- There is a financial oligarchy in this country, that
tries, by every means available to it, to control all essential political
activity, including the education of the citizens, their thinking, the
information available to them, etc. Some politicians genuinely see
themselves as public servants, and wish to serve the public good. They
can give passionate and inspiring speeches, spoken truly from the heart
but they know good and well that if they want to get elected they
must carry out the agenda of the elite.
- All politicians, even those trying to make society more
fair, must be brought to heel, one way or another. It is not a simple
game. And the tools used to control politicians are varied: controlling
the information they receive is often effective; some times bribery or
a scandal is necessary. It was necessary to shoot John and Robert
Kennedy in the head. The bloody deaths of the Kennedy brothers sent
a message to every politician, that still echoes today. And
I think the evidence shows that Obama received a reminder of this message
- The parallels between the administrations of Barack Obama
and John Kennedy are stunning:
- 1. Both engaged in what might be called "Election
Deception" During the 1960 election, Kennedy attacked Nixon
for being soft on communism, particularly Cuba. In his book, 6 Crises,
Nixon complained, bitterly and accurately, that this was an unscrupulous
deception on Kennedy's part. Kennedy had been briefed that Nixon
and the CIA were planning a full scale invasion of Cuba. So, even
though he knew it wasn't true, Kennedy attacked Nixon from the right, claiming
that he, Kennedy, was more of a hawk on Cuba than Nixon. As soon
as he got in, Kennedy told the CIA to forget their invasion plans; the
CIA went ahead anyway at the Bay of Pigs; and Kennedy fired the top three
men at CIA for disobeying his orders.*1 The military shared Nixon's perception
that Kennedy was a liar and a traitor.
- During the 2004 election, Obama surrounded himself with
hawks like Zbigniew Brzezinski, and attacked Bush from the right, saying
that he had neglected "the right war," the war in Afghanistan,
and that he, Obama, would transfer troops and treasure to the effort in
Afghanistan. However, once he got in, Obama brought none of the Brzezinski
people with him. None of them. Not Richard Clark. Not
Anthony Lake (both of whom were very active in Obama's campaign, and are
very deep-cover operatives for the darkest side of the Pentagon). And,
as you will see, Obama fought bitterly with the military over their desire
for more troops.
- 2. Both Kennedy and Obama experienced a dramatic
change of attitude toward the military early in their presidencies. Even
if Obama did not perpetrate a deception to win the election, after he was
sworn in got in, his thinking and attitude toward the military began to
change dramatically, sharpen and harden against them. This directly
parallels what happened to Kennedy.
- I don't regard Bob Woodward as a fundamentally reliable
source, but to be an effective liar he has to tell important truths sometimes.
And I believe there is good reason to credit the story he tells below,
inadvertently revealing the development of Obama's thinking on the war
in Afghanistan. It describes a briefing given by Obama's National Security
Advisor, Jim Jones, to the military commanders in Afghanistan:
- During the briefing, [Marine Brigadier General] Nicholson
had told Jones that he was "a little light," more than hinting
that he could use more forces, probably thousands more. "We don't
have enough force to go everywhere," Nicholson said.
- But Jones recalled how Obama had initially decided to
deploy additional forces this year. "At a table much like this,"
Jones said, referring to the polished wood table in the White House Situation
Room, "the president's principals met and agreed to recommend 17,000
more troops for Afghanistan." The principals -- Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gates; Mullen; and the director of national intelligence,
Dennis C. Blair -- made this recommendation in February during the first
full month of the Obama administration. The president approved the deployments,
which included Nicholson's Marines.
- Soon after that, Jones said, the principals told the
president, "oops," we need an additional 4,000 to help train
the Afghan army.
- "They then said, 'If you do all that, we think we
can turn this around,' " Jones said, reminding the Marines here that
the president had quickly approved and publicly announced the additional
- Now suppose you're the president, Jones told them, and
the requests come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think
Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels.
How do you think he might feel?
- Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted
room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.
- Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops,
17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president
would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." Everyone
in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military
and elsewhere means "What The F(expletive) ?"
- --Bob Woodward; The Washington Post; Jul 1, 2009; A.1
- My take on the above is that Obama came in somewhat open
minded on Afghanistan. In his first month in office, he asked the
military what they needed; they told him, and he gave them 17,000 troops
without a blink. When they turned around and asked for another 4,ooo
just a few months later, Obama was disconcerted. If these guys knew
what they were doing, they should have been right the first time about
how many troops they needed. But without a complaint, he gave them
another 4 thousand men. When the generals started to press for more,
Obama had his wtf moment, and sent Jones to straighten them out. Jones
was telling the generals that requesting more troops would be showing Obama
that they are clueless. Obama has tried to show his awareness that
there are thousands of lives in the balance.
- Kennedy had his Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment at the Bay
of Pigs, and again during the Cuban Missile Crisis*2. He came to
see his military advisors and commanders as blind-to-the-point-of-insane
ideologues. And the quote above I think shows that Obama's developing
vision of the military has closely paralleled the development of Kennedy's
vision of these professional killers.
- 3. Kennedy faced, and Obama faces a military full
- Curtis LeMay is the most infamous of the insanely rabid
military advisors Kennedy had. LeMay, against specific orders, at
the height of the Cuban missile crisis, sent a U2 spy plane flying into
Russian airspace, apparently hoping that the Russians would think this
was an attack and push the red button. LeMay was confident that in
the full-scale nuclear exchange that would follow, the US would suffer
30 to 50 million casualties, tops, but the Russians would be wiped out.
Hurray! We'd win! LeMay and his peers were livid that
Kennedy was refusing to send troops to Vietnam.
- For the past eight years, Bush has
forced into retirement those military leaders with an objective approach
to fighting "terrorism"; and he has promoted Muslim-hating Christian
ideologues who seek a new-age Christian Crusade against the Muslim heretics.
- An objective military observer must
question the idea of equating "insurgents" with "terrorists":
There has never been even a suggestion that the Taliban were involved
in attacks on the US. The Taliban government of Afghanistan offered
to hand over Osama if the US could provide evidence of his guilt. But
the US invaded instead of providing evidence. In this context, the
"insurgents" are, essentially and merely, patriots who oppose
the domination of their country by foreign troops. This is a common
view within the Obama administration:
- Supporters of (Vice-President Joe) Biden's view (that
no more troops should be sent) argue that adding more troops would actually
make the problem worse, not better, because the Taliban draw support from
the fiercely nationalist Pashtun ethnic group in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
who will mobilize to resist a long-term occupation. "The real fact
is, the more people we put in, the more opposition there will be,"
says Selig Harrison, a longtime observer of Afghanistan at the Center for
International Policy. (Rolling Stone *3)
- One need not agree with this view to recognize that it
is reasoned and legitimate. But this viewpoint is not represented
in the military that Obama inherited from Bush. Senior officers with
this point of view were forced into retirement under Bush. And Obama
is faced with commanders such as Lt. Gen. David Barno, a "counter-insurgency"
advocate who served as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan: "We're
going to be involved in this type of activity in a number of countries
for the next 15 to 20 years." Barno does not just want to wipe
out the Taliban. He wants to expand the conflict to other countries
and carry it on for generations. What does Barno's plan, to kill
Afghan patriots, have to do with eliminating "terrorism"?
- And a more terrifying question: These trained killers
from the military currently have the blood of hundreds of thousands
of Muslims on their hands. They have watched at close range as 1000's
of young American soldiers have been slaughtered. How do you supposed
they feel about a Black president, born to a Muslim father, trained in
Muslim schools, telling them they can't have any more troops for their
holy war against Muslims? "Rabid" seems a likely answer.
- I am not the first to see the parallels between Kennedy's
and Obama's conflicts with the military.
- The first article I saw on this topic was by Berkeley
Professor Peter Dale Scott. *3 Robert Parry has written importantly
on the topic (see *12).
- Lawrence Wilkerson, a former top aide to Secretary of
State Colin Powell, observed in the Rolling Stone article*3, "It's
going to take John Kennedy-type courage to turn to his Curtis LeMay and
say, 'No, we're not going to bomb Cuba'. It took a lot of courage
on Kennedy's part to defy the Pentagon, defy the military - and do the
right thing." I must assume that Wilkerson is not familiar with
the details of how John Kennedy's conflict with the military ended. See
section 8 below for some of those pertinent details. There can not
be a reasonable doubt that the military killed JFK.
- 4. Kennedy sought out Military advisors not committed
to or dominated by the Pentagon. Obama has done likewise. The
"Jim Jones" from the long quote (in section 2 above), is a familiar
figure; that is, he reminds me of the kind of man that Kennedy brought
in to advise him. He is a former Marine general. He has impeccable
"toughness" credentials. But he is not a Muslim-hating
ideologue, out to wage a modern crusade against Islam, to win back the
holy land, I mean the holy oil, for Jesus. So, he was forced into
retirement by Bush. But Obama picked him up out of retirement
and made him National Security Advisor. Kennedy had such people in
his administration. Roger Hillsman was a WWII hero, who Kennedy made
his undersecretary for South East Asian affairs. Hillsman looked
at Vietnam, and saw what Kennedy saw; and he saw what many observers of
Afghanistan see today:
- 1) an utterly corrupt, inept, cowardly, self-interested
puppet regime with no constituency among the local people;
- 2) a dedicated, heroic, entrenched opposition with
roots 1000 years deep among the locals; and
- 3) an ideology-driven military willing to make ridiculous
promises of success, "if only we can get just one more troop increase";
with a nearly unlimited thirst for "insurgent" blood; and with
no understanding of the limits of their power.
- 5. The military overtly challenged Kennedy's right
as commander-in-chief to set policy. Their treatment of Obama has
been similarly outrageous.
- Kennedy rejected the military's recommendation for an
invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs; and the military, led by the CIA,
went ahead with it anyway. JFK rejected the military's suggestion that
the US should overthrow Diem, the president of South Vietnam; the military
not only organized Diem's overthrow, they assassinated him. And of
course, for three years Kennedy steadfastly refused their pressure to commit
combat troops to Vietnam. Obama's military has similarly challenged
his right to set military policy.
- After Obama sent Jim Jones to Afghanistan to let his
generals know that they had gotten all the troops they were going to get
(as described in section 2 above) Stanley McChrystal began a campaign for
more troops that was insubordinate to the point of being illegal. The
endnote below (*3) contains the full story as outlined in Rolling Stone.
McChrystal responded to Jones' visit and message by writing a demand
for 40,000 troops, which he immediately, and illegally, leaked it to the
press. The Republican leadership demanded that McChrystal be brought
before the Senate to have a national stage for his defiance of Obama's
attempts to set policy. McChrystal went on 60 Minutes to complain
that Obama was not listening to him; and then flew into London to publicly
call Obama "shortsighted". Obama flew to Europe and
ordered McChrystal to meet with him on his plane. Two days later,
Jim Jones rebuked McChrystal for failing to "follow the chain of command."
- But on December 1st, Obama caved in to McChrystal and
committed to send an additional 30,000 troops; even though the American
public, the Democratic leadership in the Congress, and his closest advisors
were overwhelmingly dead set against it. WTF?! What happened?
Obama tried, in this speech, to maintain a shred of dignity and authority
by saying that the primary role of these troops would be to win the hearts
and minds of the Afghan people; and he promised that they would begin to
head home in 18 months. Eight days later, he was roundly contradicted
on every score, simultaneously, by a quartet of men we ought to regard
as his underlings:
- Hamid Karzai, the US installed, officially illegitimate
"president" of Afghanistan, who owes his position, security,
and daily bread to the US, overtly contradicted Obama's statements about
the limits of the US commitment, telling a press conference that "Afghanistan's
security forces will need U.S. support for another 15 to 20 years"
- On the same podium, on the same day, Robert M. Gates,
US Secretary of Defense (and Karzai's apparent puppet master) echoed this
same affront to Obama, saying "it will be some time before Afghanistan
is able to sustain its security forces entirely on its own ... whether
that's 15 or 20 years".*5 (It should be noted in red letters that
Gates was appointed by Bush, and carried over by Obama.)
- On the same day, the LA Times reports McChrystal told
the Senate, "that the U.S. needed to signal a long-term commitment
- Such calls for a long term US commitment not only contradict
the stated policy of the President, but they are overt provocations to
legitimate Afghan nationalists. They not only undermine official
US policy, but they serve the recruiting efforts of the "insurgents;"
thereby putting the lives of American soldiers at greater risk; and not
only constitute insubordination, but speeches by the military constitute
an illegal and anti-democratic attempt by unelected military officials
to dictate political policy, a virtual military coup of the President's
powers and duties.
- 6. Both Obama and JFK were faced with faced with
overt threats of assassination. On November 22, 1963, Dallas
was filled with wanted posters calling for Kennedy to be given the death
penalty for treason. The NY Times carried an op-ed on September 29,
2009 talking about the "very dangerous" climate now in America,
"the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of
the Rabin assassination." Four days later, on October 3rd, the
Wall Street Journal pointed to three overt physical threats to Obama: a
poll on Facebook asking whether the president should be assassinated, a
column on a conservative Web site suggesting a military coup is in the
works and Rep. Trent Franks (R., Ariz.) calling Mr. Obama "an enemy
of humanity." *7
- JFK felt, and Obama feels, threatened by the military
- JFK encouraged and assisted Hollywood in the making of
"Seven Days in May," a fictional account of a military coup in
the US. Kennedy wanted this story to be told. He thought the American
people needed to be alerted to the threat to democracy posed by the military.
No one knows what went on in his head, but it is reasonable to conclude
that he felt this was a real and important threat. Robert Parry
has written that Obama had a "Seven Days In May moment", meaning
that he felt the threat of a military coup, when he began trying to withdraw
troops from Iraq. (This is another critically important news article. see
- The Rolling Stone article says that in October, "the
Pentagon and top military brass were trying to make the President an offer
he couldn't refuse." Now - "an offer he can't refuse"
is a reference to the movie, The Godfather. In the movie, the man
who receives the "offer he can't refuse" wakes up and finds that
the head of his prized horse has been cut off and put in the bed next to
him while he was asleep; in order to send the message: "We are
brutal. We are killers. We got into your bedroom. If
we had wanted to kill you, we would have. Next time we will. If
you want to live, don't let there be an next time." The author
of the Rolling Stone article does not have superhuman powers of perception.
But he has written a detailed article on the relations between Obama
and his military. And he has included this suggestion of overt threats
of death made to Obama by the military. And the article goes on,
"They (the generals) wanted the president to escalate the war
- go all in by committing 40,000 more troops and another trillion dollars
to a Vietnam-like quagmire - or face a full-scale mutiny by his generals."
And what is "a full-scale mutiny"? It means a coup.
That is what it means, clearly, plainly, and simply.
- The insightful author of this insightful article, Robert
Dreyfus, clearly feels that the military wants Obama to feel threatened.
- 7. Kennedy was plagued, and Obama is plagued, with
a Secret Service that is grossly incompetent. If you need proof beyond
Kennedy's murder, see the endnote*8 The failures of the Secret Service
to protect Obama are worse. At the very least, it can be said in
favor of Kennedy's Secret Service that they did not allow the shooters
onto the White House grounds. The incident of the so-called "Party
Crashers," has to give Obama pause. The Salahis, the uninvited
guests, the husband and wife team who walked into White House reception
for the Indian Prime Minister, easily penetrated the most high-security
affair to take place at the White House in recent memory. The Indian
Prime Minister is regarded as a prime target for Muslim extremists, and
everyone present could be considered at great risk from a security lapse.
Whatever else can be said of the Salahis, they presented a starkly
clear message to Obama: "you are not protected. Your Secret
- criminally negligent, if not just criminal."
- 8. Is the Military threatening to kill Obama? The
evidence of the involvement of the military in the assassination of JFK
is, I think, beyond dispute*9. Certainly, this evidence has given
every president since Kennedy nightmares about the risks involved in taking
on the military Kennedy, like Obama, was under fierce pressure to
send troops to Vietnam.*10 And as you will see, the military has
taken steps to make Obama feel that his life is in grave danger at their
- Vice president Biden, and Obama's chief of staff Rahm
Emanuel, have both been outspoken in their opposition to sending troops
to Afghanistan. They are both Obama spokesmen. It may be assumed
that at all times they speak for the president. And yet they spent
the 10 months before the President's Dec. 1 speech, undercutting the President's
final decision to send troops. *11 Does that make any sense?
- Two weeks before the President's speech, Obama's ambassador
to Afghanistan wrote Obama a memo in which he warned against sending troops
to support a regime so corrupt that it enjoyed no popular support. This
ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, is a retired Army general and former commander
of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan. He is one of the not-insane
commanders that Bush pushed into retirement; and Obama brought back him
back in. Eikenberry's memo against sending troops was immediately
leaked to the press, and showed up on the front pages of the LA Times
and NY Times. There was no outcry from the White House about the
leak, suggesting that Obama approved it. Does that make any
sense? It appears that the President was undercutting his own position,
2 weeks before taking it?
- Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders have taken similar
positions as Eikenberry. They might be accused of pandering to the
American people, who are broadly opposed to sending more troops; but it
would be unusual for congressional Democratic leaders to undercut their
president in this way. The Bob Woodward article, presented in section
2 above, reveals a President with no plans to send troops, taking steps
to confront those military leaders with desires for more troops, and telling
them to forget it. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!! What happened?
Why did Obama suddenly change the position that his spokesmen had
been taking for nearly a year; the position that he was promoting, through
his ambassador, just two weeks before; that other leading Democrats
had been promoting; and that he had stated so forcefully to his commanders
in the field? Why did he suddenly decide to send 30,000 troops to
kill and be killed in a cause he knows to be hopeless?
- This is NOT a small deal. No? It can't have
been a whimsical decision on his part. It must have been based on
something. We should be able, then, to look at the events in the
news and identify some major occurrence that would cause such a shift.
No? Let's see. The central feature behind Biden's and
Emmanuel's position was that the Afghan puppet regime was too corrupt to
win popular support. *13 Just recently, the regime proved too corrupt
to even stage an election, even after the UN ruled the last election fraudulent
and illegitimate. Could this miserable failure, to stage an election,
have changed Obama's mind? No. In fact, reports from Afghanistan
are that the corruption and incompetence of the puppet regime have only
gotten worse. *14
- When you come up with an answer, for any of these questions,
I would be very grateful if you would let me know. Because I don't
like my answer. But here it is:
- A military coup, of sorts, has taken place. This
coup, this wresting by force of power from the hands of the President was
accomplished in two separate events.
- The first event involves the so-called "Party Crashers."
The Salahis managed, not only to enter, but they proceeded to first
shake hands with the two most outspoken opponents of sending more troops:
Joe Biden, and Rahm Emanuel. And the Salahis then they shook
hands with Obama himself. They had gained entrance through the intercession
of the Pentagon*21. Whether or not they told the President, "Send
troops or die", they unquestionably told him, through their actions,
"The Secret Service can't, or won't, protect you. Your life
is over when the Pentagon says it's over." This is not speculation;
or interpretation. It is clear; unequivocal; basic. No?
- But wait! There's more! The Rolling Stone
article is so much better than the author intended! I know that he
did not mean a "coup" when he wrote that the generals were
threatening a "full scale revolt". I don't think he meant
a death threat when he wrote "an offer he couldn't refuse". And
I don't think he grasped the import of this remark:
- Even worse, the administration has to take into account
the possibility of a terrorist attack, which would allow the GOP to put
the blame on the White House. "All it would take is one terrorist
attack, vaguely linked to Afghanistan, for the military and his opponents
to pounce all over him," says Pillar.
- Robert Dreyfuss, the Rolling Stone writer, is saying
that Obama caved because of the threat of another "terrorist"
attack. Now. The suggestion that US military was complicit
in the crimes of 9/11 is similar to saying that the Secret Service was
complicit in the crashing of the Obama's White House party: it's
indisputable. The Salahis could not have entered if the White House
had the Secret Service not let them in. Indisputably. And none
of the planes could have hit any of the buildings on 9/11 if the US air
defenses had not gone completely to sleep. The Pentagon attack is
particularly egregious. The official story is that 50 minutes after
the 1st plane hit the World Trade Center, US air defenses, on flaming red
alert, designed to defend against supersonic missiles and jet fighters,
not only failed to stop a slow moving humongous 757, they failed to get
off a shot! Not a single shot in defense of the most highly defended
building on the planet. The following week, Richard Meyers,
who was in charge of US air defenses on 9/11, instead of being court-marshaled
and shot, as he clearly ought to have been, was promoted, to the highest
position in the military: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.*15
- So, the military, under the Bush administration, was
indisputably complicit in the events of 9/11, if only by the most jaw-dropping
incompetence; incompetence that was warmly rewarded by the Republican White
House. So when the Republican leadership says Obama's attempts to
reduce troops and spending in Iraq and Afghanistan threaten to unleash
a new terrorist attack, this is a genuine threat from genuine blood-covered
- The Fort Hood shooting is this "terrorist"
threat made real. There is much in the story of Malik Hasan, the
Fort Hood shooter, to suggest that he was a Manchurian Candidate, that
he was "programmed," through hypnosis, to do what he did. Though
such a thing can never, by it's very nature be proved. (If you have
ever seen a demonstration by a professional hypnotist, you already know
that anyone will do anything under hypnosis and that they will have no
recollection afterward) *16. However, there are a number of things
about the case of Malik Hasan that are especially persuasive that he was
under military control: *17
- 1) Hasan had at least 13 email contacts with a radical
Muslim imam. The Imam told Al JaZeera that the first of these emails,
sent 11 months before the shooting, sought the Imam's approval for Hasan's
shooting his fellow soldiers. *17b Michael McCaul, the top Republican
on the House Homeland Security Committee's intelligence subcommittee, said
that he has confirmed that Hasan wired money to Pakistan. *18 There
has been much discussion in the "news" about the fact that the
FBI took no steps to apprehend or otherwise stop Hasan. But the contents
of his emails have not been released. That is highly suspicious.
Can we conjecture that if the contents were innocuous, that they
would have been released? Sure we can. The Imam found his house
under attack within 24 hours of his publicizing the contents of those emails.
But this discussion is a distraction from the flashing red light:
the FBI did not even open a file on Hasan. That is not preposterous.
It is very clear in its meaning.
- There is only one conceivable explanation, and an obvious
one. If the FBI failed to take steps as basic as opening a file,
it is because they were ordered not to do so; by another agency of the
federal government. Again, that is hardly speculative. It should
be basic common knowledge: if a drug dealer gets picked up by some
police agency in possession of a bag full of drugs; and walks out the door,
without being arrested, with his bag of drugs, and without a file being
opened, it's because he's undercover. Apparently some agency of the
federal government ordered Hasan to send these emails. That is speculative,
but no other explanation will suffice.*19 And certainly, the
FBI was ordered not to open a file. Of this there cannot be any doubt.
- 2) Similarly, the FBI's excuse for not opening
a file, was that they discovered that Hasan was doing research on the attitudes
of Muslims serving in the US military. How they made this determination,
without opening a file, is a mystery to me. But let that alone for
the moment. For whom was Hasan doing this research? Duh. No?
But the attitude of the media to such obvious questions is "don't
ask, don't tell."
- 3) Lee Harvey Oswald had been set up by the CIA
to appear to be an agent of Fidel Castro. But the FBI investigated
all this evidence and determined that it was a fraud. *20 So for
Hasan to have been set-up in a similar fashion would be par for the course.
Fletcher Prouty (see endnote 11) was tipped off that Kennedy's murder
was a military plot by the fact that Oswald's entire bio appeared in the
papers in Australia, where Prouty was when he learned of the crime, before
Oswald was even charged. The NY Times and Fox news were spreading
the contents of the FBI's non-files / non-investigation, showing Hasan
to be an Arab terrorist, while they were still reporting that he was dead,
before they knew that he was still alive. That is, someone on the
inside was distributing this insider knowledge about a guy who supposedly
was of no interest. It seems clear as day to me that it was a set-up.
- 4) Now, this is my favorite part. In the
1944 detective movie, "Double Indemnity", Edward G. Robinson,
the detective, is alerted that something foul is going on because the insured
dead man had an insurance policy with disability as well as death benefits;
but when he broke his leg, he didn't try to use the disability benefits
in his policy. Why didn't he use it? He must not have known
he had an insurance policy. His wife purchased the policy behind
his back, and then killed him. OK. Now answer this:
- If Obama actually wanted to send troops to Afghanistan;
if he actually wanted to move the American people to see the necessity
of "fighting terrorism there before it becomes terrorism here;"
why did he not wave the bloody shirt from the Fort Hood shooting? Why
did he not claim Hasan to be a terrorist? Why did he not use him
as an example of the continued threat? Obviously, then, Obama
was not part of any plot to kill soldiers at Fort Hood to justify a continued
war on "terror".
- And now, you do the math. Add 1 + 1. Add
"Party Crashers" to "programmed shooter" and what do
you get? You get Nancy Pelosi as president.
- But things have changed since 1963, haven't they? The
military has matured. It is not so rabid, blood thirsty, and wild,
as it used to be. They wouldn't overtly threaten to kill the President
in this way, would they? The threats to which Obama caved were political
threats, not physical ones. No? No. 1) Obama is
a master politician. He's not afraid of a political fight. He
is more capable of winning support for his position than any of his opponents.
And besides, the American people are against sending troops, so this
is an easy victory. I don't see how political threats could force
him to send young men and women to their deaths, for a cause he and everyone
around him knows is hopeless. Counter insurgency in support of a
corrupt regime is killing for the sake of killing. 2) The military
was, at the very least, complicit in the 9-11 murders of 3,000 Americans.
3) They were apparently involved in the murder of 13 soldiers
at Ft. Hood. 4) So it doesn't seem times have changed
for the better. Eisenhower said that the greatest threat to our national
security came from what he called "the military industrial complex"
in this country; a ruling elite with enormous political power.
- These people had the deepest support for Hitler during
WWII. And they orchestrated a performance by the media, the Secret
Service, the FBI, the mafia, and the military that murdered JFK; and they
have kept the truth suppressed ever since, the ridiculousness of their
cove-story not withstanding. They just passed a 630 billion dollar
defense budget, in a world where the primary threat is a few hundred men
with hand-held weapons. What reason is there to think that they would
hesitate to kill Obama? Do you suppose they like having a Black man
- So. Perhaps you are convinced that Obama was persuaded,
by threats against his life, to send troops. If so, there is a more
terrible question lurking out there. Were they threatening? Or
were they practicing? Or both?
- When I was first confronted with these ideas, my impulse
was to see Obama as a coward, as lacking the courage that Lawrence Wilkerson
suggests Obama needs to stand up to the generals (see the end of segment
3 above). But a "full scale revolt" of the generals does
not merely imply the death of Obama. A military seizure of the government
would entail far more deaths than his, certainly many thousands. President
Johnson, in choosing not to pursue Kennedy's killers (no-doubt well known
to him), faced a similar choice: the threat of a full scale revolt
that is, a military coup; civil war, death and prison camps for many
thousands, if not millions. But Johnson and Obama are not the only ones
confronted with difficult choices. The information presented here
suggests that your democratic government has already been seized. It
is not in the hands of your democratically elected President. And
what are YOU going to do about it, Patriot? Are you going to be a
sheep and a traitor, a collaborator? Or an insurgent?
- In our political system, it is virtually a given that
all politicians are corrupt. The politician wants to get elected;
so he takes money from thieves; the best do small things to help the people;
but they all do what they think they have to to keep the money flowing
in. But people are people. They occasionally get carried away
by an idea, or by the moment, and they get inspired to think that real
virtue is possible, even for them. And for such people, at such times,
there are other forms of coercion. Blackmail, for example. Further,
all politicians know, and the media too, that to admit certain truths means,
at least, political death. And on occasion, there is the real murder of
an individual who thinks he can, and does, serve the interests of the people.
John Kennedy was such a one. And such a murder is a great lesson
to all the living about the facts of life.
- My point is that "coercion with the threat of death"
is a real tool used by the ruling elite. Typically its use is
extremely low key, I'm sure. But on occasion its use may be sufficiently
high profile to be identified. And I think we can see this clearly
with Obama. I believe that the evidence shows that the military has
overtly threatened, at the very least, to kill Obama. I believe they
are also, in preparation for the day that he stands up to them, practicing
to kill him. I would ask you please to disseminate this as widely
as possible, as the most practical way to oppose their ability to do this.
I apologize for its length.
- There is a wide effort to color Republicans and Democrats
as being exactly the same. It may not be an important difference,
but Democrats don't murder Republican Presidents and Senators*23; and there
is no Democratic equivalent to 9-11. Democrats have never killed
Americans and blamed it on the people of some country they wanted to invade*24.
Perhaps these differences are not important. Perhaps they are.
But they are very very real.
- Two months ago this article ended here. I have
had to make additions.
- The fact that Obama has refused to waive the bloody shirt
from Ft. Hoos shows clearly that he did not authorize the shooting. However,
your are likely unaware that the moment the FBI concluded their initial
investigation of the Ft. Hood shooting, Obama rejected it out of hand and
called William Webster out of retirement to oversee a new investigation.*25
This has received no attention from any quarter. And, again,
it closely parallels Kennedy: after the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy called
Maxwell Taylor out of retirement to supervise the investigation (referred
to in footnote 1) of how the invasion occurred when Kennedy had cancelled
it. The investigation lasted two months. The results were kept
secret for twenty years. Kennedy knew in April that the CIA had betrayed
him, launching the Bay of Pigs invasion against his specific orders. But
he didn't fire Dulles until September, six months later. Obama certainly
is aware of the complicity of his intelligence agencies in the Fort
Hood shootings. Whether William Webster's investigation will be as
effective as Maxwell Taylor's is impossible to tell. But Obama is
trying to collect the evidence; and he is biding his time. Which
brings us to the "Underwear Bomber".
- I swear, "conspiracy theories" are not my natural
inclination. I have been very slow to recognize the Detroit plane
"bombing" as a plot of the intelligence agencies. But the
following, entirely suppressed from the media, settles the question, I
think. Patrick Kennedy, State Department Under-Secretary for Management
testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security on January 27.
His purpose was to explain in detail how it was that Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab, the Crotch Bomber, was not put on the no-fly list, despite
his father's warnings to the State Department that his son was being recruited
by terrorists. Kennedy testified:
- "We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community
partners, 'Do you have eyes on this person and do you want us to let this
person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break
a larger plot?'"
- He added: "And one of the members [of the intelligence
community]-and we'd be glad to give you that out of [open session]-in private-said,
'Please, do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following
this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying to roll up an entire
network, not just stop one person.'"*26
- Abdulmutallab has not been water-boarded. His family
has been brought in. At their urging, he is cooperating. The
Republicans are screaming that he shouldn't have a trial. And the
prosecutors are collecting evidence. What if the succeed in identifying
"the entire network"? What next? Is anyone paying
attention besides Cheney and his network? Not that I've noticed.
- Finally the trial of Khalid Sheik Moohammed
- When Obama was questioned by 9-11 Truthers about the
evidence of an inside job, he commented "we need to investigate a
whole range of options, although some of the issues you guys have raised
I'm not entirely confident are the case."*27 This
is not an endorsement. But it is as good as anything Ron Paul has
said publicly. And it is far from a condemnation.
- His decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in open
court in New York City was a brilliantly casual knife to the throat of
- It presents a spotlighted stage, a platform, for the
9-11 Truth movement to demonstrate, raise issues, and bring attention to
the glaring facts. And what better argument could the defense make,
that Mohammed was not responsible for the attacks, than to show the jury
footage of building 7 coming down in a classic controlled demolition?
- Thus, the prospect of a public trial for KSM presents
Cheney and the other perpetrators with an everything-to-lose situation.
The decision was announced to stage the public trial, and, in the
words of Newsweek magazine:
- As if on cue, a Nigerian man with explosives in his crotch
nearly brought down an American airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day,
leaving the neocons feeling further vindicated and energized"; and
leaving Obama, "mugged by reality," as the Neocons themselves
- These "energized neocons" are the signatories
of the Project for a New American Century, who called for the "new
Pearl Harbor" just before the 9-11 attacks; their fingerprints are
all over the 9-11 attacks.
- When Cheney objects to having a public trial for KSM
out of one side of his mouth*30, and threatens biological and nuclear attacks
out of the other,*31 he must be taken seriously. And unless Obama
feels that he has the cards in his hand to arrest Cheney and his cohorts,
what can he do?
- It is worth noting, I think, that after JFK's murder,
RFK and Roger Hillsman resigned. I'm not aware of any other resignations
from Kennedy's administration. It is not too much to suggest that
all who stayed on were collaborators with the killers; and I have a very
difficult time distinguishing between those who were accessories to the
murder, and those who were merely accessories after the fact. Obama
is very likely in a similar situation, surrounded by would-be assassins
(this is certainly the case with his secretary of defense, virtually everyone
at the Pentagon, the FBI, Secret Service, and CIA).
- Late last year, Holder accompanied Obama on a middle-of-the-night
visit to Dover Air Force Base. An Air Force plane had just delivered eighteen
bodies of soldiers and Drug Enforcement Administration officials who had
been killed that week, in Afghanistan. Holder said that Obama, after seeing
a hangar filled with caskets, sat alone in a nearby room. Holder added
that he "was struck by the fact that this guy has the weight of the
world on his narrow shoulders."* 33
- John Hankey is the author of JFKII, the Bush Connection;
a 103-minute documentary detailing the evidence linking George Bush Sr.
to the assassination of John Kennedy. The video is available for
free on the web, at BushKilledJFK.com, and at Amazon.com. You can
reach him at email@example.com
- *1 Kennedy's cancellation of the invasion is not
widely known; but it is documented in the US Government publication of
the official investigation, a document entitled Operation Zapata.
- *2 During the missile crisis, Kennedy's advisors
told him that the Russian missiles in Cuba were not armed, and advised
an attack and invasion. It has come out from the Russian side, that
the missiles were ready, armed with nuclear warheads, and the local commanders
were authorized to use them. Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense
at the time, has made much of this his book and DVD The Fog of War.
- *3 P.D. Scott: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15752
- Robert Parry: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/022009.html
See also *12
- The following are highlights from the Rolling Stone article
depicting the efforts by McChrystal to force Obama to implement McChrystal's
foreign policy, rather than Obama's:
- The military's campaign to force Obama's hand started
in earnest in September, when the Commander's Initial Assessment of the
war - a highly classified report prepared by McChrystal - was leaked to
The Washington Post. In the report, McChrystal paints a dire picture of
the American effort in Afghanistan, concluding that a massive increase
in troop levels is the only way to prevent a humiliating failure.
- On Capitol Hill, hawkish GOP congressmen seized the opening
to turn up the heat on Obama by demanding that he allow McChrystal and
Petraeus to come to Washington to testify at high-profile hearings to ask
for more troops. "It is time to listen to our commanders on the ground,
not the ever-changing political winds whispering defeat in Washington,"
declared Sen. Kit Bond, a Republican from Missouri. Attempting to usurp
Obama's authority as commander in chief, Sen. John McCain introduced an
amendment to compel the two generals to come before Congress, but the measure
was voted down by the Democratic majority.
- As the pressure from the military and the right built,
McChrystal went on 60 Minutes to complain that he had only talked to Obama
once since his appointment in June. Then, upping the ante, the general
flew to London for a speech, where he was asked if de-escalating the war,
along the lines reportedly suggested by Vice President Joe Biden, might
work. "The short answer is: no," said McChrystal, dismissing
the idea as "shortsighted." His comment - which bluntly defied
the American tradition that a military officer's job is to carry out policy,
not make it - shocked political observers in Washington and reportedly
angered the White House.
- For his part, Obama moved quickly to handle the insurrection.
One day after McChrystal's defiant London speech, the president unexpectedly
summoned the general to a one-on-one meeting aboard an idling Air Force
One in Copenhagen. No details of the discussion were released, but two
days later Jim Jones, the retired Marine general who now serves as Obama's
national-security adviser, publicly rebuked McChrystal, declaring that
it is "better for military advice to come up through the chain of
- "Petraeus and McChrystal have put Obama in a trick
bag," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a former top aide to Secretary
of State Colin Powell. "We had this happen one time before, with Douglas
MacArthur" - the right-wing general who was fired after he defied
President Truman over the Korean War in 1951.
- *4 Eichenberry, 18 days before Obama's Dec. 1 speech
announcing 30,000 more troops, wrote a memo to Obama urging him not to
send Americans to die defending a regime as utterly corrupt and worthless
as the puppet regime in Afghanistan. latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-obama-afghan12-2009nov12,0,2561752.story
- *5 LA Times 12/9/09 http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-
- *6 LA Times, 12/16/09 latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghan-special-forces16-2009dec16,0,2135079.story
- *7 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125452861657560895.html
- *8 The secret service manual requires the planners
of a motorcade to pour on extra protection when there is a sharp turn in
the route, which requires that the car slow down. Agents should,
therefore, have been positioned all over Dealey Plaza to insure that there
were no open windows. That is standard procedure. Instead,
there were no secret service agents at all on the ground in Dealey Plaza.
The protective motorcycle escort was ordered to stay behind the President's
vehicle. The limo is equipped with handles on the rear trunk lid,
and steps built into the bumper, to accommodate agents riding on the back.
The agents were waived off this position and moved into a following
car. The driver should have stepped on the gas when the first shot
was fired. Instead, the driver braked and slowed, for the next 6
seconds. Only after Kennedy was shot in the head did the driver take
- *9 I've spent 40 years researching, and 10 years
making a documentary that makes this point in spades. (I'll gladly
provide you with a copy. It is available on Amazon if you'd like
to read the reviews.) In the video, you will see a video interview
with Aubrey Rike, the man who loaded Kennedy's body into a bronze casket.
You will also see a video interview with Paul O,Neil, the Bethesda
Naval Hospital sailor who unloaded the body from a grey shipping casket,
20 minutes before the bronze casket arrived at the facility.
- An FBI memo, shown in a section of the video narrated
by Walter Cronkite, says that it was obvious that Kennedy's wounds had
been altered. Pre-autopsy photos also show this mutilation of the
body. And one of the doctors from the Dallas emergency room, in an
excerpt from a NOVA special, points to an autopsy photo of the entrance
wound on Kennedy's right temple and says that the photos show it was altered
before the autopsy began.
- The military had complete control of the body and
the autopsy. They, and no one else, altered the critical head wound.
This was an entrance wound to Kennedy's right temple. It was
fired from the so-called "grassy knoll". It exited the
back leaving a gaping 4-inch hole in the rear of Kennedy's head. The
wound to Kennedy's temple was altered to disguise it's characteristic appearance
as an entrance wound. But the alterations were done at least 5 hours
before Oswald was charged. The autopsy room was full of admirals
and generals. These men were acting as part of the conspiracy to
murder. There is no room for reasonable debate on any of these points.
- *10 The movie JFK does an amazing job of making
this point. The movie presents a "Mr. X." This is
not a fictional character. The man's name was Fletcher Prouty. He
was the Pentagon liaison to the CIA. And he was deeply and directly
involved, as shown in the movie, in the dual efforts of JFK both to eliminate
the CIA, and to withdraw from Vietnam.
- *11 Biden:
- Emanuel: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/world/asia/19afghan.html
- Eikenberry: latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-
- *12 Robert Parry says the same things has happened
to Obama's stated plans to withdraw from Iraq http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/022009.html
- *13 You can NOT win a war against an insurgency
that is more popular than you. You can go on fighting forever, which
is what the generals have stated is their anticipated outcome. But
you can not win a peace without a government that is a just and fair and
- *14 In fact, conditions in Afghanistan continue
to deteriorate. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
- Dec. 11, 2009
- Top UN official in Afghanistan to leave in March
- Gareth Price, head of the Asia program at Chatham House,
a think tank in London, said "it's clear now that the Afghan government
- *15 My favorite is a lecture given by a physics
professor, Steven Jones. Jones was a tenured, admired physics professor
at Brigham Young University. Jones is a devout and conservative Christian
and Mormon. He voted for Bush. But his physics students asked
him to explain the collapse of the buildings at the World Trade Center,
particularly building 7. He enthusiastically approached the question
as a teachable moment.
- At first he approached the question as one of basic physics:
"Can the heat from jet fuel and office supplies explain the
collapse of a steel structure?" He concluded, with enormous
anguish, that it cannot. He was tortured by the implications for
many months. And then he woke up one morning and remembered that
he was a leading expert, on a world-class level, at chemical analysis.
(The first time I googled his name, his published papers on his techniques
for determining the chemical content of crystalline structures is what
came up first.) And, having determined that the official story
of airplanes and jet fuel could not account for the collapse of the buildings,
he determined to use his expertise to analyze samples of dust from the
World Trade Center to search for evidence of what did, in fact, bring down
- He found abundant of evidence (metallic microspheres)
of steel having been evaporated (such tiny microspheres are created when
steel is evaporated) and also abundant samples of the military grade
demolition explosive, thermate, including the wrappers for the explosive.
Thermate is virtually the only way that steel can be heated to sufficiently
high temperatures that it evaporates. But I have several other DVD's
besides the one by Professor Jones. All of this information, including
the videos, are available online.