Card, Rice and a few more. Bush, sr did influence his son’s administration from behind the scenes. The Bushes “have a long memory”, as Dick Cheney liked to remind people privately. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Cheney was vital in providing the primary justification for entering into a second war with Iraq. Cheney assisted to shape Bush’s approach to the “War on Terrorism“, alleging in various public statements that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He made many personal visits to CIA headquarters, where he questioned mid-level agency analysts on their conclusions. Cheney insisted to allege links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, even though classified President’s Daily Brief on September 21, 2001 reflected that the U.S. intelligence community had neither evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks nor  “scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda. Cheney has been characterized as the most powerful and influential Vice President in history. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Rumsfeld provided the military planning and implementation of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld highly favoured to send both the smallest and effective force as possible for both conflicts, a concept called “the Rumsfeld Doctrine.”

The G.W Bush Presidency was dominated by the war against terrorism, including both the war in Afghanistanand Iraq. This article will be concentrated on both 9/11 and the wars thereafter, apart from some (but not all) human right abuses for which both G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld could face trials for those abuses when they would visit eg certain countries in Europe. Needless to say there are more culprits. It is impossible to tell everything what happened, but let it be clear that the US Government did by far not reach the standards of being operating at the right side of the moral spectrum. It will be discussed in this article, but it is only a “tip of the iceberg.”

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

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

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

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

On the morning of 9/11, Rumsfeld spoke at a Pentagon breakfast meeting. According to his later description to Larry King, he stated at the meeting that “sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department that contributes to… that underpins peace and stability in our world. And that is what underpins peace and stability.”

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

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

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

Less than 3 hours after the start of the first hijacking and two hours after American Airlines Flight 11 striking the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld increased the US defense condition to DEFCON 3; the highest it had ever been since the Arab-Israeli war in 1973. On September 11, Rumsfeld was at 2:40 pm issuing rapid orders to his associates to find for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.” — meaning Saddam Hussein — “at same time. Not only UBL” (Osama bin Laden), Cambone’s notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. “Need to move swiftly — Near term target needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not.” Bush announced a global War on Terror after the 11 September attacks. The Afghan Taliban regime was unable to get Osama bin Laden, which provided Bush a reason to order the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban regime. In his January 29, In his 2002 State of the Union Address, at the end of January, Bush asserted that an “axis of evil” consisting of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq was “arming to threaten the peace of the world” and “pose a grave and growing danger”. The Bush Administration proclaimed to have a right and an obligation to engage in preëmptive war, also called preventive war, in response to all those perceived threats.This would  become the Bush Doctrine.

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

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

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

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

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

It can’t be denied that at the time the Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States supported the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents with several hundred million dollars a year fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan Mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987 said:”It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the Mujahideen by spending the taxpayers’ money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan’s policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan“. Interesting was the earlier mentioned Osama bin Laden, who had a leading role with mutual support from the US. However the war with the Soviets neared its end, with a CIA build up of activity in this area and more CIA demands on the bin Laden network. After he felt likely betrayed and profoundly intimidated, Bin Laden organized  al-Qaeda to carry out jihad mainly against the United States this time— the country that had helped fund the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Many commentators have described Al-Qaeda attacks as blowback or an unintended consequence of American aid to the Mujahideen. In response, the US Government,the CIA and Pakistani intelligence officials involved in the operation, and at least one journalist (Peter Bergen) have denied this theory. It was said that the aid was given out by the Pakistan government, and that it went to Afghan not foreign Mujahideen, and that there was no contact between the Afghan Arabs and the CIA or other American officials. Perhaps we need to take such statements with a pinch of salt. The BBC, in an article published shortly after the 9/11 attacks, stated that Bin Laden “received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.” In a 2004 BBC article entitled “al-Qaeda’s origins and links”, the BBC wrote: “During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA“. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published in 2006 that: “Bin Laden apparently received training from the CIA, which was backing the Afghan holy warriors – the mujahedeen – who were tying down Soviet forces in Afghanistan”. An article in Der Spiegel, entitled “Arming the Middle East”, Siegesmund von Ilsemann called Bin Laden in 2007″one of the CIA’s best weapons customers”.The CIA and the US Government til so far denied any connections. The UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, from 1997–2001, and Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from 2001-2003, believed the CIA provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.

Let’s face it, the US Government should have never opted to support Bin Laden with his support network against the Soviets at the time. The US and the Soviet Union were just in the process of reaching the most positive developments since decades, and the US Government and CIA supporting Bin Laden and his network against the Soviet Union was part of a policy full of duplicity and undermining activity. The US Government has been responsible for this and the terror from al Qaeda was as such self-inflicted terror. The US should have never been there in the first instance. US Presidents who would have acted with wisdom and restraint should have never allowed to get the CIA with covert operations supporting a foreign policy full of duplicity and deception. This management has been profound repugnant considering all the implications.

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

The 9/11 Commission was as much a farce as the Warren Commission was at the time of the Kennedy assassination. There has been compelling evidence that controlled demolition brought down buildings 1,2 and 7, based on thorough research and analysis. Bush, Ashcroft, FBI director said that the 9/11 attacks were not preventable, but the reality was that both those attacks and the controlled demolitions were preventable. FBI Director Bob Mueller allowed crucial steel evidence from the World Trade Centre to be destroyed as part of a criminal conspiracy at the Department of Justice to destroy evidence that could expose people behind the “false – flag terrorism of 9/11”. TIME Magazine did raise serious questions about the dealings of Bob Mueller. There are at least 11 remarkable facts about 9/11 in contrast with the outcome from the 9/11 Commission. It would need a full article to say more on this but “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth did elaborate in detail on this.The mysterious collapse of WTC 7 has never been answered for. It was this building being loaded with Intelligence information going down without any impact of either projectile or plane. 48 % of New Yorker’s support investigation of WTC7. Many many US Military Officers did join a request  apart of millions of other US citizens to reopen thorough,impartial, open and transparent investigations. Those requests have been ignored till so far. Even President Barack Obama does not want to have any controversy about the outcome of the 9/11 Commission. Former US President Jimmy Carter expressed however support for new investigations into the 9/11 attacks in 2009, but till so far no progress has been made.

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

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

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

People and Governments can refuse to face the truth as long as they want, but at some stage the truth and justice hopefully will catch up on them. There are enough US citizens unhappy about the undercurrents of their Government, the lack of transparency of wars eg in Afghanistan and the real reasoning for this based on pure historical facts being different from the facts presented by the CIA. Truman warned for the CIA and the power of the military establishment, so did Eisenhower and so did Kennedy. There is a major US budget deficit at present, largely based on the legacy of an unbelievable foreign policy for various decades. Even politicians look at short-term solutions, the cut corners strategy, without realising how much impact the self-inflicted past had on the US as a credible nation. What was left, G.W.Bush destroyed it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

 

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

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


English: US President Richard Nixon and Chines...

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

The 37th US President

Richard Milhouse Nixon

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

RICHARD   NIXON’s   VIOLATIONS  OF 

JUSTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

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

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


Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office on...

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

The 36th US President
Lyndon B.Johnson

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LBJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The level of LBJ’s violations of Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued>>>>> in part 4

Former US President Richard Nixon to be discussed in part 4

Thank you!
 Paul 

Paul Alexander Wolf

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

Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – 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

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/