Het volgende artikel geschreven door Ray McGovern was nog niet gepubliceerd of Trump beloofde ook de rest van de JFK documenten vrij te geven, terwijl hij eerder onder druk van de CIA en NSA 300 pagina’s achterhield.
Daarmee was de kop van het McGovern artikel achterhaald, al moeten we eerst nog zien, of Trump kan leveren, immers de geheime diensten hebben hem bijna volledig in hun macht gekregen met de Russia-gate leugens*.
Verder een artikel met alweer toch een aantal nieuwe feiten, waaruit de conclusie bijna niet is te vermijden dat de CIA heeft meegewerkt aan de moord op J.F. Kennedy, uiteraard in opdracht en samenwerking met het militair-industrieel complex. Kennedy was van plan de aanwezige troepen uit Zuid-Vietnam terug te trekken, dat zou deze industrie een paar miljard dollar aan winst kosten…… Uiteraard was de mislukte invasie op Cuba een stevige plank aan de doodskist van Kennedy, men heeft hem nooit vergeven dat hij geen troepen stuurde naar Cuba om de gevangen genomen militairen te bevrijden, sterker nog: Kennedy ontsloeg de verantwoordelijken voor het Bay of Pigs incident…..
Truman, de ex-president plaatste een maand na de moord op Kennedy een artikel in de Washington Post, waarin hij pleitte de macht van de CIA aan banden te leggen, dit werd niet herhaald in de late editie van deze krant en werd gemeden door de rest van de reguliere media in de VS, terwijl Truman NB de CIA had opgezet in 1947……….
Lees het volgende (verder) prima artikel:
The
Deep State’s JFK Triumph Over Trump
October
30, 2017 at 9:27 am
Written
by Ray
McGovern
Fifty-four
years after President Kennedy’s assassination, the CIA and FBI
demanded more time to decide what secrets to keep hiding – and a
chastened President Trump bowed to their power, observes ex-CIA
analyst Ray McGovern.
(CN) — It
was summer 1963 when a senior official of CIA’s operations
directorate treated our Junior Officer Trainee (JOT) class to an
unbridled rant against President John F. Kennedy. He accused
JFK, among other things, of rank cowardice in refusing to send U.S.
armed forces to bail out Cuban rebels pinned down during the
CIA-launched invasion at the Bay of Pigs, blowing the chance to drive
Cuba’s Communist leader Fidel Castro from power.
It
seemed beyond odd that a CIA official would voice such scathing
criticism of a sitting President at a training course for those
selected to be CIA’s future leaders. I remember thinking to
myself, “This guy is unhinged; he would kill Kennedy, given the
chance.”
Our
special guest lecturer looked a lot like E. Howard Hunt, but more
than a half-century later, I cannot be sure it was he. Our notes
from such training/indoctrination were classified and kept under lock
and key.
At
the end of our JOT orientation, we budding Agency leaders had to make
a basic choice between joining the directorate for substantive
analysis or the operations directorate where case officers run spies
and organize regime changes (in those days, we just called the
process overthrowing governments).
I
chose the analysis directorate and, once ensconced in the brand new
headquarters building in Langley, Virginia, I found it strange that
subway-style turnstiles prevented analysts from going to the
“operations side of the house,” and vice versa. Truth be told, we
were never one happy family.
I
cannot speak for my fellow analysts in the early 1960s, but it never
entered my mind that operatives on the other side of the turnstiles
might be capable of assassinating a President – the very President
whose challenge to do something for our country had brought many of
us to Washington in the first place. But, barring the emergence of a
courageous whistleblower-patriot like Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea
Manning or Edward Snowden, I do not expect to live long enough to
learn precisely who orchestrated and carried out the assassination of
JFK.
And
yet, in a sense, those particulars seem less important than two main
lessons learned: (1) If a President can face down intense domestic
pressure from the power elite and turn toward peace with perceived
foreign enemies, then anything is possible. The darkness of
Kennedy’s murder should not obscure the light of that basic truth;
and (2) There is ample evidence pointing to a state execution of a
President willing to take huge risks for peace. While no
post-Kennedy president can ignore that harsh reality, it remains
possible that a future President with the vision and courage of JFK
might beat the odds – particularly as the American Empire
disintegrates and domestic discontent grows.
I
do hope to be around next April after the 180-day extension for
release of the remaining JFK documents. But – absent a gutsy
whistleblower – I wouldn’t be surprised to see in April,
a Washington
Post banner
headline much like the one that appeared Saturday: “JFK
files: The promise of revelations derailed by CIA, FBI.”
The
New Delay Is the Story
You
might have thought that almost 54 years after Kennedy was murdered in
the streets of Dallas – and after knowing for a quarter century the
supposedly final deadline for releasing the JFK files – the CIA and
FBI would not have needed a six-month extension to decide what
secrets that they still must hide.
Journalist
Caitlin Johnstone hits
the nail on the head in
pointing out that the biggest revelation from last week’s limited
release of the JFK files is “the fact that the FBI and CIA still
desperately need to keep secrets about something that happened 54
years ago.”
What
was released on Oct. 26, was a tiny fraction of what had remained
undisclosed in the National Archives. To find out why, one needs
to have some appreciation of a 70-year-old American political
tradition that might be called “fear of the spooks.”
That
the CIA and FBI are still choosing what we should be allowed to see
concerning who murdered John Kennedy may seem unusual, but there is
hoary precedent for it. After JFK’s assassination on Nov. 22,
1963, the well-connected Allen Dulles, whom Kennedy had fired as CIA
director after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, got himself appointed to the
Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of
JFK’s murder.
By
becoming de
facto head
of the Commission, Dulles was perfectly placed to protect himself and
his associates, if any commissioners or investigators were tempted to
question whether Dulles and the CIA played any role in killing
Kennedy. When a few independent-minded journalists did succumb to
that temptation, they were immediately branded – you guessed it –
“conspiracy theorists.”
And
so, the big question remains: Did Allen Dulles and other
“cloak-and-dagger” CIA operatives have a hand in John Kennedy’s
assassination and subsequent cover-up? In my view and the view of
many more knowledgeable investigators, the best dissection of the
evidence on the murder appears in James Douglass’s 2008 book, JFK
and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.
After
updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still
more interviews, Douglass concludes that the answer to the big
question is Yes. Reading Douglass’s book today may help
explain why so many records are still withheld from release, even in
redacted form, and why, indeed, we may never see them in their
entirety.
Truman:
CIA a Frankenstein?
When
Kennedy was assassinated, it must have occurred to former President
Harry Truman, as it did to many others, that the disgraced Allen
Dulles and his associates might have conspired to get rid of a
President they felt was soft on Communism – and dismissive of the
Deep State of that time. Not to mention their vengeful desire to
retaliate for Kennedy’s response to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. (Firing
Allen Dulles and other CIA paragons of the Deep State for that fiasco
simply was not done.)
Exactly
one month after John Kennedy was killed, the Washington
Post published
an op-ed by Harry Truman titled “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.”
The first sentence read, “I think it has become necessary to take
another look at the purpose and operations of our Central
Intelligence Agency.”
Strangely,
the op-ed appeared only in the Post’s early
edition on Dec. 22, 1963. It was excised from that day’s later
editions and, despite being authored by the President who was
responsible for setting up the CIA in 1947, the all-too-relevant
op-ed was ignored in all other major media.
Truman
clearly believed that the spy agency had lurched off in what Truman
thought were troubling directions. He began his op-ed by
underscoring “the original reason why I thought it necessary to
organize this Agency … and what I expected it to do.” It would be
“charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every
available source, and to have those reports reach me as President
without Department ‘treatment’ or interpretations.”
Truman
then moved quickly to one of the main things clearly bothering
him. He wrote “the most important thing was to guard against
the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the
President into unwise decisions.”
It
was not difficult to see this as a reference to how one of the
agency’s early directors, Allen Dulles, tried to trick President
Kennedy into sending U.S. forces to rescue the group of invaders who
had landed on the beach at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961 with no
chance of success, absent the speedy commitment of U.S. air and
ground support. The planned mouse-trapping of the then-novice
President Kennedy had been underpinned by a rosy “analysis”
showing how this pin-prick on the beach would lead to a popular
uprising against Fidel Castro.
Wallowing
in the Bay of Pigs
Arch-Establishment
figure Allen Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy, on
entering office, had the temerity to question the CIA’s Bay of Pigs
plans, which had been set in motion under President Dwight
Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would not approve
the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles set out, with supreme
confidence, to give the President no choice except to send U.S.
troops to the rescue.
Coffee-stained
notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and
reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. In his notes, Dulles
explained that, “when the chips were down,” Kennedy would be
forced by “the realities of the situation” to give whatever
military support was necessary “rather than permit the enterprise
to fail.”
The
“enterprise” which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the
overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations
to assassinate Castro, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with
little or no attention to how Castro’s patrons in Moscow might
react eventually. (The next year, the Soviets agreed to install
nuclear missiles in Cuba as a deterrent to future U.S. aggression,
leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis).
In
1961, the reckless Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom then-Deputy Secretary
of State George Ball later described as a “sewer of deceit,”
relished any chance to confront the Soviet Union and give it, at
least, a black eye. (One can still smell the odor from that
sewer in many of the documents released last week.)
But
Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak. A few months after the
abortive invasion of Cuba — and his refusal to send the U.S.
military to the rescue — Kennedy fired Dulles and his
co-conspirators and told a friend that he wanted to “splinter the
CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Clearly,
the outrage was mutual.
When JFK
and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters came
out, the mainstream media had an allergic reaction and gave it almost
no reviews. It is a safe bet, though, that Barack Obama was given a
copy and that this might account in some degree for his continual
deference – timorousness even – toward the CIA.
Could
fear of the Deep State be largely why President Obama felt he had to
leave the Cheney/Bush-anointed CIA torturers, kidnappers and
black-prison wardens in place, instructing his first CIA chief, Leon
Panetta, to become, in effect, the agency’s lawyer rather than take
charge? Is this why Obama felt he could not fire his clumsily
devious Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who had to
apologize to Congress for giving “clearly erroneous” testimony
under oath in March 2013? Does Obama’s fear account for his
allowing then-National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander and
counterparts in the FBI to continue to mislead the American people,
even though the documents released by Edward Snowden showed them –
as well as Clapper – to be lying about the government’s
surveillance activities?
Is
this why Obama fought tooth and nail to protect CIA Director John
Brennan by trying to thwart publication of the comprehensive Senate
Intelligence Committee investigation of CIA torture, which was
based
on original Agency cables, emails, and headquarters memos?
[See here and here.]
The
Deep State Today
Many
Americans cling to a comforting conviction that the Deep State is a
fiction, at least in a “democracy” like the United States.
References to the enduring powers of the security agencies and other
key bureaucracies have been essentially banned by the mainstream
media, which many other suspicious Americans have come to see as just
one more appendage of the Deep State.
But
occasionally the reality of how power works pokes through in some
unguarded remark by a Washington insider, someone like Sen. Chuck
Schumer, D-New York, the Senate Minority Leader with 36 years of
experience in Congress. As Senate Minority Leader, he also is an ex
officio member
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to oversee
the intelligence agencies.
During
a Jan. 3, 2017 interview with MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow, Schumer told
Maddow nonchalantly about the dangers awaiting President-elect Donald
Trump if he kept on “taking on the intelligence community.” She
and Schumer were discussing Trump’s sharp tweeting regarding U.S.
intelligence and evidence of “Russian hacking” (which both
Schumer and Maddow treat as flat fact).
Schumer said:
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have
six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. So even for a
practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really
dumb to do this.”
Three
days after that interview, President Obama’s intelligence chiefs
released a nearly evidence-free “assessment” claiming that the
Kremlin engaged in a covert operation to put Trump into office,
fueling a “scandal” that has hobbled Trump’s presidency. On
Monday, Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller indicted
Trump’s one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort on unrelated money
laundering, tax and foreign lobbying charges, apparently in the hope
that Manafort will provide incriminating evidence against Trump.
So,
President Trump has been in office long enough to have learned how
the game is played and the “six ways from Sunday” that the
intelligence community has for “getting back at you.” He appears
to be as intimidated as was President Obama.
Trump’s
awkward acquiescence in the Deep State’s last-minute foot-dragging
regarding release of the JFK files is simply the most recent sign
that he, too, is under the thumb of what the Soviets used to call
“the organs of state security.”
Ray
McGovern works with the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in
inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career at CIA, he
prepared the President’s
Daily Brief for
Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and conducted the one-on-one morning
briefings from 1981 to 1985. He is co-founder of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
By Ray
McGovern /
Republished with permission / Consortium
News / Report
a typo
===============================================
* Zie o.a.: ‘Walls Closing in on Russiagate Conspiracy Theorists: Evidence Mounts That DNC Emails Provided to WikiLeaks By Inside Source‘ en: ‘WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Drops Russiagate Shell!!!‘ (video).
Zie ook: ‘Martin Luther King jr. vermoord door de overheid, aldus rechter……..‘
en: ‘J.F. Kennedy vermoord door Lyndon Johnson en z’n maten in misdaad, geheime diensten en politiek…..‘
en: ‘Newsweek erkent ‘false flag’ operatie van de VS tegen de Sovjet Unie……‘
en: ‘Kabinet ‘wil kunnen hacken’, zonder daar melding van te maken………. Hoe bedoelt u, ‘politiestaat??’‘
Zie ook de volgende links, die weliswaar niets met Kennedy te maken hebben maar die wel aangeven hoe groot de macht de reguliere VS media en vooral de geheime diensten hebben, iets dat weer eens goed duidelijk werd door de leugens over ‘Russiagate’ (alleen dat woord is al een leugen op zich en werd voor het eerst gebruikt voor de Russische oligarchen die eind 90er jaren hun geld witwasten in het westen):
‘Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump……..‘ (een vervolg op het bovenstaande bericht)
en: ‘FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information‘
en: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘
en: ‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘
en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘
en: ‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘
en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een verhaal van a t/m z westers ‘fake news…..’‘
en: ‘New York Times met schaamteloze anti-Russische propaganda en ‘fake news….’‘
en: ‘BBC World Service: Rusland heeft VS verkiezingen gemanipuleerd……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘
PS: Kennedy en dan met name zijn broer Robert gingen ook behoorlijk tekeer tegen de maffia en volgens een aantal deskundigen zou de maffia hebben samengewerkt met de geheime dienst. Lee Harvey Oswald, die Kennedy als zou hebben vermoord, werd door Jack Ruby doodgeschoten, deze zou lid van de maffia zijn geweest of daar hechte banden mee hebben gehad………