JFK, FDR and 'Seven Days in May'

[Octafish]

Lisa Pease reminds us what President Kennedy and President Roosevelt faced from Big Money and Great Power -- the spectre of treason.

JFK, FDR and 'Seven Days in May'

By Lisa Pease
February 24, 2009

EXCERPT...

The film "Seven Days in May" began as a novel by Fletcher Knebel, inspired to a great degree by Knebel's conversations with Gen. Curtis LeMay, President Kennedy's contentious Air Force Chief of Staff who was furious at Kennedy for not sending in full military support during the Bay of Pigs incident.

Additionally, LeMay infamously argued during the Cuban Missile Crisis for a preemptive nuclear first-strike against the Soviet Union, a move Kennedy abhorred.

One of Kennedy's friends, Paul Fay, Jr., wrote in his book The Pleasure of His Company how one summer weekend in 1962, one of Kennedy's friends bought Knebel's book to his attention, and Kennedy read the book that night.

The next day, Kennedy discussed the plot with friends, who wanted to know if Kennedy felt such a scenario was possible. Bear in mind this was after the Bay of Pigs but before the Cuban Missile Crisis.

"It's possible," Kennedy acknowledged. "It could happen in this country, but the conditions would have to be just right. If, for example, the country had a young President, and he had a Bay of Pigs, there would be a certain uneasiness.

“Maybe the military would do a little criticizing behind his back, but this would be written off as the usual military dissatisfaction with civilian control. Then if there were another Bay of Pigs, the reaction of the country would be, 'Is he too young and inexperienced?'

“The military would almost feel that it was their patriotic obligation to stand ready to preserve the integrity of the nation, and only God knows just what segment of democracy they would be defending if they overthrew the elected establishment."

After a moment, Kennedy continued. "Then, if there were a third Bay of Pigs, it could happen."

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/022409a.html

Well, now we learn from Gareth Porter that President Obama has enountered some, eh, resistance from the Pentagon regarding the Iraqi withdrawal.

Pentagon brass chafes at Obama's Iraq pullout plan

Gareth Porter
By Inter Press Service

WASHINGTON: CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to pullout all US combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting on January 21, sources have said.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus' recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including General Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying: "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the US-Iraqi withdrawal agreement by re-categorizing large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was formulated by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

CONTINUED...

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=99076

The vast majority of the men and women in uniform are good, loyal Americans.

There are more than a few, it appears, who need to be exposed for what they are,
loyal to Big Money and Great Power.

[H2O Man]

1. Thank you!

Much appreciated.

Nominated, of course.

[Octafish]

4. Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy

Here's an interesting article which may bridge our understanding of the apparent gulf between groups:



Details (PDF) : http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/spivak-NewMasses.pdf

More:

http://www.ctka.net/pr399-fdr.html

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/morgan1.htm

PS: I listened to "Machine Gun" going back to work after the New Year's Holiday. The message resonates and crumbles all the hate it hits.

[H2O Man]

12. Very good. Thanks.

And "Machine Gun" is a New Year's tradition.

A kid from up the road was killed in Iraq this week.

[babylonsister]

2. Rec'd. And I'm happy to know that

President Obama hasn't just bowed down to possibly bad military advice. It's good to know he's listening to so many people.

[Octafish]

7. We need a COAT - the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade

Thanks, my Friend! Much obliged.

Thought of you and all who understand what we're up against, babylonsister:

http://coat.ncf.ca/

We can get the cash now, if We the People our representatives really want to balance the budget and fix the country. Heck, there'd be so much money left over, we could fix the planet.

[Me.]

10. Interesting Pick

“WASHINGTON -- President Obama late this afternoon nominated Harvard professor Ashton B. Carter, a leading authority on arms control, to take on a surprising new role, according to top administration officials -- as the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer.

The choice of Carter to run the office that oversees hundreds of billions of dollars for new weapons and research -- and the focus of intense lobbying by defense firms, retired generals, and members of Congress -- has been rumored for weeks. And word of his pending nomination has already sparked concern within the defense industry and some of the Pentagon bureaucracy.

But that may be exactly what Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates want.

Unlike most of his predecessors selected to be under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, Carter has no professional ties to America's arms makers or manufacturing industry, nor has he spent his career in government procurement. Instead, from his perch at Harvard's Kennedy School, Carter has been criticizing the Pentagon for buying too many armaments it doesn't need, decrying what he calls a lack of discipline and "failure to take account of cost growth in weapons systems and defense services."

A trained scientist with a doctorate in theoretical physics and a degree in Medieval history, Carter's advocates say the long-time Harvard professor and national security specialist is being chosen because his combination of technical expertise and knowledge of defense strategy will be needed to make what Gates calls "difficult choices" about which weapons programs to invest in and which ones to terminate.” Cont…

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/02/harvard_expert.html

[annabanana]

3. Washington being what it is..

An alert citizenry is America's only hope.

[Octafish]

11. Lisa Pease has performed a heroic role.

Here's an example of a hero:

Why Is the CIA Suppressing JFK Files?

By Lisa Pease
October 23, 2007

Editor’s Note: The CIA continues to resist the release of documents pertaining to a CIA officer who oversaw an anti-Castro Cuban group that had curious dealings with Lee Harvey Oswald in the run-up to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In this guest essay, historian Lisa Pease comments on how the CIA still is subverting the intent of the JFK Records Act:

The CIA is withholding key documents in the JFK assassination case.

As Jefferson Morley reports in the Huffington Post:

“Lawyers for the Central Intelligence Agency faced pointed questions in a federal court hearing Monday morning about the agency’s efforts to block disclosure of long-secret records about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”

Morley filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the CIA for failing to disclose records about a CIA officer named George Joannides. Joannides was responsible for running the DRE, an anti-Castro CIA front group that had extensive interactions with Lee Harvey Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination of President Kennedy.

The CIA has consistently refused to release Joannides’ records, even though they are mandated to by the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act.

What’s at stake here matters greatly to all historians. If the government can simply choose which records to release, and which to withhold, they can pervert and deliberately misshape history to serve their purposes.

SNIP...

Morley discusses why Joannides records are of interest:

“Oswald approached the DRE’s delegation in New Orleans and offered to train guerrillas to fight the Castro government. He was rebuffed. When DRE members saw Oswald handing out pro-Castro leaflets a few days later an altercation ensued that ended with the arrest of all the participants.

“A week after that, the DRE’s spokesman in New Orleans debated the Cuba issue with Oswald on a radio program. After these encounters, the DRE issued a press release calling for a congressional investigation of the pro-Castro activities of the then-obscure Oswald.

“The CIA was passing money to the DRE leaders at the time, according to an agency memo dated April 1963, found in the JFK Library in Boston. The document shows that the Agency gave the Miami-based group $250,000 a year -- the equivalent of about $1.5 million annually in 2007 dollars.

“The secret CIA files on Joannides may shed new light on what, if anything, Joannides and other CIA officers in anti-Castro operations knew about Oswald’s activities and contacts before Kennedy was killed.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/102307b.html

You too, annabanana: Heroes give a damn about the truth.

[lonestarnot]

5. Tee hee! Thanks Octafish.

[Octafish]

13. Remember how, in the debates, McCain referred to Dallas as an ''intervention''?

These three DUers noticed:

Hootinholler:

Anyone else notice McCane referred to the Kennedy assasination as an intervention?


chimpsrsmarter

From the debate-McCain" before the intervention of the tragedy at Dallas."


stubtoe

The "intervention" at Dallas?


President Kennedy was not killed by an intervention
It appears he was killed by an act of the state --
or people in authority --
acting together.
And that is what is so hard for people to believe.

[lonestarnot]

14. Yes.

And it is not hard for me to believe, not hard at all. :(

[robertpaulsen]

28. Octafish, did you read this quote from Michael Ledeen?

We cannot allow another coup in this country. And it pisses me off that someone this powerful and connected can speak so glibly about the possibility and get away with it:

Monday, January 05, 2009



Panetta to CIA (Michael Ledeen)


In the very early days of the Bush administration, Karl Rove asked a Washington policy wonk what personnel changes he'd recommend to newly arrived George W. The wonk said "there is one matter of life and death: he must replace Tenet at CIA and put in one of his own people, someone he absolutely trusts." Rove said "well, good luck with that one." Obama knows better, and he's putting Leon Panetta in Langley.

I always liked Panetta. He served in the Army and is openly proud of it. He seems to be a good lawyer (oxymoronic though it may seem). He's a good manager. And he's going to watch Obama's back at a place that's full of stilettos and a track record for attempted presidential assassination second to none. But Italians know all about political assassination; you may remember Julius Caesar. Or Aldo Moro. The self-proclaimed cognoscenti will deride his lack of "spycraft," and he's never worked in the intel bureaucracy or, for that matter, in foreign policy or national security. But he's been chief of staff, which involved all that stuff.

I think it's a smart move.(emphasis added)

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZhOTc2MDM1OWJjNmQ0NmJkYTMwMjhlYWM0NjI2MDY=

[Octafish]

36. Thank you, robertpaulsen. That Ledeen fellow has a way of getting his 2-cents out there.

In the process, he exposes what he's made of.

He reminds me a lot of the 9-11 whitewash writer, Phil Zelikow.
Both are big into official storytelling.

What JFK Really Said

[hootinholler]

32. I have arrived.

Now to get H2OMan to quote one of those thingys that I toss into the ether from time to time.

Here's to truth, my friend :toast: You always serve it so well.

-Hoot

[wroberts189]

6. "That subterfuge was formulated by the United States last November "

so they figured they could teach Obama their old tricks and he would just roll over..

guess they figured wrong

[wroberts189]

8. further ...subterfuge = Lie to Americans

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subterfuge

subterfuge
One entry found.

Main Entry:
sub·ter·fuge Listen to the pronunciation of subterfuge
Pronunciation:
\ˈsəb-tər-ˌfyüj\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Late Latin subterfugium, from Latin subterfugere to escape, evade, from subter- secretly (from subter underneath; akin to Latin sub under) + fugere to flee — more at up, fugitive
Date:
1573

1 : deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal, escape, or evade 2 : a deceptive device or stratagem
synonyms see deception



knr

[Octafish]

16. Commander's Veto Sank Threatening Gulf Buildup

Obama's got backbone.

And he's got company.

Commander's Veto Sank Threatening Gulf Buildup

by Gareth Porter
AntiWar.com May 16, 2007

Adm. William Fallon, then President George W. Bush's nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.

Fallon's resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration's Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon's resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran.

The plan to add a third carrier strike group in the Gulf had been a key element in a broader strategy discussed at high levels to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike.

Fallon's resistance to a further buildup of naval striking power in the Gulf apparently took the Bush administration by surprise. Fallon, then commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, had been associated with naval aviation throughout his career, and last January, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates publicly encouraged the idea that the appointment presaged greater emphasis on the military option in regard to the U.S. conflict with Iran.

Explaining why he recommended Fallon, Gates said, "As you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Fallon to have the job."

CONTINUED...

http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=10976

Now it's time for Obama to find the good generals and admirals and promote them.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

22. Hear, hear!

Your submissions are always a treat to read and absorb. Thank you.

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. The US military industrial complex scares the crap out of me

It is one of most powerful enities on the planet and is
really a force that needs to perpetuate itself. Its not in the business
to destroy its power or to put itself out of business.


I think this also why Obama kept Gates on for a while.

excellent thread as always my friend.

[Me.]

9. You May Find This Thread Interesting

Obama's 'Seven Days in May' Moment

The entitled right wing war mongers think that they have perpetual rights to do whatever they want.

They think that there's actually a reason and the money to continue overseas.

They act like there was no election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5112419

[Octafish]

18. Thank you. That is an outstanding thread.

Robert Parry is tops.

Same for Gareth Porter.

Analysis: U.S. can't afford its military

SpaceWar.com
by Shaun Waterman
Washington (UPI) Feb 11, 2009

With the combined cost of the economic stimulus package and the Wall Street bailout now projected by some estimates to top $2 trillion, and the federal deficit spiraling, U.S. officials are fretting that current levels of defense spending may be unsustainable.

Moreover, military leaders argue that they will need more money in future years to repair or replace equipment worn out or destroyed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; transform the force to fight modern wars; and invest in new generations of high-tech weaponry.

"The spigot of defense spending that opened on Sept. 11 is closing," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a hearing last month of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending currently constitutes more than half of U.S. domestic discretionary spending -- that is, the part of the federal budget that is not spent on mandatory items like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That is about 4.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product -- more than double the proportion of national wealth most other industrialized countries spend on defense.

In absolute terms, the CBO says, Fiscal Year 2008 defense spending, adjusted for inflation, is now 20 percent more than it was in 1985 -- at the height of the Cold War military buildup -- and has risen 43 percent since its lowest post-Cold War level in 1998.

CONTINUED...

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Analysis_US_cant_afford_its_military_999.html

Both authors are persons of integrity, as You, Me.

And these warmongering traitors understand that they have been found out by We the People.

[Me.]

21. Yes, You Are

[snot]

15. I'm worried about this. I'm not sure Obama's evincing the appropriate degree of paranoia.

[Time for change]

17. Wow! Obama certainly is facing some strong pressures

It will be very interesting to see how he deals with.

Thank you for this information.

[Captain Hilts]

19. The Marines NEVER wanted to go to Iraq and still want 'out'. Even the Army...

went to Iraq kicking and screaming.

We all want 'out' of Iraq.

I don't see any anti-Obama wall of opposition to an eventual pull-out here. Obama is playing the withdrawal close to the vest, just as he should.

[Thothmes]

26. Actually, what the Marines want is

either to send all the Marines to Afghanistan or all to Iraq. Being split between the two countries makes a tough logistics problem even tougher.

[Captain Hilts]

29. True. But they never wanted Iraq to be one of the choices. What the hell...

the Marines knew in '62 that Vietnam was a losing proposition and tried to avoid that one too.

So, the dumb folks at the Pentagon deployed the Marines in the Army's job and the Army in the Marine's job. Go figure.

[autorank]

20. k*r Now they don't even bother to hide it.

Very valuable thread. This is not taught in any history classes. What an obviously intentional oversight.

[Klimmer777]

24. As a result of the CIA-FBI-Military-Industrial Complex . . .

and JFK's resistance, saying "No" to Operation Northwoods, and pulling out of Cuba, we now know who killed Kennedy. He ticked them all off. He was a man of principle, ethics, and do the right thing. He was perhaps our last President who had the nerve to stand-up to them and we know what they evenly did along with LBJ's assistance. We even now know who took the last fatal shot --- James Files.

The most complete JFK investigation I have ever seen. 10 retired FBI agents put it all together. And James Files confesses from a Louisiana prison . . .
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/grassy.htm
So why isn't our government doing anything about it? Why aren't we?

Operation Northwoods: Can our government actually think about killing our own? Would we ever do an inside job to lead us to war? Yep.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

[MinM]

25. Kicked & Rec'd...

Consortiumnews.com: Obama's 'Seven Days in May' Moment

YouTube - Seven Days In May - My Favorite Scene

Jim Hougan: Strange Bedfellows

Obama - following in JFK's missteps?
http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-following-in-jfks-missteps.html
http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black403b.mp3
http://www.blackopradio.com/black348b.ram

:kick: & R

[GeorgeGist]

27. I hope you watched Rachel Maddow tonite ...

it appears that Gates and Petraeus have made some progress in getting Obama to capitulate to their long term goals.

The bullets point if you didn't

-Withdrawal timeline extended to 19 months.
-Upwards of 50,000 troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

[Octafish]

37. That troubles me to no end.

Obama got elected to end the war. As he's just getting started, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. In the meantime, I will remember one his biggest backers from Chicago -- the Crown family -- also are big MI-Complex types, big shareholders of General Dynamics.

[bigtree]

30. K&R

[MinM]

31. JFK-related movie coming out this weekend... (Mary Pinchot Meyer)

An American Affair (2009) :popcorn:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x276416

[anonymous171]

33. I'm more afraid of the Wall Street fascists than the military dictators.

[JJ]

34. Two sides of the same coin.

[robertpaulsen]

35. Morning kick for a great thread.

:kick: