Are Presidents Afraid of the CIA? -- Consortium News

[nashville_brook]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/122909b.html

consortiumnews.com

Are Presidents Afraid of the CIA?

By Ray McGovern | December 29, 2009

(snip)

Not Just Paranoia

In that fear, President Obama stands in the tradition of a dozen American presidents. Harry Truman and John Kennedy were the only ones to take on the CIA directly. Worst of all, evidence continues to build that the CIA was responsible, at least in part, for the assassination of President Kennedy. Evidence new to me came in response to things I included in my article of Dec. 22, “Break the CIA in Two."

What follows can be considered a sequel that is based on the kind of documentary evidence after which intelligence analysts positively lust.

(snip)

Truman wrote that he was “disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment” to keep the President promptly and fully informed and had become “an operational and at times policy-making arm of the government.”

The Truman Papers

Documents in the Truman Library show that nine days after Kennedy was assassinated, Truman sketched out in handwritten notes what he wanted to say in the op-ed. He noted, among other things, that the CIA had worked as he intended only “when I had control.” In Truman’s view, misuse of the CIA began in February 1953, when his successor, Dwight Eisenhower, named Allen Dulles CIA Director. Dulles’s forte was overthrowing governments (in current parlance, “regime change”), and he was quite good at it.

With coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) under his belt, Dulles was riding high in the late Fifties and moved Cuba to the top of his to-do list. Accustomed to the carte blanche given him by Eisenhower, Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy came on the scene and had the temerity to ask questions about the Bay of Pigs adventure, which had been set in motion under Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would NOT approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles reacted with disdain and set out to mousetrap the new President. ...“In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed.”

(snip)

Dulles and Dallas

(snip)

As the de facto head of the Warren Commission, Dulles was perfectly positioned to exculpate himself and any of his associates, were any commissioners or investigators — or journalists — tempted to question whether the killing in Dallas might have been a CIA covert action.

Did Allen Dulles and other “cloak-and-dagger CIA operatives have a hand in killing President Kennedy and then covering it up? The most up-to-date — and, in my view, the best — dissection of the assassination appeared last year in James Douglass’s book, JFK and the Unspeakable. After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes the answer is Yes.

_________

Ray McGovern now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During a 27-year career at CIA, he served under nine CIA directors and in all four of CIA’s main directorates, including operations. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

[blm]

1. Thank you for posting this, nash-b.

.

[nashville_brook]

8. you're very welcome -- i've been thinking about

you and the rest "us" here on DU who wonder about these things. all this with the underpants bomber and the 7 dead CIA ops in Afghanistan, and Obama's reaction...which to me seemed strange. that he waited a day and then pointed a finger at the intelligence services, so... uh, pointedly, it seemed. i tell ya -- i think he knows he's being pulled into a fight that's way bigger than (even) he is.

and...it gives me a little hope...that he's demanding answers, and doing it publicly. what do you think?

[blm]

25. I think it's no coincidence that the 'terrorist' also spent time in Houston.

'Terrorists' or 'lone gunmen' always seem to spend some time in Texas or Florida, don't they?

[nashville_brook]

27. ain't that the truth. also two Bush governorships...home to NASA and much defense

tech. I'm a native Floridian, and back in Central FL after an exile in Tennessee for 20+ years.

I'm revisiting on some of the Hopsicker material, b/c a friend of mine from high school down here swears Mohammad Atta used to run in a circle with a former boyfriend. He was Pakistani (the bf), and they were all at Florida Institute of Technology (which is an aviation school among other things -- good engineering program, too). While the bf was a warm guy, she said that (the alleged) Atta was just creepy -- cold and mean. He glared at her as if it was not cool for a girl to be hanging out with the guys. Didn't speak.

[nashville_brook]

9. dupe/hiccup

[NightWatcher]

2. Bill Hicks put it together nicely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRykTpw1RQ

[Echo In Light]

3. Is that the bit about new prez & never-before-seen Zapruder footage? lol

I'm at work and can't acces youtube

[NightWatcher]

6. that's the one

[nashville_brook]

10. i KNOW -- that bit gets more relevant all the time (and it was already pretty damn relevant).

[happy_liberal]

11. exactly right!

I sure do wish we had Bill Hicks during George W....he was so damn funny and right on....

[nashville_brook]

20. welcome to DU!

hello happy!

[happy_liberal]

22. Thanks!

:hi:

[BeFree]

4. C'mon

The CIA is Mom and Apple Pie.
Not a bad bone in the whole body, er, pie.

They'd never do anything that wasn't the best for all us folks.
Even tho almost all they do has to be hidden, y'know, like closeted.

[undeterred]

5. So is Obama behaving out of fear for his life?

[Echo In Light]

12. It's impossible to imagine anyone being tailored for the job w/o understanding the reality of it

... beforehand

[undeterred]

17. Many people thought Obama was too inexperienced

and naive to be President.

[Echo In Light]

18. No, I mean re Deep Politics...the behind the scenes stuff where script writers weave the charade

[nashville_brook]

19. from what I understand, Obama has always had a keen/academic interest in power dyanamics,

so, i'd be surprised if he were blindsided by any "deep politik" muckety muck. the way he populated his cabinet (as much as I disagree with his picks ) tells me he wasn't all puppies and daisies going into this.

[nashville_brook]

13. a decent answer to that question can be found in the book mentioned at the end of the article...

which is to say, who knows what Obama is actually thinking, but there seems to be reason to wonder.



http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1570757550/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262289730&sr=8-



(here's a long review)

In James W. Douglass' outstanding new book, "JFK and the Unspeakable," the author explains the title in his introduction. Coined by spiritual writer Thomas Merton, The Unspeakable refers to "an evil whose depth and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe." Regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Unspeakable succeeded due to deniability by the nation's citizens of the horrifying truth of the event and to plausible deniability by the government agencies responsible for the murder. (Vincent Bugliosi's recent fictional paperweight is a perfect example of the plausible deniability that allows the Unspeakable to thrive.)

Many excellent books have proven that the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy. Douglass verifies the certainty of the conspiracy and, as the subtitle of the book states, explains "Why He Died and Why It Matters." He scrutinizes the historical facts surrounding the assassination, from the creation of the CIA to the gradual obliteration of the freedoms upon which this nation was founded.

This book is primarily the story of John F. Kennedy who changes from a Cold Warrior to an altruistic leader willing to risk his life to ensure that the world's children will not become victims of a nuclear catastrophe. Equal time is spent on JFK's presidency as on the assassination but one of the many rewards of this book is the author's capacity to show the relationship between his policies and his death. And the book is a tragedy because it gradually becomes obvious that each step he makes toward peace steadily increases the hatred of his enemies who will eventually betray him.

It is also the story of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Moved around the country like a pawn by government agencies (as was the second "Oswald"), he was being set up as the scapegoat. Enter some despicable characters, including David Atlee Philips, James Hosty and, of course, Michael and Ruth Paine. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union was being set up as the evil empire behind the assassination, along with its satellite Cuba.

Douglass credibly illustrates the origin of the Crime of the Century. During President Truman's administration, the CIA was empowered to be a paramilitary organization with unlimited powers. Truman's successor, President Eisenhower, fell out of favor with the CIA when he planned a summit meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. This was cancelled after a U.S. spy plane crashed in Russia. Eisenhower had reportedly ordered such flights cancelled and had his suspicions about who had ruined his peace plan. He subsequently issued his warning about the "military industrial complex" in his farewell address. But he didn't defy "this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry." He left that task to his successor, JFK.

The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was planned by the CIA to regain control of the island and to re-open the casinos for organized crime. President Kennedy refused to provide air support for the Cuban brigade because he knew that he had been lied to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the CIA; the invasion had been designed to fail without U.S. support but they hadn't told this to JFK who refused to fall into their trap. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK once again enraged the CIA and the Joint Chiefs by resisting their tremendous pressure on him to take military action which would have led to nuclear war.

Following that crisis, JFK became intent on ending the Cold War by establishing a peaceful relationship with the Soviet Union. However, many CIA and Pentagon personnel believed that it was better to be "dead than red" and that it was preferable to destroy civilization rather than let the Communists rule. They also knew that war generated billions of dollars into the arms industry. As a result, they would repeatedly subvert the President's policies and isolate him within his own government. Enter some more despicable characters: Richard Bissell, Charles Cabell, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lyman Lemnitzer, Curtis LeMay and perhaps the most contemptible of all, Allen Dulles. Ironically, JFK learned to trust Khrushchev more than people within his own government.

At American University on June 10, 1963, JFK spoke about his desire for world peace. He communicated his resolve to form a new relationship with Khrushchev. He spoke about the necessity of a pursuit toward disarmament. He related his intentions to establish a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He acknowledged his country's past faults and recognized the Russian people as wanting peace as much as the American people. "And we are all mortal," he stated. Though this extremely important speech was ignored in the United States, it was disseminated throughout the Soviet Union, per order of Khrushchev, who was prepared to respond favorably to JFK's peace initiative. The speech also certified JFK's death warrant. With so many powerful enemies opposing his policies and hating him, JFK didn't have a chance as he was being maneuvered into the crossfire in Dallas.

President Kennedy was aware of the power of his enemies and he knew the dangers facing him. But he persevered and mandated that all U.S. personnel would be withdrawn from Vietnam; he was determined to never send in combat troops even if this meant defeat. He also refused to intervene militarily in Laos. He exchanged private letters with Khrushchev, which infuriated the CIA, and secretly initiated plans to attain rapproachement with Cuba, which further incensed the Agency. Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA hated as intensely as it hated Kennedy, was equally eager to begin an American-Cuba dialogue. In fact, Castro was meeting with a JFK representative when the President was murdered. JFK died a martyr and the forces of evil that killed him also killed his vision of peace.

Lyndon Johnson, the CIA's ally, assumed the presidency. He cancelled talks with Khrushchev and refused Castro's pleas to continue the dialogue. He reversed JFK's withdrawal plan from Vietnam as well as his plan to neutralize Laos. The military industrial complex took control of the country. The policy of plausible deniability led the way to assassinations of foreign leaders, the overthrowing of foreign governments and horrors committed all over the globe. If JFK had not been murdered, we would not have had the prolongation of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the purported War on Terror and the steady moral deterioration of America. Interestingly, one month after JFK's assassination, President Truman wrote an article for The Washington Post cautioning about the threat of the CIA taking over America.

The author meticulously examines the evidence and draws conclusions which ring with unassailable truth: (1) The CIA coordinated and implemented he assassination of President Kennedy, an act of treason which destroyed democracy in the U.S. (2) The Warren Commission was created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American people. (3)There has been a continued cover-up by successive administrations and their stooges in the mass media. (4)The murder of JFK is directly related to the current domination of the American people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme evil.

This is an exceptional book that will be used by future historians to determine the truth about the assassination and how it changed America. And it will also be used to honor John F. Kennedy as a courageous president who believed in doing God's work on earth. In doing so, he came into conflict with the Unspeakable and his life was extinguished.

[theoldman]

7. I don't think you will find much difference between the CIA and KGB.

No CIA agent will ever trust another CIA agent. In addition, the guys at the top don't know what the guys at at the bottom are doing.

[nashville_brook]

14. indeed.

[leftstreet]

15. So then are Congress members also afraid of the CIA? Judges? Cops?

All the institutionalized mechanisms of the brutal assault on the working classes springs from fear of the CIA?

:eyes:

[nashville_brook]

16. rolly eyes says you don't think so, and you would be correct b/c that's stupid.

[On the Road]

21. I Had Never Heard That About the Bay of Pigs

and would not be surprised if presidents are scared to take on the CIA.

However, it is not a good idea to present as the initial piece of the puzzle the claim that the CIA murdered Kennedy. It might be true, but there are several alternatives, none of which are provable. It calls into question the rest of the argument.

[nashville_brook]

23. perhaps -- but in context of the discussion regarding Truman/Dulles, et al, it can't be avoided

definitely check out the Unspeakable book if this piques your interest.

[On the Road]

26. What it Does

is assures that the article is preaching only to the converted.

The Bay of Pigs thing is good. So are the comments on John Foster Dulles. Had never thought of that as a divide, but it makes sense in terms of all the US-supported regime changes. The Kennedy might have worked better if had been brought afterwards as a speculative thing after all the other evidence was presented.

[clear eye]

24. And we're still suffering the disatrous consequences of Dulles' coups. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

28. K&R

:kick:

[blm]

29. Wishing you a great year, IG.

.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Happy New Year to you too, blm. We are living in interesting times, aren't we?

May You Live in Interesting Times?

by Dr. Ho Yong

Have you ever heard of the proverb, "May you live in interesting times"? Were you told it was a Chinese proverb? You may be surprised when you read Dr. Ho Yong's answer to this question in response to a question from the PBS show, "Newshour with Jim Lehrer."

I recently received a request from the PBS television show, "Newshour with Jim Lehrer," to verify the original source of the Chinese proverb, "May you live in interesting times." Newshour was told that in this context, "interesting" means dangerous or turbulent; therefore, the whole phrase is something of a curse. However, I couldn't think of any Chinese proverb that says anything to that effect.

So I consulted Torrey Whitman, our President (President of the China Institute in New York City), who is versed in classical Chinese and is especially knowledgeable in the area of proverbs and sayings. Interestingly enough, he told me he was familiar with this saying. Thus, I happily turned this request over to Torrey. The following is what he wrote about his response to the Jim Lehrer show:

"I explained to the news show staff that the usual expression was, "The ancient Chinese curse, May you live in interesting times." There is nothing proverbial about it, and no harm or danger is intended to the recipient of the curse.

The point of the phrase has long been meant to be ironic: on first glance, "interesting times" should be good times to live in, so stating it as a curse adds the sense of irony. We live in very interesting times, but after reading in the newspaper about tragedies, politics, war-mongering, and so on, have you longed for simpler, less turbulent times? Think how difficult and frustrating it is to choose among the twenty varieties of coffee now offered at the corner coffee stand, or the 138 channels on cable TV. Hence, the "curse" that you live in "interesting" times.

But what is most noteworthy about the expression is that it is not Chinese. There is no such expression, "May you live in interesting times," in Chinese. It is a non-Chinese creation, most probably American, that has been around for at least 30 or 40 years. It appears in book prefaces, newspapers (frequently in the New York Times) and speeches, as an eye- or ear-catcher, although I have not found it in Bartlett's Quotations or other quotation sourcebooks. I speculate that whoever it was who first coined it attempted to give the expression a mystique, and so decided to attribute it to the Chinese.

There is an irony in this, too. Confucius, endeavoring to give his opinions and teachings greater gravity and acceptance, once stated, "I do not create; I merely pass on the wisdom of those who have gone before." The same device of attribution is at work here: the "curse of interesting times" is much more interesting itself if the Chinese created it."

http://www.bilinguist.com/data/hy02/messages/57838.html