Seymour Hersh: Army is “in a war against the White House — and they feel they have Obama boxed in.”

Military waging war with White House

By Neil Offen
October 14, 2009









It appears that certain elements of our military are still operating on Bush's directives to use Special Forces to foment pockets of chaos in Iran, with the aim of spreading it.




From July, 2008: (with a hat tip to DU'er tekisui)






We've seen this movie before.



Bush 'tried to lure Saddam into war using UN aircraft' . February 3, 2006




US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision

By Gareth Porter
February 2, 2009







Mr. President, Bush and Cheney's "leave-behinds" at the Pentagon continue to destabilize the world.



"Asia and the MidEast don’t want to finance America’s wars any more."---- Max Keiser







If our president does not stand up to this military, the world will.

explains why the mcchrystal memo was leaked

I think Wes would be just the guy to stand up to the Pentagon neocons and force some of these jokers into early retirement.

He belongs in Obama's administration.

nt, months before the democratic convention in 2008. Apparently, he's been shunned by Obama since then; it's like he got totally blacklisted after that interview.

Too bad; it would be nice to have him in the Obama administration...

by which I mean, everyone who was against the Iraq war. Like where is Howard Dean?

He worked hard for Hilary, but I hoped that Senator Obama would not be petty and would recognize General Clark's HUGE value to any administration.

you have to be out of the military for 10(?) years before you can be Sec of Defense.

If asked.

I hope that he will replace Gates.

And it'll be good to have a democrat in the Sec of Defense position.

I believe that Wes Clark will have the president's back, and that's more than I can say about a few of them. Michael Musto wrote a book entitled, 'Fork on the Left, Knife in the Back. I haven't read the book, and I'm sure it's humor, but the title alone makes me think of some in the administration.

I'm very happy to see this discussion about General Clark here, as DU hasn't exactly been the place for such.

and most why importantly isn't Elizabeth Warren Sec of Treasury or even the Head of Fed Reserve. John Kerry would be a good Sec of Defense.

It's the only possible explanation. He reinforces the banking fiasco by hiring the architects of it in the first place and giving them ALL the money. He puts the liar of the Tillman affair in charge in Afghanistan. First he undercuts real healthcare reform by taking reform off the table, then he ignores Gov. Dean. He says he's the responsible one his plan wont begin until after his last election, so he knows he can't be held responsible. He pays lip service to equal rights for gays, but keeps releasing committed volunteers from the service while extending the excessive imposition on reservists.

This man got to power by campaigning on Change and every action he has taken in law has been exactly the opposite of change. He's still talking the talk, but what is he actually doing? Is he too inexperienced and getting rolled, or is he just not committed to his words? The Change I am perceiving is the loss of hope for change. Talk me down, anyone

because I'm seeing the same thing.

I'm glad that Obama is in because McCain would have turned Iran into glass by now.

However, the questions that I had about Obama in the beginning--lack of experience, no trials by fire, Friedmanite economic advisers--seem to be are pertinent today as they were almost two years ago.

He has no strong record of producing change at any level, and he has surrounded himself, at least in economics, with agents of the now discredited globalist, Friedmanite, Greenspanite wing of the party.

He's also showing some inflexibility. Two years ago, health care and climate change seemed like reasonable first priorities, although many respected individuals were talking about the economy falling apart as a result of real estate bubbles and weapons of economic destruction.

Then, a year ago, the economy imploded. You'd think that a person with some flexibility would realize that we were once again at the "it's the economy stupid" moment and really focus on that.

"But NO," to quote a famous Chicagoan. Obama seems to think that he has fixed the economy and he continues to focus on health care and climate change despite the fact that on the ground, the economy looks far from fixed.

Axelrod thinks that Obama must get things done in the first 100 days like Roosevelt. But Roosevelt's legislation all related to the crisis at hand, which was the economy. Obama's legislation now seems to relate to less important crises. Who cares about climate change when the green jobs are now in China? Who cares so much about insurance when one cannot even scrape up the dough to pay the fine for not having the insurance?

If Axelrod and Obama had followed Roosevelt, they would have hit hard on the economy in the first 100 days, and not just pushed the stimulus which may turn out to be too little too late, maybe they could have done some good in bringing back jobs and corralling Wall Street. But they listened to the wrong advisers and thus squandered the time instead of hitting the real crisis until it abated.

Obama has a lot of ego tied up in health care and not enough in the real lives right now of the American people. And it's showing.

is an active duty military member. The highest rank in the military at that.

I know FAUX news links aren't liked, but this interview has some good info for those who think Clark is anti-war.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,561323,00.html

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight, let's bring another general, Wesley Clark from Little Rock, Arkansas. Are you going with McChrystal or are you going with Obama?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK, FMR. NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Bill, I'll tell you, when the commander on the ground says he needs more troops, you better listen.

CLARK: I think the real issue is what's the mission and then what's the right strategy? And I don't think it's wrong for the administration to really do a gut check and make sure that we've got the right mission and the right strategy. If it were up to me, I'd be thinking real hard about Usama bin Laden because that's why we went there in the first place. We didn't get him the first time. He's not in Afghanistan. He's in Pakistan. So my thesis would be you've got to look at this as AfPak, not separately Afghanistan. You can lose it in Afghanistan if you're driven off the battlefield. You can't win it in Afghanistan. You've got to get Usama bin Laden…

O'REILLY: Well, I agree and…

CLARK: ...and al-Zawahiri out of Pakistan.

O'REILLY: And the Pakistani army has been doing some separation operations where they should finally. But the more important thing, I think, General, isn't strategy in Afghanistan. We'll leave that to General McChrystal, President Obama's handpicked guy. Let him run the war. Give him chance. But the commander and chief now is looking like he's unsure. This is Barack Obama, I'm talking about. He's looking to the world like he doesn't really know what to do. Now, that may not be fair, but it's the perception, is it not?

"we've got the right mission and the right strategy" actually supports Obama. Get that right then give the General what he needs is what Clark is saying. Who can argue with that. Besides, this is very much in line with what Vice President Biden has been quoted as pushing for -- a change in mission and strategy. He calls it anti-terrorism rather than anti-insurgency and McChrystal is stuck on anti-insurgency, which is stepping over into the policy arena. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama tries to mollify some ruffled feathers by adopting the Biden proposal but with a few more troops -- certainly no more than 10,000 and far fewer than the 40,000 McChrystal has been rumored as requesting. The surge in Iraq was a failure up until al Sadr declared a unilater ceasefire. Fat chance the Taliban will declare a ceasefire and fat chance a surge can work in Afghanistan.

What those that say the military has Obama boxed in are overlooking is that Obama can simply buy time by waiting until a new government is installed. Today it was leaked that 1/3 of Karzai's votes have been tossed, bringing his total down to 48.3%, which means a runoff election is necessary. The outcome in this tussle over policy is far from a foregone conclusion.

between the lines. I highly recommend the program to DUers.

and he knows them when he sees them.

I have no particular dislike for Biden, but could you imagine how differently the military would conduct itself if the second-in-command was the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Forces during a successfully-prosecuted war/peacekeeping operation?

That, plus Wes Clark has at least as good a head on his shoulders as Biden (who himself is no slouch) when it comes to foreign policy.

Why Obama shunned Clark is a mystery to me, but I strongly suspect Rahm Emmanuel and the DLC.

-app

Not that anyone on DU these days would notice a stay-behind in broad daylight or nothing.

I trust the guy, but Obama's in the deep doo-doo thing.

In the case of former DCI "Bank of Crooks and Criminals" Gates, he should ask, like Prisoner #6: "Who's side are you on?"

With Wes, we'd know.

I've never been very comfortable with Gates in Obama's administration. He doesn't do anything really crazy to to get attention (and I sleep better knowing that Mr. Ding "Don" Rumsfield is out of the picture)...but, any Bush holdover, especially in Defense, is dangerous. I hope Hersch is over-reacting, but if he isn't, I hope Obama's got a plan to deal with all of these guys, at once.

He'd be great.

this:

What has O done or not done about this covert operation??? Is it still running? If so, with his knowledge or rogue?

...who believe they're in a "crusade" against Islam.

They can't think outside the 'end times' box.

later . . . it will be some other group.

Admiral William Fallon went out of his way to warn us about Petraeus.


There is a cabal still dug in at the Pentagon, that is not the least bit interested in diplomacy or intelligent engagement.

politicization of the military --

And many may recall the notorious Gen. Edwin Walker -- who allegedly was shot at in
his home by Lee Harvey Oswald--!!

JFK fired him for trying to introduce right-wing politics into military --

Later, Gen. Walker led the racist riot at Ole Miss to keep James Meredith out -- !!

He was arrested and psychiatric care recommended!!

within - the military industrial organization - the military and the corporations. POWER.

He is one man - God be with him. Do any of you know how to overcome this mess?

That was a punk move by him. Obama needs to let those boys know that he's in charge.

That is exactly what should be done. Just as Truman did to Doug in Korea.

Looking back at Vietnam -- the other perpetual war -- youth were in the streets and

I think adults were about to join them when Nixon fell. How do I interpret that?

Was the MIC upset because Nixon wasn't able to mesmerize the masses in favor of VN war?

Or were they upset because Nixon was continuing with VN?

Nixon tried with many dirty tricks to undo the anti-VN demonstrations -- having

"construction workers"/false flag attack the youths. Having tens of thousands of telegrams

supporting the war sent to White House -- written and arranged by White House!

Letters, too!!

Attacking youth at Kent State, etal was Nixon's solution -- and parents' weren't going to let

kids actually be killed to protest killing in VN!

How do we help Obama end these wars behind which so much filth is pushed into place and

where our Treasury is being bankrupted?

I think you asked a terrific question and I hope you get some better answers than mine!!!

I'd be for musical chairs with the military -- move them out --

Who was Clinton's guy -- ?? Army Gen. John Shalikashvili,

yep, we don't need more troops.

It's a way of life and a paycheck.



(note to Obama - grow some)

or publicly funded campaigns.

Providing support to the MEK may be like the US supporting Al Qaeda prior to 9-11.

If the Pentagon really is racist, then I hope that people of color within the Army are well-connected with the right people. The "white supremacist (aka neo-Nazi)" element needs to be monitored closely.

"Hersh comments that the decision to launch these covert operations was prompted by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate’s verdict that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme and that the approval by the US Congress leadership of the $400 million budget for the operations “is totally an expansion” of the executive powers of the Bush Administration"

We're in the midst of a right-wing reaction to Obama, from without and within the administration. Obama seems to be doing the best he can to balance the kooks in GOPland and the GOP-appointed officer ranks with his stated agenda for change. It's past time he takes off the gloves and starts dealing out some law and order to those who don't believe in the Constitution.

The guy told us to remind him. Thanks for remembering, flyarm.

Obama as "weak", "soft", "lacks courage", not tough enough, etc, ad nauseum..at their own peril.

and fighting within

for dominance

there is one group that is Bush & Cheney boys
but there is the rogue group that are fighting for Americans

and they don't want war with Iran

the Russians know about the schism

its been there for awhile

at 911 there was an attack on the Pentagon
and thats when the War started

and any other officer who pushes this crap. Trumman did not tolerate this from McCarthur and Douglas had a lot more credentials as a war time commander than McKrystal does.

Should have been done by now.

Mr. President, grow a pair. Fast.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

be corporate - evangelical - bigoted - and many have not grown up enough to treat women of the nations they are invading and occupying like humans - as well as our own - their co-military female soldiers.

This transition is torturous. They gave us torture and they are applying mind torture. The torture just goes on and on.

War games. War toys. War planning. War spending. War macho. Personnel macho.

News like this - military brass fighting the President - utterly anti-American about peace.

Is it all about medals on the chest?

President Obama - now is the time to name a new Secretary - Secretary of Peace. Department of Peace.

Make them talk to each other.

The way I see it - as the military/reverend/media/industry/banking barons try to brings us down, they need to keep on creating environments that make the rich richer.

I believe Hirsch. Very depressing.

They're all playing for the same team--Big Bidness and the Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Corporate Complex.

We are lucky to have men like Sy Hersch who have the ways and means to get the true story. Now, if we could only get somebody (America) to take this to heart.

Recommend.

in disgust already.

He needs to put these bullies in their place and withdraw from the valley of the shadow of dead empires.

I hope Obama kicks their asses.

It's ten times as worse now for Obama than it was with Kennedy, worse because there is no politically liberal contingent left in the military. It is solidly conservative (a side effect of Vietnam and the end of the draft). Second, unlike Kennedy, Obama never served in the military; meaning they do not respect him. And, as it is already made clear by the article, they regard him as being racially inferior. For Kennedy, the Military-Industrial Complex was not as deeply entrenched and wealthy as it is now against Obama, after string of conservative ideologue presidents. (Bill Clinton did not really challenge it.)

Finally, and the worst thing, he depends on them to give him a correct assessment about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I do not think progressive/liberals or anybody on the left really appreciates what he is up against, here. Kennedy had it good by comparison. Obama is the only president who runs some danger of being ousted in a coup, and runs a highest risk of assassination since . . . Kennedy.

And a significant part of both those risks come from the military, or the military-industrial complex. I am truly afraid for him. I'm an agnostic and I pray for him.

He could have parachuted into a live volcano and they would not have been impressed. Do you remember the Battle of Old Miss -- when Oxford went up in flames as James Meredith arrived on campus? The army nearly allowed the school to be overrun, openly dragging their heels despite their orders from Kennedy.

Kennedy also had to fight to be put in the loop and he often lost that battle. They also questioned his judgment in the press and made no secret that they thought he was an idiot in terms that insulted his relative youth and background. There is no way in which Kennedy had it "good" up to and including the part where he is assassinated with the cooperation of some element in our government. Kennedy didn't appoint his brother out of nepotism. He needed someone he could trust with his life because the Pentagon was at war with him.

I don't know why you'd say the left or progressives don't appreciate Obama's situation. Of all people, we probably do better than any group if you are considering more than the question of race because we study history and how our government works or fails to work.

Obama has it worse and better than Kennedy did. Worse because, as you say, the military is even more conservative and the MIC more entrenched. On the other hand, since Kennedy, young outsiders have carved out a path of co-existence with the MIC so it is now possible to live through your term. Kennedy didn't have access to the lesson of his own murder or of the presidents who came before him, like Clinton did, who avoided it.

. . . that makes him look better than I think he actually was. Of his assassination: Oswald acted alone. Of that I am convinced. Sorry to make that argument short. I have long arguments about it that I can give you the link to upon request, but I'm not going over it again.

Robert F. Kennedy ran more covert operations, assassinations and coups, than were led under eight years of Eisenhower. (This is true no matter what better things could be said about RFK later.) Among those were several attempts to assassinate Castro. JFK made that a priority after the Bay of Pigs, which wounded JFK's presidency. . . and his manhood.

The MIC and the Army had their own agenda then, but it was not totally opposed to Kennedy, and they might have been reluctant and dragged their feet and (with the CIA), but they would not have done anything to directly bring him down. Look at the difference in the way Kennedy was treated for his war record and the way Kerry was.

Kennedy was not an outsider. The son Joseph Kennedy was no more an outsider than either of the Bush Presidents. If anything made them recalcitrant about him, it was JFK's own behavior (sex addiction) and physical ailments. I mean, come on, he slept with a Soviet spy. How much confidence could they have in him?

I'll give him credit, though, he was still a good President despite all of it.

and JFK had the support of Sam Giancana when he ran for president. The mafia felt betrayed when AG Robert Kennedy declared war on organized crime, and consequently also become an enemy of J. Edgar Hoover, who was considered to be in the mafia's "hip pocket". Nixon had strong connections with the mafia and CIA, and was likely behind the Bay of Pigs invasion, whose failure they blamed on JFK. Documents prove that mafia hitmen became assets of the CIA to be used to assassinate Castro. JFK went on record as wanting to dismantle the CIA. Several big businesses (including oil companies and mob-run Cuban casinos) wanted Castro taken out, and supported Nixon when he ran against JFK.

With powerful, high-level enemies such as these, there is no way, shape or form that JFK had it easy, and you certainly can't compare those conditions to anything in the present day.

unless you explain, I don't know what "half" you a referring to.

and three nights of lost sleep. So, I'm reluctant to get into it.

See my posts in this thread, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You should not question only authority. Here's what's questionable about your assessment:

1) the CIA had Mafia assets in Cuba, not in the US. In Cuba, it was simply because the Mafia still had connections in that country, and the CIA could not on its own successfully infiltrate Cuba. The Mafia's hit men proved rather pitiful in political assassination, though, because the Mafia's methods were not very sophisticated. Their modus involves ambushing the early-to-be-late associate with small-caliber weapons, except in the roaring '20s where tommy-guns were in. Given the embarrassing results with Castro, no successful conspiracy would ever employ them against Kennedy.

(I know, Jack Ruby gives me pause.)

2) Joseph Kennedy did not have the mob in his service to deliver votes to his son. Your right that Joseph Kennedy probably had associates in the mob-- the Irish mob. Please note, however, that for Joe Kennedy's generation, half the Democratic Party had mob connections due to Prohibition. Almost all of them did not have a family member who died violently. Please note also, Joe K. was Irish, and the Mafia was Italian. Have you noticed how criminal gangs are always formed along ethnic lines? Joe K.'s actual weight with the Mafia has been exaggerated-- by Republican propaganda.

3) The support of Sam Giancana: This is Republican Propaganda based on the boasting of a pathological liar. The Daley machine delivered votes, and there was some overlap between its operatives and the Mafia payroll, but they were doing what the Machine would have done in the election anyway. Nor is it true that Illinois won the election for Kennedy. Without it, he still would have won by 47 electoral votes. In other words, the Mafia could not have been too disappointed in Kennedy. The only thing that would indicate Mafia involvement somewhere? Jack Ruby. The problem is, he was also just the sort of guy to have fits of rage and depression and to have poor impulse control, too.

4) There is no doubt in history who was behind the Bay of Pigs invasion. It was an incompetent CIA agent named Tracy Barnes, and it was approved by Alan Dulles. Kennedy knew about it, and approved it, along with dozens of ongoing covert operations being worked by the CIA when he came into office. It is very well documented. It wasn't Nixon. And it pretty much ended Alan Dulles career as CIA head.

5) Nixon was about as paranoid about the CIA as he was about everybody and everything else. I've never heard anything about his connections to the Mafia, but it sounds as likely as John Paul II connections to the Khmer Rouge. Speaking of this, was Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) in on this conspiracy, too? Obviously, the Mafia must have let him know.

6) JFK was never on record saying he would dismantle the CIA. However, he did put his brother in charge of covert actions, and made him the the real power over the CIA.

7) On Hoover: I don't really have any information about Hoover's exact relation to the Mafia, except if you have the CIA and the military with your conspiracy, the corporations, Richard Nixon . . . what was Hoover supposed to be doing, and why include him, or Nixon, in this unless he was-- evil, and so must have had something to do with it? He wasn't the "real" gunman, was he?

And also, if you had that many forces and people of evil behind you, why not just fix JFK's plane to crash? Why assassinate him in the most public and dramatic way possible? It looks like a crime of opportunity to me.

Personally, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think these JFK conspiracy theories are brain damaging. They damage people's abilities to make realistic assessments of politics now. They distort people's sense of other people's motives.

Not to say there aren't conspiracies, not at all. We are facing several right now. There just aren't any in the real world like this.

Lee Harvey Oswald did it, from the Book Depository, with a rifle. Or perhaps Professor Plum, with an invisible leadpipe, from the trunk. Or Jackie Kennedy with exploding lipstick, from the backseat. Any one of those make more sense than the current conspiracy theories.

whether Oswald was the lone assassin or not, it does not have any bearing on the fact that JFK had known enemies, and was strongly opposed in several right-wing sectors.


Following is an enlightening bit about mafia denial in the early 60s:



The following outlines evidence that the CIA was working with Chicago-based underworld figures in anti-Castro efforts:



Richard Nixon's ties to the mafia have been well-documented by Don Fulsom. Certain CIA people played important roles in the Watergate breakin, so obviously Nixon trusted some factions within the CIA:

http://surftofind.com/mob

Many of the Anti-Castro operations were planned by Nixon while he was Vice President before JFK took over. I would question whether many of the CIA assets involved paid greater allegiance to Nixon's planned anti-communist initiatives.

which is why I call it brain damaging.

You are right: the Mafia influence on state and local government that you describe is beyond doubt, and the situation was brought about by Prohibition-- the consequences of which would leave a shadow upon the nation well into the late 1980s. BTW, you know a law is stupid when that happens, when there are still consequences fifty years after it is repealed.

The reach of the mob in many cities and states was great, and it bought the best money could buy: the Democratic Party. For generations, this separated Democratic politicians into two categories: "machine" democrats, and reform democrats. Machine democrat was very much a euphemism.

The silence in the press about it seems unaccountable at first, but intimidation might have been a huge factor. Reporters, who would have been directly knowledgeable about gang-land hits, were scared to death of it, and a few might have been paid off. Reform democrats would have been afraid as well, because even though the mob probably would not hit them while they were in office, they could always that next election. Their fights against it would have been cautious. This is just a hypothesis.

Hoover's silence on the matter is a lot more mysterious. He was paid off in some way, but it was also in his interest to have declared the "War on Crime" he started in the '20s to have been a tremendous success so his agency could concentrate on communism-- and filming Kennedy having sex.

For Nixon, I don't agree with your source. According to Tim Weiner in "Legacy of Ashes" Nixon had nothing to do with intelligence under Eisenhower. Nothing. A VP's job at the time was to do nothing, collect his paycheck, and maintain his pulse in case the president dies. That was all. It was not until, surprisingly, Nixon's presidency with VP Spiro Agnew putting his two cents in now and then as the President's PR man, that this began to change-- a little. It was Carter who really began to give the VP a role. The word I always had, from history class, is that Eisenhower disliked Nixon worse than the Kennedy's hated Johnson. During the "Checkers" incident, I have heard that Eisenhower did not say a word to help Nixon. Given how spiteful and totally paranoid Nixon was, would this really have been the man Eisenhower-- a "Great General," experienced in personnel decisions, would have put into intelligence? When he did not have to?

He recruited from the CIA for CREEP and the Plumbers by having his staff, Haldeman and Ehrlichman, recruit them. He did not choose the guys himself. Just to show why: Nixon trusted Kissinger to lead intelligence-- and then bugged Kissinger. That's how paranoid Nixon was.

outline connection after connection that Nixon had with the mob, and how they influenced Nixon's career. Cuba was central to the mob in the early 60s, and keep in mind that Nixon was preparing to run against JFK in the 1960 election. Whether Eisenhower assisted him or not is not the point, Nixon was clearly planning to take out Castro, and was making plans to do it once he became president.

As far as Nixon making plans against Castro together with the CIA, this article seems to be pretty well sourced:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp4.html



On edit: Nixon admits his involvement himself, in one of his memoirs:

I find it impossible to believe that Gary Powers' U2 got shot down deliberately. Or even that he was sent there on the chance that he would be shot down. Sorry, if it were a spy novel and I came across that, I'd put it down and leave it in the bookstore. U2 flights were the only intelligence our government had about the Soviet Union. Outside of that source, the US government had zilch. That's why they wanted one more flight.

Being skeptical doesn't only apply to authorities. It applies also to paranoids. The term "Power Control Group," sounds clinically paranoid, and clinically paranoid people often write books and put up web pages-- with delusional evidence.

That doesn't mean that there might not be some truth to it, and I'll be reading its sources. I would have to read Nixon's own book "Six Crises" first, and see if this is correct quote, however, I believe Nixon, especially when seeking the presidency, to be a somewhat unreliable source about himself. Wouldn't you? Ike was pressured by the CIA to make one more U2 flight before the summit, by different people. Nixon might have been behind it, but there were others who would have been clamoring for actions against Castro. The fact is, though, the CIA's covert operations division was totally out of control long before Eisenhower had his health problems, and before Richard Nixon arrived on the scene. The blame, as I see it, belonged with Allen Dulles and Frank Wiesner. They had covert actions against Cuba because they had covert actions against almost every country. Including Japan.

If we let our own fears direct us without evidence, we are really no better morally than the CIA and any cold warrior who, after finding the Soviet Union impenetrable, imagined all kinds of ways the Red Menace trying to subvert and take over the world, and who came up with all kinds of extremely harmful covert actions against it.

regardless, it seems pretty clear that Nixon was running for president and supervising some plans to overthrow Castro.

According to Russ Baker, the CIA surrounded Nixon and then set him up to fail. He indicates that it may have been Poppy Bush, whose father helped launch Nixon's career, that was pulling the strings:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Watergate_and_Future_News...

"Nixon suspected the CIA of surrounding him and then setting him up. From his own days supervising covert operations as vice president, he recognized that the Watergate burglars and their bosses were seasoned CIA hardliners with ties to the Bay of Pigs invasion and events linked to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nixon battled the CIA for files on what he called the "Bay of Pigs thing," but never could get access to them.

In sum, I found that the very people who created Nixon and used him to advance their own political interests ended up destroying him. Nixon's famous paranoia, in other words, had a basis in reality."

I'll be sure to get Russ Baker's book at the library tomorrow even if this looks more like a TV drama than reality. I will also order "Six Crises" from there and will reread Weiner's "A Legacy of Ashes."

Do you care if I let you know what I think afterward?

I'm excited that others are interested in this. I'll admit that I started out being obsessed with the JFK assassination after digging through some of Octafish's threads, but now with all the crap that Obama has to deal with, I think it's highly relevant to understand the origins of all the factors involved with secretive government, far right-wing militia groups (with their own threats of terror), and the corruption from foreign influences.

The reason why is, the suspicion that it was actually American Intelligence that did it is still strong, and strong probably with Obama. As Giancana showed, it can still be used to intimidate whether true or not. It doesn't matter if it's true, the suspicions are out there and American Intelligence can coop them.

It is doubtful that anybody but Oswald did this, which would unfortunately make Oswald the most influential person in the late 20th century, and would put Jack Ruby in the top 10 at least.

here's some more detailed information about mafia involvement, with a detailed timeline. I can't vouch for the facts, but it includes many details:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/10/23675.shtml

On edit: more on Onassis here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1111444/I-know-...

except insofar as he was leaned on by Hoover who was blackmailing JFK. And before he was killed, Kennedy had reached out to Castro.

The difference between the way Kennedy was treated and the way Kerry was is largely due to media consolidation, not to some better treatment of Kennedy. When Kennedy ran, remember, being Irish Catholic was in itself an issue. Kerry benefited from that battle having been fought already.

And I seriously doubt that his bedroom habits are the reason the generals went against his decisions as commander in chief. That's just silly. They were hawks and they had an agenda for his presidency.

I thought I should point out that RFK did not approach his role in way that was consistent with your depiction. If anything he seemed to be trying to out-hawk the hawks, and many times, I'm afraid, JFK seemed to be doing the same thing. His sudden blockade of Cuba (which as it turned out later, had armed missiles, ready to launch) almost brought us to nuclear war. When he did, all the Generals were saying we must be the ones fire first, and he was resisted. It made unlikely, unsung, hero of Khrushchev, who was likely being urged to do the same by his Generals.

No, I don't think there was an effort to try to impugn JFK's war heroism. And no, the lack of effort wasn't due to media consolidation. It was an unwritten rule among WWII generation that you just did not do that; that's what was so galling to me about the Swift-Boat Gang. It showed me how base things had become.

Not only that, one good thing about the draft had been that the military was not so completely biased toward the right. I'm not saying the draft was a great thing, it wasn't, but it did have a way of lessening the rightward balance in the military, at least the right-wingers had to work with somebody more liberal now and then. This has been an evolution.

And about out-hawking the hawks, Kennedy wasn't drafted into WWII and could have avoided it. He volunteered, and performed outstandingly-- he was what you would call a "badass."

About his being Irish Catholic: I wasn't going to mention that as an issue, but since you have: the CIA was made up overwhelmingly of WASP Ivy Leaguers, that was one problem. If you could see this could be a big deal, why would you presume his bedroom habits weren't an issue them? I'm certain those ol' boys had extensive locker-room stories, but I think Kennedy topped them all. Not only does that lead to some hypocritical disgust among those already sworn to the hypocritic oath, but also jealousy enters the mix and also interferes with professionalism. No, they'd never admit it . . . but they would think of him as a Lieutenant who for some reason called a Constitution they had to obey.

My point: Sorry, I do not think the polarization was as bad then compared to what Obama faces now, and therefore, in no way did Kennedy have it this bad. Nor had the Military Industrial Complex been so spoiled yet. I mean, it's been getting richer and it is going on twenty years since the Cold War ended! Lastly, I don't think John Kennedy was the dove that people make him out to be. In many ways he was just as hawkish as anybody in the Pentagon. If they worked against him, there was something else going on.

I didn't think so either till it was brought up.

I thought I should point out that RFK did not approach his role in a way that was consistent with your depiction. If anything he seemed to be trying to out-hawk the hawks, and many times, I'm afraid, JFK seemed to be doing the same thing. JFK's sudden blockade of Cuba (which as it turned out later, had armed missiles, ready to launch) almost brought us to nuclear war. When he did it, all the Generals were saying we had to fire first, and Kennedy then had to spend days fighting them over it. Calling for the first strike, BTW, is totally logical to military people given the firepower involved, the ones who fire first win. It made unlikely, unsung, hero of Khrushchev, who actually backed down, and who was likely being urged to make a first strike by his Generals, and the Central Committee.

No, I disagree with you that there was an effort to try to impugn JFK's war heroism. And no, the lack of effort wasn't due to media consolidation. It was an unwritten rule among WWII generation that you just did not do that; that's what was so galling to me about the Swift-Boat Gang. It showed me how base things had become.

Not only that, one good thing about the draft had been that the military was not so completely biased toward the right. I'm not saying the draft was a great thing, it wasn't, but it did have a way of lessening the rightward balance in the military, at least the right-wingers had to work with somebody more liberal now and then. This has been an evolution.

And about out-hawking the hawks, Kennedy wasn't drafted into WWII and he could have avoided it. He volunteered, and performed outstandingly-- he was what you would call a "badass."

About his being Irish Catholic: I wasn't going to mention that as an issue, but since you have: the CIA was made up overwhelmingly of WASP Ivy Leaguers, that was one problem. If you could see this could be a big deal, why would you presume his bedroom habits weren't an issue? I'm certain those ol' boys had extensive locker-room stories, but I think Kennedy topped them all. Not only does that lead to some hypocritical disgust among those already sworn to the hypocritic oath, but also jealousy enters the mix and also interferes with professionalism. No, they'd never admit it . . . but they would think of him as a Lieutenant who for some reason called a Constitution they had to obey.

My point: Sorry, I do not think the polarization was as bad then compared to what Obama faces now, and therefore, in no way did Kennedy have it this bad. Nor had the Military Industrial Complex been so spoiled yet. I mean, it's been getting richer and it is going on twenty years since the Cold War ended! Lastly, I don't think John Kennedy was the dove that people make him out to be. In many ways he was just as hawkish as anybody in the Pentagon. If they worked against him, there was something else going on.

Their job is to do or die, not to become the Pentagon Propaganda machine.

We'd have the answer right there, folks!!

It would also put Blackwater out of business --

we can end quite a few corporate carnivores with one stone!!!

They did it several times. I think even The Weekly Standard wrote about that before. Richard Clarke discusses this in his book, Against All Enemies. There are people in the military status quo who will go along with any harebrained GOP scheme yet fight tooth and nail against anything that a Dem president wants. That's just how it is.

President to General: "We are withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately."
General to President: "We can't do that... b-sh-t about terrorists... insane "left behind" garbage..."

President to adviser in full earshot of General: "Uh, I don't know their ranking system that well, but why is that PRIVATE trying to tell me the whole army won't do what it's commander in chief wants, or have I misheard and it's a General telling me the troops will run so fast a ton of dust will be sucked into the Red Sea?"


And I'd just PURGE the NeoCON and "Dominionist" plants overnight. All of them, dishonorably discharged, no leave, no pay, no medical, no disability. I'd have the media, on threat of "Abuse of the Patriot act" quickly throw together made for TV movies that show them as child raping, "Non-Christian troop" fragging, psychopathic Nazis and take a few (quite a few, actually) examples of them harassing and threatening other troops and make sure those are played to 'balance' if they ever manage to get on the news about that. That way they'd be a huge burden on the "Religious Right", while the rest of the real army could be repaired and mobilized for peaceful (non-armed) civilian public works projects.


I'd want to cut defense spending by 2/3, with 1/3 going to paying the debt, 1/3 to infrastructure. Laid off troops would become public servants in the new mass-transit systems. Due to all the enemies America has earned we'd need a small but still top trained army and a small nuclear 'deterrent', and sadly that would be the remaining 1/3. Basically, enough to defend the homeland, launch a limited "Precision Strike" if we decide to and the "MAD" option but in a smaller state.

but you would be dead after step 1 !

Iranians have taken to the streets of Zahedan city to bid the victims of the terrorist attack farewell.

The attack was carried out by the Pakistan-based Jundullah terrorist group, which is led by Abdolmalik Rigi.

The head of the IRGC said on Monday that an Iranian delegation would head for Pakistan to present "proof" of US, Britain and Pakistan's involvement in the attack.

"Our security bodies have found evidence that proves the Rigi group is supported by American and British intelligence services and unfortunately the Pakistani intelligence service," said General Mohammad-Ali Jafari.


I don't know if the US or UK was actually involved in this. If they were, it does seem to prove the the MIC is in control of things as always.

Regardless of how much better trained the present army is I still contend that it is a dangerous concept and a threat to any democracy. The troops' allegiance can become stronger to their commanders than to the civilian government. I believe that many of these young impressionable recruits can and have been brain washed. They become isolated from society in general and become members of a culture that glorifies war with a fanatical zeal. I find it strange that there has developed an alliance between evangelicalism and military service.

Can you really blame the commanders to embrace war. What good is there in being a career soldier if you can't actually fire your weapons and kill people all in the name of serving your nation honorably. Of course this doesn't apply to all of those in military service, but I am convinced that it definitely applies to far too many who are in a command positions.

The other World powers ie China, Russia will bankrupt us the minute we increase things in Afghanistan or bomb Iran.

The military crazies who had a hand in 9.11 & afterwords. DON'T GET how weak of a financial position we are in & that we are RELYING on other Countries to carry us.

If Obama is too weak to take on our military nut's, China & Russia will get it done, simply by trading OIL in other currencies.

people working for the military directly or indirectly want wars to have jobs and BENEFITS

a better economy and more money to repair our infrastructure, provide healthcare and open the factories.
The time to stop making a living from death is now.

It's a mad, mad, mad world.

Obama has at least two OTHER viable options.

One: Ignore McCandyass and do what needs done, and if it is
not what McCandyass recommended, replace McCandyass and get someone else
to impliment it. Every Pres should have a backup general anyway.

Two: Replace McCandyass, do what's needed with someone else.

Three. Discipline McCandyass for his ill-advised remarks, which are
not so different from what Patton did during wwII. Also discipline
him for allowing his report to be leaked before the President saw it.
Discipline should have both private and public parts.

McCandyass is definitely on probation. Now he needs to be an amazing
general from here on out.

These Neo-Con sons a bitches have sullied the entire population of the United States in the
eyes of the world. Obama and his administration knows this so anything less than forceful
action will result in exactly what is happening now which is the perception by the Right that
he and his administration can be bullied

As long as the military is used to enforce policy I will hate it and disapprove of those who participate in it ...especially over the theme of patriotism. Patriotism is for fools.

Never was a patriot yet, but was a fool.

– John Dryden

A patriot is a fool in ev’ry age.

– Alexander Pope.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

– Samuel Johnson

In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary, patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first.

– Ambrose Bierce

Patriotism is as fierce as a fever, pitiless as the grave, blind as a stone, and irrational as a headless hen.

– Ambrose Bierce

That pernicious sentiment, “Our country, right or wrong.”

– James Russell Lowell

“My country right or wrong” is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother drunk or sober.”

– G. K. Chesterton

Patriotism which has the quality of intoxication is a danger not only to its native land but to the world, and “My country never wrong” is an even more dangerous maxim than “My country, right or wrong.”

– Bertrand Russell

Patrioism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.

– George Bernard Shaw

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.

– George Bernard Shaw

You’ll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.

– George Bernard Shaw

Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.

– George Bernard Shaw

Patriotism is an ephemeral motive that scarcely ever outlasts the particular threat to society that aroused it.

– Denis Diderot

To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography.

– George Santayana

The Athenian democracy suffered much from that narrowness of patriotism which is the ruin of all nations.

– H.G. Wells

Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. “Patriotism” is its cult. . . . Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one’s country which is not part of one’s love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.

– Erich Fromm

One of the great attractions of patriotism–it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat, Bully and cheat, what’s more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous.

– Aldous Huxley

Many studies have discovered a close link between prejudice and “patriotism” . . . Extreme bigots are almost always super-patriots.

– Gordon Allport

It seems like the less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the flag.

– Elbert Hubband

Patriotism varies, from a noble devotion to a moral lunacy.

– William Inge

Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.

– Arthur Schopenhauer

Patriotism is the passion of fools and the most foolish of passions.

– Arthur Schopenhauer

Patriotism corrupts history.

– Goethe

Into the cultural and technological system of the modern world, the patriotic spirit fits like dust in the eyes and sand in the bearings. Its net contribution to the outcome is obscuration, distrust, and retardation at every point where it touches the fortunes of modern mankind.

– Thorstein Veblen

The standardization of mass-production carries with it a tendency to standardize a mass-mind, producing a willing conformity, not merely to common ways of living, but to common ways of thinking and common valuations. The worst defect of patriotism is its tendency to foster and impose this common mind, and so to stifle the innumerable germs of liberty.

– J.A. Hobson

2. Patriotism and War:

At the bottom of all patriotism is war: that is why I am no patriot.

– Jules Renard

No other factor in history, not even religion, has produced so many wars as has the clash of national egotisms sanctified by the name of patriotism.

– Preserved Smith

Naturally the common people don’t want war . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders . . . All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism.

– Hermann Goering.

That worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor . . . This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism–how passionately I hate them!

– Albert Einstein

3. Patriotism and Religion:

Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.

– Guy de Maupassant

God and Country are an unbeatable team; they break all records for oppression and bloodshed.

– Luis Buñuel

To be patriotic, hate all nations but you own; to be religious, all sects but your own; to be moral, all pretenses but your own.

– Lionel Strachey

When a dog barks at the moon, then it is religion; but when he barks at strangers, it is patriotism!

– David Starr Jordan

4. The American Syndrome:

If you have a weak candidate and a weak platform, wrap yourself up in the American flag and talk about the Constitution.

– Matt Quay

How much longer are we going to think it necessary to be “American” before (or in contradistinction to) being cultivated, being enlightened, being humane, & having the same intellectual discipline as other civilized countries? It is really too easy a disguise for our shortcomings to dress them up as a form of patriotism.

– Edith Wharton

The 100 percent American is 99 percent an idiot.

– George Bernard Shaw

Treason is in the air around us everywhere. It goes by the name of patriotism.

– Thomas Corwin

5. Three relatively positive assessments of patriotism:

A patriot is somebody who protects his country from his government. Or better yet: who has the guts to protect his country from its government.

– Piotyr Dirk

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.

– George Washington

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

– Thomas Jefferson

When Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out with his "leaked" criticism of the strategy Obama should have shit-canned his ass right then and there - just as Truman did to Gen. MacArthur

.

I found this story over on LewRockwell.com

The Real Reason for More Troops in Afghanistan
by Michael Gaddy


We can all look back at the wonderful decision that was made to send more troops to Korea. If we had not, we could have been bogged down in a quagmire there that would have required 50 plus years of American lives, involvement and money. What a wonderful decision it was to send more troops to Vietnam. If we had not, we could have lost over 58,000 soldier's lives; killed millions of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians and been forced to flee the country with our tails between our legs, deserting our allies to the horrors of communist retribution. Good thing our wonderful leaders had the wisdom and courage to send "more troops." Now we are forced with the same dilemma; send more troops or face military defeat.

The question is: why are we in Afghanistan in the first place? Now that time has erased the emotions of retaliation for the events of 9/11 and our country elected a new leader who campaigned on the principle of bringing an end to our involvement in these costly wars, why the call for more troops? Could it be we are again simply following the dictates of the power cabal as Major General Smedley Darlington Butler so eloquently outlined in his outstanding work, War is a Racket?

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of our quest for empire over the past six decades realizes that Obama’s contemplation of whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan is simply those who control him providing Obama with the opportunity to look "presidential." The decision to send additional troops was reached prior to the situational comedy of General McChrystal’s leaked "confidential report" to the Washington Post and Obama’s National Security Advisor’s public admonishment of McChrystal’s failure to follow the chain of command. All of this is nothing but a well-rehearsed, though poorly camouflaged hoax. Additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan within a very short period of time and Obama really has no say in the matter. The question is: why?


Could it be the US-installed puppet government in Afghanistan has new suitors who represent a very real threat to the United State’s control of Afghanistan and her abundant natural resources? Is the entry of Russia and Chinese influence into Afghanistan the real reason for the need for more troops? Russia reportedly made its entry back in 2007 with the reopening of its embassy in Kabul. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Sergei Ivanov, met privately with President Karzai and offered military assistance through the Collective Security Treaty Organization. (CSTO) The CSTO is made up of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Russia is the driving force in this organization, as one might understand, due to the economic and military weakness of the other members. There were meetings with CSTO delegation in Kabul and neither the US nor the UK were invited. Were the US/UK coalition (NATO) allowed to solidify its position in Afghanistan, it would create a territorial split between Russia, China and Iran. Russia will do whatever is necessary to prevent this growth of power and influence in the region, I believe.

Moscow is certainly concerned with the Pentagon’s plan to deploy Special Operations forces into the Central Asian States to conduct "foreign internal defense missions." This translates into increasing military activity, which is better known as the "spreading of democracy," by military force.

NATO, following the CFR-introduced agenda, is campaigning for increased cooperation with Moscow in the region to "facilitate the fading of Russia’s lingering imperial ambitions." These are the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, author of the NATO report. Surely, Putin will see through this smokescreen.

Russia has also cancelled all of Afghanistan’s Soviet-era debts and is moving to help Kabul rebuild the Afghan infrastructure. The increase of trade between Afghanistan and Russia, which was at the $190 million mark in 2008, is also a move to create a vision of Russia as an ally to the people of Afghanistan with the US and NATO appearing as the foreign invader.

What has prompted the governments in Moscow and Beijing to converge with the forces of NATO in Afghanistan? Is it purely a protectionist strategy or are those governments there for the same reason we initiated the war in 2001: an abundance of natural resources?

China has made its moves to secure as many of the natural resources located in Afghanistan as it can. Almost one year ago, in November of 2008, China, acting through the China Metallurgical Group Corporation and the Jiangxi Copper Company, secured the Aynak Copper Mine in Logar Province. This copper mine is reported to be the largest in the world and has been basically inoperative since the Soviet Invasion in 1979. China has agreed to a 2.9-billion dollar investment in the infrastructure of the area including a power plant and possible railroad into Pakistan. If I were an Afghan citizen, whom would I support in my country, a nation that is actually contributing to a better life or one that is indiscriminately bombing my fellow citizens?

Now, when it appears our puppet Karzai may have been influenced by a better offer from Russia, China, or both, the Obama administration, strongly supported by the neocons, is seeking to perhaps replace Karzai with a new election, suddenly proclaiming the election the US just supervised to have been corrupt. Members of both political/criminal parties now openly support the war in Afghanistan as being necessary to our national defense, with the question being, not, do we send more troops to Afghanistan to bleed and die for oil and minerals, but how many? I’m sure our influence in NATO will bring about the necessary conclusions in order to facilitate our attempt to replace our own political puppet. Karzai has obviously jumped the traces of US control by participating in meetings outside of the US political purview with China, Russia and even in this agreement, which included Iran and Pakistan. The construction of this pipeline was due to start last month. Russia and China see this new pipeline as crucial to their retention of power in the region and will make the necessary military movements to insure their investments.

Financially crippled due to our continued wars for empire and the printing of billions of new dollars to repay political cronies in the financial world has left us in a precarious position in Afghanistan. We will try to counter the financial prowess of China, to whom we owe billions and their military ties to Russia with the blood and lives of tens of thousands of new US military forces. When China calls in our financial markers, and they will if challenged, what will become of our country? We are about to escalate a war we cannot win. How long will it be before Americans care more for the lives of their children than they do for the state and refuse to participate in the madness?

Michael Gaddy , an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
**************************

"We are about to escalate a war we cannot win." Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House yet we are following the Bush policies of more war for corporations & the industrial military complex. This is more change that we cannot believe in.

He wouldn't be in this mess.

He needs to fire any of the top brass that isn't 100% behind him, and retire all that are not.

Get his team in place, and then have officers on board who know their job is to OBEY orders.

looking for a suitable nut to keep war and torture going --!!