Is Bernie Sanders’s

Life In Danger?

 
 


American politicians who make waves against the political establishment as proponents for actual change have a poor history of surviving to implement their noble ideas.

In the case of Henry Wallace, powerful party insiders ended his political life by sabotaging his Vice Presidency in the nick of time before Franklin Roosevelt died.

Years later, John F. Kennedy sought to make Henry Wallace’s liberal vision a reality, but just as his efforts were catching fire, he was slaughtered on a street in broad daylight, before horrified spectators.

Not long after that, Robert F. Kennedy (a hero to the downtrodden) became a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination, after ending Eugene McCarthy’s chances to win the nomination the night of the California Primary. Robert Kennedy of course sought to reclaim the presidency that his brother lost and to expand upon that legacy.

The minutes before he died were a defining moment in his political life. For the first time Kennedy felt that he had stepped out of his brother’s shadow with his hard fought win in California. He spoke with his liaison to McCarthy, Richard Goodwin. He had a message for McCarthy. “Tell him that if he gets out now I’ll make him Secretary of State.” If Kennedy could win over McCarthy and his delegates, he could become a formidable foe for Hubert Humphrey at the Democratic National Convention, now less than three months away. After Kennedy was gunned down, Humphrey won the nomination handily.

A few years later, the Democratic party was in a strange state of disarray, and a populist, semi-disavowed racist named George Wallace was in the lead to win the presidential nomination. He too was gunned down. Unlike Kennedy, he survived, but paralysis ended his presidential aspirations all the same.

It’s been 43 years now since a presidential candidate has been shot at. In a degenerate age where paranoids perpetuate mass shootings, what are the chances that a Socialist calling for revolution like Bernie Sanders will face gunfire in the coming months? There is an anger in this country. An anger that liberalism is destroying America, or will destroy America, or would destroy America if given the chance. Some of these angry, white men with an old school mentality have lost a lot in life, and could feel that they have little to lose in taking out a presidential candidate that is (in their minds) practically a Communist.

Or is Bernie Sanders life in danger because of a threat he could face to a corrupt system? Would the intelligence agencies and militant elites that do whatever it takes to maintain their power, allow him to really get elected President? It is an issue worth evaluating as his ascent continues.

 
Please sign the petition.

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Provide Bernie Sanders Secret Service protection immediately as a leading Democratic presidential candidate and Senator.
Bernie Sanders is a sitting U. S. Senator and a leading candidate in the presidential campaign of 2016. Recent disturbances at Bernie Sanders campaign events have shown his vulnerability with regard to potentially violent confrontations with disturbed people. In 2007, at a similar stage in that campaign, Barack Obama was given Secret Service protection by George W. Bush for exactly this reason, and he had not even experienced such disturbances yet, nor was Obama attracting crowds of over 25,000 regularly, as Senator Sanders is. This situation must not be allowed to continue a moment longer. Bernie Sanders must have immediate Secret Service protection, just as the other leading candidate does.

Published Date: Aug 12, 2015
Issues: Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, Firearms, Homeland Security and Disaster Relief

Advertisements

Understanding the Mechanics of Fate: How History Was Almost Different and How Democratic Politics in 1944 Set in Place Our Doom: Part One


Decisions made and circumstances that occur within months of each other can entirely and tragically alter the trajectory of life on Earth for decades and centuries thereafter. Such is the case of one, significant decision made by a single individual.



That significant decision and single individual was written about to greater specificity by journalist George Beres last year: “It was 70 years ago this year the United States took a major turn toward political conservatism instead of the liberal direction President Franklin Roosevelt had followed the previous 12 years. The momentous change– [the] greatest shift in our nation’s political history– came at the Democratic Party nominating convention of 1944. It occurred even though FDR, architect of lasting welfare reforms during the Great Depression, was a shoo-in to be elected to an unprecedented fourth term that fall.

The difference came in the identity of his heir apparent …..”


President Franklin D. Roosevelt is often lauded as one of our greatest Presidents, and it is a status deserved. However, perhaps the biggest mistake ever made was Roosevelt’s lobbying of Missouri Senator Harry S. Truman to be his running mate in 1944. At the time Henry Wallace was the sitting Vice President of the United States, but it was not for any significant disapproval on FDR’s part that Wallace wasn’t to continue in this role. Sadly, it was for reasons of petty politics that Wallace was on his way out with Truman on his way in.*
 

Peace Abroad, Equality At Home


Wallace was as liberal a politician as any we’ve ever elected to high office, certainly to the Executive Branch. In foreign affairs he was aggressive about diplomacy, whereas he was repulsed by a vision of a war machine that senior officials James Forrestal and Averell Harriman were ratcheting up. Soon to be implemented as the Truman Doctrine, this war machine, as Peter Drier of Truthout.org put it in an article about Wallace, “aimed to contain communism through military intervention if necessary. Wallace refused to support the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, considering it an instrument of the cold war. He preferred a multilateral aid program that would be administered through the United Nations.”

Vice President Wallace had also been on good footing with the Soviets, and, as the post-war era approached, was committed to working with them. In short, “Wallace opposed the cold war”. He wasn’t alone. Roosevelt too had been working diplomatically with the Soviets on issues involving territories. Détente, defined as “the easing of hostility or strained relations, especially between countries” was Roosevelt’s official strategy.

Drier continues, “For Wallace the outcome of the war had to be more than a restoration of the status quo. He wished to see the ideals of New Deal liberalism continuing at home and spreading throughout a world in which colonialism had been abolished and where labor would be represented by unions. “Most of all,” write [biographers John] Culver and [John] Hyde “He wanted to end the deadly cycle of economic warfare followed by military combat followed by isolationism and more economic warfare and more conflict.”

That deadly cycle didn’t exclude opposition to the movement for a Jewish homeland. Henry Wallace believed that if Israel were recognized as an official state, it would result in immediate war and long-term instability in the Middle East.**

In spite of widespread public support for Wallace’s ideas on foreign policy, he “roused the ire of the more conservative Democrats, of business leaders and conservatives, not to mention Winston Churchill, who was strongly committed to preserving Britain’s colonial empire.”

Drier also touched on Wallace’s domestic politics. In addition to his opposition of racial segregation, “he was a strong advocate of labor unions, national health insurance, public works jobs and women’s equality. He would have been, without question, the most radical president in American history. He would have served out the remaining three years of FDR’s fourth term and certainly would have sought to be elected on his own in 1948.”

Shakedown at the Democratic Convention


It’s been said that delegates decide who become their party’s nominees, and although no one ever held a gun to a delegate’s head over who they should cast their ballot for, the nominating process for the Vice Presidency was unusual at the Democratic convention of ’44.

Wikipedia states: “As the Convention began, Wallace had more than half the votes necessary to secure his re-nomination. By contrast, the Gallup poll said that 2% of those surveyed wanted then-Senator Truman to become the Vice President. To overcome this initial deficit, the leaders of the Democratic Party worked to influence the Convention delegates, such that Truman received the nomination.”

“How the nomination went to Harry S. Truman, who did not actively seek it, is, in the words of his biographer Robert H. Ferrell, “one of the great political stories of our century”. The fundamental issue was that Roosevelt’s health was seriously declining, and everyone who saw Roosevelt, including the leaders of the Democratic Party, realized it. If he died during his next term, the Vice President would become President, making the vice presidential nomination very important.”

The party leadership at the Democratic Convention that year comprised of a conservative, pro-business faction of Democrats. The liberal, pro union Wallace was anathema to them, and they had no tolerance for him. They made this plenty clear to the President, and this resulted in Roosevelt going from supporting Wallace, to going neutral on Wallace, and then finally, turning on Wallace. “Ferrell calls this process “a veritable conspiracy.”

The anti-Wallace forces consisted of Democratic National Committee Chairman, Robert E. Hannegan, Democratic National Committee treasurer, Edwin W. Pauley, Democratic party secretary George E. Allen, Postmaster General Frank C. Walker, New York political boss Edward J. Flynn, and Chicago mayor Edward J. Kelly. Roosevelt himself, though privately now endorsing the anti-Wallace movement, wrote a message that was addressed to the delegates, which read that if he were a delegate, he’d vote for Wallace. The reason for this tepid endorsement was that he did not want to offend Wallace and his supporters.

“According to Truman biographer David McCullough … in his book Truman: “Hannegan, Flynn, Kelly, and the others had been working through the night, talking to delegates and applying ‘a good deal of pressure’ to help them see the sense in selecting Harry Truman. No one knows how many deals were cut, how many ambassadorships or postmaster jobs were promised, but reportedly, by the time morning came, Postmaster General Frank Walker had telephoned every chairman of every delegation.” As Ferrell concludes, “Truman was … nominated in 1944 by the boss system.”

The Man Responsible For FDR’s Choice


Above all others, it was Robert E. Hannegan, the DNC Chairman appointed by Roosevelt, who made Truman’s nomination possible. A Missouri politician and power broker who helped save Harry Truman’s political career following the tax fraud conviction of Truman’s ally, Tom Pendergast, Robert Hannegan was Truman’s political lifeline well before 1944. When Truman was running for reelection to the US Senate in 1940, Hannegan saved him again on election day with the considerable influence he wielded in St. Louis and in Catholic neighborhoods.




Robert E. Hannegan with fellow Missourian Senator Truman


Truman returned the favor while Hannegan was serving as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Roosevelt had offered Senator Truman the DNC Chairmanship; Truman declined, and suggested to the President that he name Hannegan instead.***

As head of the DNC, “Hannegan was responsible for brokering the deal that made Truman Roosevelt’s running mate … Wallace nearly won the nomination, but Hannegan worked feverishly to secure Truman’s nomination.” “Hannegan later joked he wanted his tombstone inscribed with the words “Here lies the man who stopped Henry Wallace from becoming President of the United States.”****



Nov. 10, 1944 – The day after the general election:
President Roosevelt, Vice President-Elect Truman, Vice President Wallace


FDR Fiddles Over His Mortality


Roosevelt knew full well that he was unlikely to live out his fourth term in office, but he was cavalier of this fact, telling his new Vice President at lunch one day, almost in passing, “Don’t fly off too far, Harry. You never know when you’ll have to take this job.” And yet, the great Roosevelt was dismissive about shaping a future with his guaranteed successor. Truman was the last do-nothing Vice President, a tradition which had changed little to none since the administration of George Washington.***** Truman’s Vice Presidency was one of perfect exclusion from governance, consisting of little else than presiding over the Senate and playing cards with his colleagues. That was about it. He was not the recipient of any crucial, government information in so much as a phone call or a conversation from the Roosevelt administration.


Vice President Truman and President Roosevelt


When the Presidency was thrust upon him on April 12, 1945, Truman was completely in the dark. That darkness would reflect on the future in the form of Truman’s approval for atomic bombs dropped, a cold war instituted, the creation of the military-industrial complex (including the CIA), a war in Korea (which set the precedent for unauthorized wars), US imperialism and western colonialism across the globe, and last but not least, the sovereignty of Israel.

Having served as the 33rd President of the United States, Harry S. Truman left the White House on January 20th, 1953 with an approval rating of 34 percent.


Perret, Geoffrey (2007). Commander in Chief: How Truman, Johnson, and Bush Turned a Presidential Power into a Threat to America’s Future Farrar, Straus & Giroux
Kakutani, Michiko (February 27, 2007). Presidents Behaving Badly in Age of Unwinnable Wars. The New York Times
Dreier, Peter (February 3, 2013). Henry Wallace, America’s Forgotten Visionary. Truthout.org
Curtiss, Richard H. (May/June 1991, pg 17) Two Politically Motivated Decisions: Truman Adviser Recalls May 14, 1948 US Decision to Recognize Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Beres, George (2014). Wallace’s views of Fascism and Zionism brought greatest shift in U.S. politics 70 years ago. Intifada-Palestine
Wikipedia.
Democratic Vice Presidential Nomination of 1944
Wikipedia. Henry A. Wallace Vice President Wikipedia.
Robert E. Hannegan

* Source is an often told telephone conversation involving the Democratic Party leaders, Truman, and Roosevelt, that was set up to manipulate a resistant Senator Truman into accepting his candidacy for the Vice Presidential nomination.

** Every cabinet member and senior war commander in the Roosevelt administration also shared Wallace’s views on Israel. This uniformity would carry over into the Truman administration, in spite of Truman firing every member of FDR’s cabinet within the first year of his presidency.

*** After Roosevelt’s death, Truman once again returned the favor by appointing Hannegan the Postmaster General.

**** Maybe Wallace should not have spent his tenure as Vice President advocating for liberalism, realizing instead that it would lead to insidious forces within the Democratic party jeopardizing the security he had to inherit the presidency. Then again, after Roosevelt had threatened to withdraw himself from nomination in 1940 were Wallace not accepted on the ticket, Wallace probably couldn’t have imagined Roosevelt not supporting him to stay on as his running mate in ’44.

***** Henry Wallace was the exception. Roosevelt, recognizing Wallace’s resourcefulness, gave him a robust Vice Presidency.

Conspiracies Don’t Happen and It’s a Sin To Speculate That They Do


It should be apparent that this is a strange and silly statement to make, that is, if it were made sincerely. It’s not. Rather, it’s my mockery of the mainstream media and its minions who keep it in business.

The reality is that this is exactly how the media carries itself … that conspiracies don’t happen, and if you so much as speculate that they do, you’re pariah and will be ostracized accordingly. You think conspiracies happen? In this great country? How dare you!

Where does this bizarre mentality come from? Well, obviously the media are the face and voice of it. Who are the media? People who report for corporations on tv, in print, and online. By nature of this mechanism the media are embedded with the government. What does the government do? Lie. Does our government have a record of lying? Consistently. Is the corporate media indeed privy to corruption within the US  government? Often. So where is the media’s outrage and reporting on this corruption – the secrets, replete with lies and illegality? Minimal to non-existent.

There are no UFOS. There has never been drug trafficking on the part of federal agencies. The government does not conspire to subvert the constitution. No citizen who has stood up to the US government has ever been assassinated by it. Nothing problematic about the cases of Jack, Bobby, and Martin save for the daydreams of lunatics. What is a lunatic? Someone who doesn’t take the government’s word on any given controversy. War crimes? Nah. Congress and the media will see to it that you’re overreacting. Wall Street? No crimes to solve here. Never in the US of A. Just those pesky, indigent thugs with dark skin victimizing our gun-toting police. It’s post 9-11, baby. Any one of those people could be a terrorist!

The Trouble With

Henry Cabot Lodge


Did the tentacles of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy reach into the State Department? Unfortunately, I harbor suspicions that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was involved.


As JFK’s 11th hour Ambassador to South Vietnam, Lodge joined the Kennedy administration just in time to make matters worse for that country. Kennedy is often blamed, and rightly so, for the lukewarm consent he gave for President Diem to be overthrown in a coup, but the manner in which his consent was brought about, and what was done with that consent once it was given, was used against Kennedy by his own representatives at State. Chief among them was Henry Cabot Lodge, who worked in concert with the CIA division in Saigon.

What Kennedy knew to some extent in the lead up up to Diem’s assassination was that Lodge and the CIA had flattened the flexibility he sought for his options to remain open. As Kennedy had seen it, there was still a slight chance that diplomatic relations between his administration and Diem’s could be restored, and there was no apparent leader to succeed Diem who offered any hope for an improvement. Kennedy resorted to threatening Diem with a pull out of US troops in South Vietnam in order to bring him back in line with the US effort there, but also to save Diem from his own government. He wanted a coup to be avoided if a way to reverse Diem’s declining popularity and support was possible. Still, Kennedy had not opposed a coup which, per assurances given to him, would see Diem upon resignation being provided safe passage out of the Presidential palace and into exile.

As hopelessly divided as the Kennedy administration was over how to “govern” South Vietnam, Kennedy liked Diem personally and had known him since 1951. As a Congressman, JFK visited Vietnam to learn more about the fight there against the communists, when the struggle belonged to France. Now, in 1963, with the US having replaced France, Kennedy was trying to use his insight from that failed, foreign intervention to determine the best actions to take in what was precipitously becoming a confusing quagmire. These problems with South Vietnam had always discouraged Kennedy from widening a US presence there the way nearly his entire administration wanted, which was a full scale war upwards of 210,000 troops. Kennedy refused to entertain the idea of an engagement anywhere close to this magnitude no matter what the conditions on the ground were. Even as he gave the order to increase more military advisers there, Kennedy was demanding from his top brass that they provide him with a withdrawal plan that included a tight timetable.

Once he became US Ambassador to South Vietnam, it didn’t take long for Henry Cabot Lodge to decide that he just wanted Diem gone and for the US to engage more militarily. Convinced that a more robust front against the communists and better treatment of the South Vietnamese people by its leaders were the solutions to their problems, Lodge saw Diem as the obstacle of his vision for some kind of victory.

But Lodge made his biggest difference for the Kennedy administration before he even joined it. Early in 1963, when National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy was fleshing out ideas for a diplomatic approach to Cuba with President Kennedy, Lodge – who learned about this from an official who worked closely with Bundy – told a lawyer affiliated with an anti-Castro Cuban committee that JFK was seeking to normalize relations with Cuba. In other words – peace with Castro – not overthrow Castro. This of course was a total reversal from the intent in 1961 with the Bay of Pigs invasion, the subsequent sabotage campaign of Cuba’s military resources, and the hairebrained attempts to assassinate Castro. This lawyer friend of Lodge’s in turn told a leading Cuban exile militant sponsored by the CIA named Felipe Vidal Santiago. * Naturally, Santiago was beside himself with rage as were his fellow, rebel soldiers. This info undoubtedly upset their CIA handlers as well.

Lodge’s credibility to Castro’s enemies as a reliable informant rested on his esteemed career and pedigree. The grandson and namesake of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the descendant of three, other US Senators, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was elected first as a Massachusetts Congressman, then as a Senator himself in 1944. A leader of his party, Lodge, in 1952, drafted 5 star General and World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower to run for President, and served as his campaign manager. Although Lodge lost his Senate seat that year to John F. Kennedy, his stint as a recruiter and campaign manager succeeded in electing the general President. Lodge then served in Eisenhower’s cabinet as Ambassador to the United Nations for 7 years.

Lodge’s temperament in the arena of international politics during this time, is telling. As noted in Wikipedia:

“… Lodge supported the Cold War policies of the Eisenhower Administration, and often engaged in debates with the UN representatives of the Soviet Union. During the CIA sponsored overthrowing of the legitimate Guatemalan Government, when Britain and France became concerned about the US being involved in the aggression, Lodge threatened to withdraw US support to Great Britain on Egypt and Cyprus, and France on Tunisia and Morocco, unless they backed the US in their action. When the Government was overthrown, The United Fruit Company [a CIA front] re-established itself in Guatemala. ** These episodes tainted an otherwise distinguished career [up to that point] and painted Lodge as a face of US Imperialism.”

Lodge returned to electoral politics in 1960 as Richard Nixon’s running mate, losing again to Kennedy in a close election. Lodge somehow ingratiated himself to his opponent, the victor, however, and by 1963 was a fox lying in wait to guard a hen house in the Kennedy administration.

Lodge of course was a very intelligent and savvy man. He had to know the implications of declassifying such a sensitive, working policy of Kennedy’s to a close associate of Cuban radicals who were working with the CIA to assassinate Castro. Lodge’s disclosure of a possible diplomatic restoration with Cuba was an irresponsible breach of the highest order, and it probably led to his back channel on the plan to kill JFK. In this context it is easier to understand Lodge’s hubris defying JFK’s instructions on relations with Diem and other Vietnam-related directives. JFK thought that Lodge would not survive his position as Ambassador, but instead, it was Kennedy who would not survive to replace Lodge.

Strategist Roger Stone has been involved in national political campaigns since the late 1960’s. At age 16 he was tapped by Connecticut Governor John Davis Lodge (Henry Cabot Lodge’s brother) to run the state’s “Youth For Nixon” organization. A prodigy campaign worker with a talent for dirty tricks, Stone was ingratiating himself to major players in the Republican party when he was barely out of his teens. By his mid-20’s he was a trusted confidant to President Nixon … and of his longtime mentor, John Davis Lodge.

In his best selling book “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ”, Stone recalls part of a conversation he had with Davis Lodge that is at once outrageous and chilling:

“In 1979, we sat in his Westport, Connecticut home enjoying a cocktail. I knew that JFK had planned to fire ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge upon his return from Texas on November 24, 1963. I also know that Lodge knew why he had been summoned to see the President.
I couldn’t resist asking John Lodge about his brother.

“Did you ever ask your brother who really killed Kennedy?” I said.
His lips spread into a tight grin. “Cabot said it was the Agency boys, some Mafiosi.” He looked me in the eye. “And Lyndon.”

“Did your brother know in advance?” I asked.

Lodge took a sip of his Manhattan. “He knew Kennedy wouldn’t be around to fire him. LBJ kept him at his post so he could serve his country.”

In his renowned book, “JFK and the Unspeakable” author James Douglass adds content confirming something was terribly amiss with Lodge from another vantage point. In it, Douglass writes:

“JFK’s death in Dallas preempted several decisions he was ready to make in Washington the following week. The first was the question of how to deal with his rebellious ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, who wanted to escalate and “win” the war the president had decided to withdraw from.

Robert Kennedy has commented on his brother’s loss of patience with an ambassador who would not carry out his instructions, or even give him the courtesy of a response to those instructions: “The individual who forced our position at the time of Vietnam was Henry Cabot Lodge. In fact, Henry Cabot Lodge was being brought back – and the President discussed with me in detail how he could be fired – because he wouldn’t communicate in any way with us … The President would send out messages, and he would never really answer them … [Lodge] wouldn’t communicate. It was an impossible situation during that period of time.”

According to RFK, the President in consultation with the Attorney General had already made the decision to fire Lodge: “We were trying to figure out how to get rid of Henry Cabot Lodge.” It was only a matter of “trying to work out how he could be fired, how we could get rid of him.”

President Kennedy was scheduled to meet with Lodge on Sunday afternoon, November 24, as soon as JFK returned from his trip to Texas, and Lodge from his post in Vietnam. Kennedy had prepared for his encounter with Lodge by inviting to it a strong dissenter to the Vietnam War, Under Secretary of State George Ball. He talked to Ball by phone on Wednesday night, November 20, right after the White House reception for the judiciary, making sure that the most anti-war member of his administration would attend the Sunday meeting with Lodge.

It was his successor as president, Lyndon B. Johnson, who instead presided over the Sunday, November 24, meeting with Henry Cabot Lodge.”

Before this meeting occurred however (and before John F. Kennedy would be assassinated), Lodge had another meeting to attend – in Honolulu while en route to DC – on November 20-21. It was just after this Honolulu conference to discuss Vietnam with other administration officials that Cabot Lodge was observed in a peculiar scene:

“In Hawaii on Nov. 21/63  … shortly after lunch Honolulu time , U.S.  Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge made a long distance call from the lobby of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. This distinguished diplomat had access to phones in privacy from his room or the military circuits at no cost … yet he was seen, according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, with a stack of quarters in his hand putting coin after coin into a pay phone..
Lodge was the only person of the seven member policy-making body to stay at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…..the others stayed in the military quarters.” ***

Henry Cabot Lodge deserves further scrutiny as a character in this saga of assassination and conspiracy, for two reasons.

First, given how eager he was to serve as Ambassador to South Vietnam (which he is even on record admitting to), it is inconsistent for Lodge to conduct himself in a way he knew would result in his firing … unless he knew “something” would prevent that from happening. There is a consensus among historians that, as ambassador, Lodge was notoriously disloyal to JFK. Lodge however, would continue to serve as an Ambassador for the next 5 years to the satisfaction of LBJ.

The second reason to suspect Lodge had nefarious intentions is that he was detrimental to JFK’s safety by putting him on disastrous terms with the Central Intelligence Agency, over Cuba. Lodge’s role was unique in providing the CIA with the impetus to kill the President. Kennedy’s adversaries within the government, chiefly at the CIA and Pentagon, had a commitment to win the cold war at all costs. This is not just the view of conspiracy theorists, but also of multiple, government insiders, including JFK’s very own pick to represent him at brokering a peace deal with Castro – William Atwood. In Anthony Summer’s book, “Not In Your Lifetime”, he quotes the former UN Ambassador, Atwood, as saying:

“If the CIA did find out what we were doing [talks toward normalizing relations with Cuba] … they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President.” ****

What we’ve since learned from Summer’s interview with Atwood however is that the CIA did find out what they were doing … and we know how the agency found out, and from whom.

“Et tu, Henry?” Cabot Lodge: A saboteur in the Kennedy State Department


http://cuban-exile.com/doc_051-075/doc0052.html *
http://www.dickrussell.org/articles/jfkcuban.htm * Fabian Escalante was never able to ascertain from Felipe Santiago the name of the lawyer. It is rumored that Marshall Diggs was the lawyer, but it is unlikely this claim will ever be verified. Henry Cabot Lodge’s source had been Walt Rostow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#Reputation ** As noted by Wikipedia during the years of the Eisenhower administration: “Henry Cabot Lodge … was a large owner of United Fruit stock.” Wikipedia also notes that then CIA Director Allen Dulles was “a board member of United Fruit.”
http://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/book/?GCOI=60239108877540
http://faculty.virginia.edu/usdiphis/Clips/1963_1029_rfkj_vietnam_coup.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3976 *** I haven’t found the book where this quote comes from.  Hawaiian Library resources can only find an article about  Lodge and his stay at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel from June 4, 1964. Until I am able to find out the book where this quote comes from, I’d appreciate someone letting me know which one it is.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbishopW.htm **** Indeed, the aforementioned militant,  Felipe V. Santiago “… told leaders of the anti-Castro community and his CIA contact, Colonel William Bishop. ….. Dick Russell later interviewed William Bishop who confirmed that he was aware of the plot to kill John F. Kennedy.” So said Colonel Bishop, “By 1963, the Cuban element – take Tony Varona and Roland Masferrer to name but two – and there were many, many more [Cuban Exiles] when serious talk began to happen about the possibility of assassinating Kennedy.”

Panetta, Obama,

and the Central

Intelligence Agency


From my facebook status update:

“Leon Panetta has released a new book. I took an interest in reading it because a source on the internet said that Panetta and Obama were scared of the CIA. Sure enough, Panetta was completely controlled by the agency. They even refused to comply with certain decisions he made, openly. They would even tell him what to do! On the few battles Panetta did pick with them, the CIA bypassed him and took their complaints to the White House. Obama would almost always let the CIA have their way! Panetta might as well have bent over and have the CIA prod him with a sharp stick. Given that this is the same agency that assassinated President Kennedy, this sadly shouldn’t be surprising. To this day they refuse to declassify documents as mandated by the President and Congress.”

It’s not like Panetta was some pushover who came out of nowhere. He’s had an illustrious career, starting with being the first person in his family to attend college, graduating Magna Cum Laude, then with a Juris Doctor. Even in high school he became President of the Student Body. He would later go on to become a military intelligence officer in the Army, defied President Nixon after he was appointed by him to head the Civil Rights Office (Nixon essentially didn’t want Panetta to do his job). Panetta retained his job through his superiors who threatened to resign if Nixon fired him. Panetta then went on to become a Congressman where he quickly rose in the ranks through hard work and committee leadership. He was in charge of the US budget under President Clinton. To get the budget passed, you have to work with Congress which was not easy in the 1990’s, and is nearly impossible to do today. Panetta was successful in his tenure there like he was with everything else he ever did in life. He did some of his most serious work with that after he technically left the budget post to become Clinton’s White House Chief of Staff. Veteran political author Nigel Hamilton notes, “Panetta replaced (Mack) McLarty for the rest of Clinton’s first term—and the rest is history. To be a great leader, a modern president must have a great chief of staff—and in Leon Panetta, Clinton got the enforcer he deserved.”
Then he became CIA Director.
Leon Panetta had always been successful in his personal and professional relationships, and was revered by his collegaues. He was affable, positive, and generally happy, but he was also use to being a take-charge leader who enfused high morale in those who worked for him. This was not a man lacking in social skills and insight. He is an overachiever who Presidents lean on for governmental solutions, and was use to his wisdom being the one that prevailed. And yet, having read the chapters on the CIA in his book, it’s not an exaggeration to say that the CIA made Panetta their bitch. And no matter what you may think of Obama, as President he thought highly enough of Leon Panetta to follow up his appointment of him as CIA Director with the even more serious position of Defense Secretary. The US Senate thought highly enough of CIA Director Panetta to vote in favor of him as Secretary of Defense unanimously!
Panetta is no shrinking violet by reputation, and yet he gained no real, civilian control of the CIA under his leadership. Granted, some of this responsibility lies with the President, but don’t you get the feeling that the CIA does what it wants regardless of how weak or strong a Chief Executive is? Is there anyone tough enough to run the CIA? They sure aren’t intimidated by legendary bad ass Jesse Ventura.

Official book link http://thepenguinpress.com/book/worthy-fights-a-memoir-of-leadership-in-war-and-peace/ More reading: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/10/why-leon-panettas-memoir-is-a-fraud/ “The fact of the matter is that Panetta had his own worthy fights to encounter at both the CIA and the Pentagon, but he dodged them all.  He became an immediate and willing captive of the operational culture of the CIA and the military culture of the Pentagon.  … he was never taken seriously by the senior bureaucrats and officers at the CIA and the Pentagon.” – Melvin A. Goodman – “a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  His 42-year government career includes tours with the US Army, the CIA, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense.  His most recent books are “The Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA” and “National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/31/torture-panetta-review_n_6078194.html Panetta originally pledged to produce a report for public accountability. Once he got going though, the CIA put him in his place. So much so that Panetta was even willing to have an ass made out of himself. What was he more afraid of than losing his reputation? His safety? http://bradblog.com/?p=7408

How To Go About Understanding Conspiracy in the Assassination of JFK


Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK, 101


Researching the assassination can be a monolithic undertaking and a confusing mess, especially for a beginner. The best way to initiate oneself into the study of the conspiracy is to pick one suspect – LBJ, the CIA, the Pentagon, Hoover, Secret Service – and read up on them. I don’t reccommend focusing on the Mafia or Cuban Exiles because they are not of the government. The source of this plot is rooted in the federal government, and that’s what’s of greatest significance. A criminal organization (the mob) and a militant organization (the anti-Castro fighters) were involved, but this was a coup d’état – the overthrow of our government by our government – and to this day, the government continues to cover up this act of treason as intensely as they did 50 years ago.

How This Came To Be


A phenomena existed where severe hatred towards JFK came from all the factions of power in government. In the Executive branch it was LBJ. It was the Allen Dulles loyalists in the CIA. In the Pentagon it was Curtis LeMay, among others. In the Secret Service the hatred for JFK among agents was pervasive and open. In the State Dept, the malfeasance of Henry Cabot Lodge suggests hatred. In the FBI there was J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson. Additionally, the government had two dangerous clients – the mafia, and Cuban Exile militants – thanks to their deranged campaign to take Cuba back from Castro. They too hated Kennedy.

Why It Came To This


As horror after horror happened at the hand of JFK (as the national security establishment saw it) – the betrayal at the Bay of Pigs, a pitiful sliver of aid to South Vietnam, what would result in the Cuban Missile Crisis and its outcome, a  rapprochement with Cuba on the horizon, an impending withdrawal from South Vietnam – alliances were formed among those who saw Kennedy’s elimination as a necessity.

Exploiting the Public Trust


The conspirators knew that the notion of all these different parties and individuals being involved was something the masses would scoff at. Americans had a profound trust in their government at the time, and it was inconceivable then that so many psychopaths were in charge of it. To this day, the prospect of the government gunning down Kennedy, a popular US President, is, to many, just too wild and outrageous a belief to be open minded about. Indeed, many mainstream personalities and anonymous individuals alike scorn the idea of conspiracy. They are hostile towards, and ridicule, those who believe in – not just the JFK conspiracy, but – almost any conspiracy. This is really, really dumb, but more on that later.


Onion-on-JFK


“Actually, there were probably dozens of plots to kill Kennedy, because everybody hated Kennedy but the public.” ~ Saint John Hunt