Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 37,155
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 37,155
- 2013 (515)
- 2012 (319)
- 2011 (16)
- December (16)
- Older Archives
Good training for the boys. They were psyops specialists.
At CNN, they learned how the newsroom works.
NPR never heard of them, at first.
The powers-that-be have become desperate now that the enemies of secret government, or We the People if you still belive in democracy, are on to their gangster arses.
Posted by Octafish | Tue Jul 16, 2013, 07:04 PM (0 replies)
JFK CRIED FOR CONGO
(JFK receives the news of Lumumba's murder)
The caption for the photo above, by Jacques Lowe, personal photographer to JFK, reads:
"On February 13 1961, United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson came on the phone. I was alone with the President; his hand went to his head in utter despair, "On, no," I heard him groan. The Ambassador was informing the President of the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, an African leader considered a trouble-maker and a leftist by many Americans. But Kennedy's attitude towards black Africa was that many who were considered leftists were in fact nationalists and patriots, anti-West because of years of colonialization, and lured to the siren call of Communism against their will. He felt that Africa presented an opportunity for the West, and, speaking as an American, unhindered by a colonial heritage, he had made friends in Africa and would succeed in gaining the trust of a great many African leaders. The call therefore left him heartbroken, for he knew that the murder would be a prelude to chaos in the mineral-rich and important African country, it was a poignant moment."
(end quoting from 1983 book "Kennedy A Time Remembered" by Jacques Lowe)
As news stories describe the massacre of thousands in the Congo (April 2003) I remember Orwell and JFK, two of my favourite people. In 1984 Orwell told us that once Big Brother took control of the world (One World Government) it was divided into three Super-States and the Disputed Territories, over which the Super-States waged continuous war. The people of the Disputed Territories (including equatorial Africa) were "expended like so much coal or oil". Their nations were gutted for their "valuable minerals and important vegetable products".
Like so much else of what Orwell told us, he was accurate about the fate of Africa. Its nations have never had a chance to survive on their own without interference. However, had President Kennedy been allowed to live and enact his policies for Africa, that continent could be equal today to Europe and America.
Like in Vietnam, policy toward Congo and the rest of Africa did a 180.
Dodd and Dulles vs. Kennedy in Africa
“In assessing the central character ...
Gibbon’s description of the Byzantine general
Belisarius may suggest a comparison:
‘His imperfections flowed from the contagion of the times;
his virtues were his own.’”
— Richard Mahoney on President Kennedy
By Jim DiEugenio
CTKA From the January-February 1999 issue (Vol. 6 No. 2)
As Probe has noted elsewhere (especially in last year’s discussion of Sy Hersh’s anti-Kennedy screed, The Dark Side of Camelot), a clear strategy of those who wish to smother any search for the truth about President Kennedy’s assassination is to distort and deny his achievements in office. Hersh and his ilk have toiled to distort who Kennedy really was, where he was going, what the world would have been like if he had lived, and who and what he represented. As with the assassination, the goal of these people is to distort, exaggerate, and sometimes just outright fabricate in order to obfuscate specific Kennedy tactics, strategies, and outcomes.
This blackening of the record—disguised as historical revisionism—has been practiced on the left, but it is especially prevalent on the right. Political spy and propagandist Lucianna Goldberg—such a prominent figure in the current Clinton sex scandal—was tutored early on by the godfather of the anti-Kennedy books, that triple-distilled rightwinger and CIA crony Victor Lasky. In fact, at the time of Kennedy’s death, Lasky’s negative biography of Kennedy was on the best-seller lists. Lately, Christopher Matthews seemed to be the designated hitter on some of these issues (see the article on page 26). Curiously, his detractors ignore Kennedy’s efforts in a part of the world far from America, where Kennedy’s character, who and what he stood for, and how the world may have been different had he lived are clearly revealed. But to understand what Kennedy was promoting in Africa, we must first explore his activities a decade earlier.
To say the least, this is not what the Dulles brothers John Foster and Allen had in mind. Once the French empire fell, they tried to urge upon Eisenhower an overt American intervention in the area. When Eisenhower said no, Allen Dulles sent in a massive CIA covert operation headed by Air Force officer Edward Lansdale. In other words, the French form of foreign domination was replaced by the American version.
1964: LBJ reverses Kennedy’s policies
In 1964, the leftist rebellion picked up strength and began taking whole provinces. President Johnson and National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy decided that a weakened Adoula had to be strengthened with a show of American help. The CIA sent Cuban exile pilots to fly sorties against the rebels. When the UN finally withdrew, the US now became an ally of Belgium and intervened with arms, airplanes and advisors. Incredibly, as Jonathan Kwitny notes, Mobutu now invited Tshombe back into the Congo government (p. 79). Further, Tshombe now blamed the revolts on China! To quote Kwitny:
In a move suspiciously reminiscent of a standard US intelligence agency ploy, Tshombe produced what he said were some captured military documents, and a Chinese defector who announced that China was attempting to take over the Congo as part of a plot to conquer all of Africa. (p. 79)
With this, the Mobutu-Tshombe alliance now lost all semblance of a Gullion-Kennedy styled moderate coalition. Now, rightwing South Africans and Rhodesians were allowed to join the Congolese army in the war on the “Chinese-inspired left”. Further, as Kwitny also notes, this dramatic reversal was done under the auspices of the United States. The UN had now been dropped as a stabilizing, multilateral force. This meant, of course, that the tilt to the right would now go unabated. By 1965, the new American and Belgian supplemented force had put down the major part of the rebellion. General Mobutu then got rid of President Kasavubu. (Adoula had already been replaced by Tshombe.) In 1966, Mobutu installed himself as military dictator. The rest is a familiar story. Mobutu, like Suharto in Indonesia, allowed his country to be opened up to loads of outside investment. The riches of the Congo, like those of Indonesia, were mined by huge western corporations, whose owners and officers grew wealthy while Mobutu’s subjects were mired in abject poverty. As with the economy, Mobutu stifled political dissent as well. And, like Suharto, Mobutu grew into one of the richest men in the world. His holdings in Belgian real estate alone topped one hundred million dollars (Kwitny p. 87). Just one Swiss bank account was worth $143 million. And like Suharto, Mobutu fell after three decades of a corrupt dictatorship, leaving most of his citizenry in an anarchic, post-colonial state similar to where they had been at the beginning of his reign.
The policies before and after Kennedy’s in this tale help explain much about the chaos and confusion going on in Congo today. It’s a story you won’t read in many papers or see on television. In itself, the events which occurred there from 1959 to 1966 form a milestone. As Kwitny writes:
The democratic experiment had no example in Africa, and badly needed one. So perhaps the sorriest, and the most unnecessary, blight on the record of this new era, is that the precedent for it all, the very first coup in post-colonial African history, the very first political assassination, and the very first junking of a legally constituted democratic system, all took place in a major country, and were all instigated by the United States of America. (p. 75)
Thank you, Heywood J. You should have a Sunday column for The New York Times. Plus, a couple other days of the week, as well.
Posted by Octafish | Tue Jul 16, 2013, 04:34 PM (0 replies)
Info from natsec types that seems not to have made it the people running Corporate McPravda.
Posted by Octafish | Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:55 PM (1 replies)
It was a telling moment:
Poppy Bush brought up JFK Assassination and ''Conspiracy Theorists'' at Ford Funeral
Poppy smirks or laughs or grins at the moment he says "deluded gunman" near the 1:09 mark:
George H.W. Bush’s Eulogy for Gerald R. Ford
The New York Times
Published: January 2, 2007
Following is the transcript of the eulogy for former President Gerald R. Ford delivered today by former President George H.W. Bush in Washington, as recorded by The New York Times.
After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Ford’s word was always good.
A decade later, when scandal forced a vice president from office, President Nixon turned to the minority leader in the House to stabilize his administration because of Jerry Ford’s sterling reputation for integrity within the Congress. To political ally and adversary alike, Jerry Ford’s word was always good.
PS: Of course, to Gerald Ford Warren Commission skeptics presented "no problem."
PPS: What's even more telling is how there are still people interested in scrubbing the assassination record of any reference to Poppy.
PPPS: For those interested, background...
Know your BFEE: Poppy Bush was in Dallas the day JFK was assassinated.
Posted by Octafish | Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:47 PM (0 replies)
In such a political system, we'd express our opinions to our elected representatives. We could state, write, telephone or email our thoughts, free and unconcerned in the knowledge that our positions were not monitored or recorded. With public opinion being overwhelmingly in favor against NSA spherical spying on the American public, Congress and the President would certainly make changes in the law that We the People demanded. Unless, of course, there was another power we didn't know about, a secret government as it were.
Posted by Octafish | Tue Jul 16, 2013, 11:50 AM (0 replies)
Those are your words, not mine. And the words in the OP are his words, not mine.
In fact, go up and down this thread, or any other OP or reply I've posted since 2004 when I first heard of Barack Obama, and show me where I "shit on Obama." You won't find even one example.
As for Poppy Bush and his crimes, I'll repeat what I wrote to you:
Why you find fun in the BFEE is your own affair, SidDithers.
Bartcop coined the term "Bush Family Evil Empire" to denote the 60-year pre-eminence of one family in the formation of the political philosophy in the United States, that of the War Party. And, yes, personally, I have tried to chronicle their influence on the ascension of the national security state. At least three generations have held high national office, while also making big money off war and looting the public Treasury. The last president of the United States, a man who wasn't elected fair and square by any stretch of the imagination, actually said: "Money trumps peace" at a press conference. For some reason, not a single "journalist" had the guts to ask him what he meant by that.
Why that doesn't bother you is your business. It does bother me.
PS: Something I've notice about you is that you never seem to post anything that adds to what we know about these treasonous warmongers. I do remember that you do like to post emoticons, sorry to say.
BTW: I voted for President Obama, twice in general elections. Please tell DU: How many times have you voted for him?
Posted by Octafish | Tue Jul 16, 2013, 11:35 AM (1 replies)
One of the things I most happily anticipated in 2009 was a government spending program that would create jobs and tackle the big problems facing the nation, from infrastructure like a new green power grid to de-polluting the environment. What's more, Government spending on new programs would mean new jobs at government pay grades, improving the quality of life of the nation's middle class.
Keynesian economics, traditional FDR Democratic New Deal approach, would also mean there'd be fewer people available to fight for the low-pay service jobs the "job creators" in the private sector. To compete with the government for workers in such an economic climate would require the rich and the corporations they own to pay higher wages. So, the likes of Wall Street and their servants in Washington hated the idea.
It used to be the federal government had to have a certain percentage of jobs go to unions, women and minority-owned business, and others who historically were trampled under hoof in the rush to the federal money trough. I'm not sure if this is still the law, SCROTUS being the 5-4 Scalia cesspool that it is.
But the biggest reason for no New New Deal for the 21st Century, IMFO, is this: If people didn't have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck, if people were sure their families had a home, enough to eat, and the economic security for a sound future, like college and a decent retirement, then the people would have time to wonder more about why the government works so hard to help the rich and does so little -- relatively -- to help the middle class and poor. They'd also find more time to wonder why the government always has money for war and the companies the warmongers own.
Even in our time, where the greatest amount of wealth in human history has been amassed, that would be a problem for those who like things as they are. A New New Deal might interrupt the status quo, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
So. What's the ad say? "Stay thirsty, my Friends!"
Stay hungry, too.
Posted by Octafish | Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:09 AM (7 replies)
The journalist who received the leaks from a CIA mole says there are more documents
by Alberto Armendariz, The Nation, Saturday, July 13, 2013
RIO DE JANEIRO -- Appearances deceive. With his striped swimsuit, white flip-flops, jean shirt and a big backpack, Glenn Greenwald looks like a tourist walking along the Sao Conrado in Rio de Janeiro. But his trade is that of journalist, blogger and columnist for the British daily, The Guardian, who surprised the world with the revelations about the extensive computer spy network of the United States, leaked by Edward Snowden, the ex-intelligence analyst of the National Security Agency (NSA).
"Snowden has enough information with which to cause more damage to the government of the United States in one single minute by himself than any other person has had in the entire history of the United States," Greenwald, 46, affirmed to The Nation, and who, from these latitudes, writes regularly on the issues of international security that have made him into a celebrity, the winner of various distinguished awards.
Today, this New Yorker, ex-lawyer, is in the eye of the storm. Legislators in Washington want to bring him to trial; spies of various nations look to obtain the secret information that Snowden shared with him, the heaviest, in Hong Kong and that he continues sending from Moscow via a system of encrypted electonic mail. He knows that he's being surveilled and that his conversations are monitored. This includes the theft of his laptop from his boyfriend, from their own home.
Three men wait in the lobby of the hotel Royal Tulip with credentials from a symposium on osteoporosis, a meeting of which the (hotel) concierge has no idea. Are they really doctors or are they following Greenwald? Appearances deceive.
Q: Share with us about Snowden's decision to stay in Russian while awaiting to come to Latin America?
Yes, the most important thing is not to end up in the custody of the United States, whose government has demonstrated to be extremely vengeful in punishing those who reveal inconvenient truth, and whose judicial system can't be trusted when it treats people accused of putting the nation's security at risk; the judges do all tehy can to secure convictions in those cases. He would be imprisoned immediately to pt a stop on debate he helped start, and he'd finish the rest of his days behind bars.
Q: Has Russia guaranteed his security?
There aren't many countries on planet earth that have the capacity and the desire to challenge the demands of the United States. However, Russia is one of those states and has treated him well up to now.
Q: Beyond the revelations about the functioning of the spy system in general, what additional information does Snowden have?
Snowden has enough information with which to cause more damage to the government of the United States in one single minute by himself than any other person has had in the entire history of the United States. But that is not his objective. His objective is to reveal computer programs that persons around the whole world use without knowing that they are being watched and without having consciously agreed to giving up their right to privacy. He has an enormous quantity of documents that would be most damaging to the government of the United States should they be made public.
Q: Is he afraid someone will try to kill him?
That is a possibility, although I do not think that would be of much benefit to anyone at this point. He's distributed thousands of documents and has ensured that various people around the world has his complete archive. Should something happent to him, those documents would be made public. That's his insurance police. The government of the United States should be on its knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something should happen to him, all the information would be revealed and that would make for their worst nightmare.
Q: Could Latin America provide a good place of refuge for Snowden?
Only certain countries, such as various countries in Latin American, China and Russia, have challenged the United States, they have noticed that the United States no longer is in a position of power that it previously had before the rest of the world, and that the rest of the nations no longer have to obey its demands as if they were under imperial orders. In Latin America there is a natural affinity for the United States, but at the same time there is a great resentment for specific historic policies made from Washington for the region. What happened with the aircraft carryign Evo Morales from Europe provoked a very strong reaction, it was as if Bolivia were treated as a colony and not as a sovereign state.
Q: Of the documents Snowden shared with you, is there much more information relating to Latin America?
Yes. For each nation that has an advanced system of communications, which is the case from Mexico to Argentina, there are documents that detail how the United States picks up information from the flow, the programs that are used to capture the transmissions, the amount of information intercepted that is accomplished each day, and much more. One form of intercepting communications is through a United States telecommunications company that has contracts with most of the nations in Latin America. The important thing will be to see what is the reaction of the different governments. I don't believe the governments of Mexico and Colombia will do much in this regard. Perhaps, however, the governments of Argentina and Venezuela will be inclined to take concrete actions.
Translated by Octafish -- Sorry if there are any mistakes. Please let me know and I'll correct.
GOT some help from: http://www.spanishdict.com/translation
The great DUer Luminous Animal started an OP on the quotes and their context:
Posted by Octafish | Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:36 AM (3 replies)
The CIA Enlisted the Mafia to Kill Fidel Castro in 1960
And in more recent days...
Blackwater managed CIA Predator drone assassination program
As for Snowden's go-to reporter...
DC Journo Overhears Intel Pros Talking About ‘Disappearing’ NSA Leaker, Glenn Greenwald
Posted by Octafish | Sat Jul 13, 2013, 11:02 AM (1 replies)
You very often repeat part of what my posts say. Then, you add a conclusion I didn't make.
Padilla and Siegelman were convicted of crimes by the same State that cannot find cause to indict the likes of Dick Cheney or George W Bush.
I believe if we were to ask Edward Snowden his thoughts about your question, he'd agree that the state has criminally mistreated Padilla and has falsely tried ("criminally tried" sounds so Orwellian) Siegelman.
I wish we could ask what Padilla thinks. Unfortunately, that is no longer possible due to his mental state.
We do know what Siegelman thinks:
‘Disappointed’ Siegelman: Obama Justice Dept. Virtually The Same As Bush DOJ
JUSTIN ELLIOTT NOVEMBER 25, 2009, 10:42 AM
When the Obama Administration argued in a filing earlier this month that the Supreme Court should not consider an appeal by Don Siegelman, the former Alabama governor wasn’t surprised, even though the Obama filing maintained the Bush-era stance in Siegelman’s controversial corruption case.
“There’s really been no substantial change in the heart of the Department of Justice from the Bush-Rove Department of Justice,” Siegelman tells TPMmuckraker in an interview.
Siegelman, a Democrat, served roughly nine months in prison after his 2006 bribery conviction. He was ordered released pending appeal in March 2008. The case, which has been dogged by allegations of politicization and prosecutorial misconduct — including links to Karl Rove — centers on what the government called a pay-to-play scheme in which Siegelman appointed a large donor to a state regulatory board.
Siegelman has asked the Supreme Court to consider the definition of bribery, arguing that he merely engaged in routine political transactions. But, in the Nov. 13 filing that raised Siegelman’s hackles, Obama’s solicitor general argued that “corrupt intent” had been established in the trial.
While Solicitor General Elena Kagan was appointed by Obama, Siegelman says the DOJ staffers who are giving advice and making decisions on his case are the same people who were at the department under Bush. “The people who have been writing the briefs for the government are the same people who were involved in the prosecution,” he says.
I'm disappointed, too. I had hoped that the Justice Department would lean less corporate and more individual rights, you know more "Democratic," in a Democratic administration.
Posted by Octafish | Fri Jul 12, 2013, 06:22 PM (1 replies)