Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- From: Willie.Mookie@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 14, 3:34 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 14, 12:24 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:> On Aug 11, 4:52 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wille Mook wrote:
[...]
Clearly, the CIA has the capacity if it wishes to ensnare and
discredit a President.
Or support a boob like the current one.
Does it seem reasonable that the CIA would operate to protect the USA
*from* a President that it had determined was proposing a course
detrimental to the USA if it had to? from a candidate that might
become such a President? what about political activists in the USA?
Who are they to make that decision? I question decsion-makers that are
unelected officials.
When the Congress decides to go to war, they put Generals, Admirals,
and so forth in charge of the war, and leave it to the experts. Who
are these Generals? They are un-elected officials - yet they have
the authority in the context of the war to execute the war
efficiently. Its impossible to carry out a war with every decision
by the field commanders second guessed by an elected official.
Obviously, field commanders must have the authority to run their
battles and their war without such oversight. To this end you have a
specialist class of experts to carry on the war without such
oversight.
In the nuclear age, we entered a 'Cold War' period - where the
exigencies of war applied, but the war would never be allowed to go
'hot' - that is, a global thermonuclear war would be equivalent to a
defeated USA in this view, and so, there was a moral imperative on the
level of warfare to AVOID conflict by any means necessary. This
required the CREATION of a specialist class to carry on the cold war
without political oversight - for the very same reason you can't have
politicians telling field commander what sort of tactics to carry
out.
Now, in both cases, you CAN have 'rules of engagement' that
theoretically protects everyone - but such rules themselves can get
mangled in the heat of battle.
The OSS was the intelligence arm of the Army in WW2 - and it was in a
natural position to carry out this role in the nuclear age - to carry
out a cold war.
what about political activists outside the USA? On this spectrum,
where would the CIA limit itself? If it does not limit itself then it
MUST evaluate and plan to use its authority responsibly (by its light)
all the time.
Congress and the Supreme Court oversee what the Executive Branch does,
which includes the CIA.
and the Army - but when a decision is made to go to war, we cannot let
the politicians tell the field commanders how to prosecute the war.
Same here. There was a decision to engage in a cold war - the
purpose of which is to keep the world secure from a global
thermonuclear conflagration. This benefits primarily the USA - but it
also benefits all of us.
You may think the President a boob or not. The CIA - if it has the
responsibility of protecting the USA from a popular politician it
thinks is a mole for a foreign power - evaluates THAT risk -
regardless of what else is going on.
Again, I question unelected decision-makers.
The elected decision makers made a decision following WW2 to maintain
a war footing so that the USA could engage in a cold war - that is, do
everything needed to avoid a global hot war from breaking out in the
nuclear age. They were given their rules of engagement and marching
orders, and the equivalent of generals and admirals in the
intelligence community, carried out the battles after reviewing them
with the President and the various Congressional intelligence
committees.
[...]
Are you claiming the Cuban exile community mostly in Miami liked JFK?
I don't know - the JFK library is saying that.
What about everywhere else?
<shrug> the cubans seemed to be happy in the photos! - what people
say of JFK after he died really doesn't matter does it?
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/JFK+and...
What you fail to mention in your commentary is that these three NSAMs
were written on June 28, 1961 - two months AFTER the invasion!!
That is not a failure! It is a point that states that JFK as a lesson
learned from the BOP that he no longer trusted the CIA.
He wanted all paramilitary operations handed over to the Joint Cheifs
of Staff (the Military!).
I thought you meant those NSAMs *caused* the BOP failure.
No, no! These NSAMs were written as a RESULT of the BOP failure!
Right - I got it, I thought you said something different before -
so,we seem to be in agreement about that.
I see now I misread what you wrote. So, yeah, all I'm saying is that the NSAMs
didn't have any impact on the BOP since they were written after. That
they got a few noses out of joint - that's absolutely true. Was that
enough for them to organize an assasination of the President of the
United States? NO.
It was another straw of many. The last? Probably not, but certainly it
added to the weight on the Camel's back, so to speak.
I think the CIA - if it were involved in the assasination - would have
handled the decision professionally. That is, JFK would have had to
merit it according to the rules of engagements and the operating plans
in force at the time. To my mind that suggests there was some
evidence pre-existing that suggested he might be a mole on the order
of Alger Hiss or Armand Hammer. This was rejected at the time of his
election, but then re-interpreted in light of the decisions he made in
his last 12 months in office - reflecting the probability that there
was a larger conspiracy. Then, there was probably a study - assuming
again the CIA was involved - showing the outcomes of various courses
of action - with a formal decision being made - following all the
rules - that JFK was out. The likely involved LBJ and Congressional
leaders. Also, they likely killed the CIA operatives who organized the
whole thing - again following the double blind procedures set up at
the outset. I'm assuming againthat the CIA was involved which is may
not have been.
You seem to suggest that people get pissed off and then decide to kill
someone . If it were that easy, and that poorly thought out - there
would be leaks and there would be a lot more killings. No, there has
to be a pre-existing set of conditions in the rules that let the CIA
to take out a candidate, a president, a congressman and so forth - and
those rules have to be followed - and the pre-conditions must be
met. JFK and the whole Kennedy clan with their checkquered
background - and liberal ties - may have something in it that suggests
there was a connection back to Russia - for him to have been elected,
means that the CIA didn't think much of that evidence. However,
following a series of decisions that challenged the agency to reinvent
itself, it had to have chosen not to, and reinterpreted the evidence
it earlier discarded in a different light. It then followed
professionally laid out plans - which likely involved people getting
killed who carried out those plans. i.e. Ruby and Oswald and
unfortunate witnesses,along with RFK weren't the only ones to bite the
dust on this - gray men in gray offices died too - they had to - if
the CIA was involved - which it may not be. So, anyone filing FOIA -
should look for patterns of deaths mental breakdowns, reassignments,
accidents, WITHIN the CIA - following the asassination.
Did it cause some in power to revisit the theory
that the Kennedy's were moles like Alger Hiss and Armand Hammer? That
would be the response. They wouldn't even admit to themselves that
they were doing it for selfish reasons. They would develop the
information they needed to honestly say the President needed to be
killed - if that's indeed what happened.
Who makes that decision?
If the agency has the authority to take out a president under certain
conditions, they have an entire staff of people organized to test
those conditions constantly. Once the decision is made, then there is
a procedure already on the books to involve others in the process, the
VP, specific leaders in the Senate and House are likely contacts -
then there are people to carry it out - already in place that get
called up and so forth.
Right-wingers
Are subject to this analysis as well
in industry that honestly
thought the Russians were crazier than our own crazies?!
I am assuming if the CIA were involved that the organizing documents
of the CIA permit such action and spell out the conditions such action
will be required. This presupposes that they must take any means
necessary to avoid a global thermonuclear war in the coming period
creating the conditions for a cold war that could not be allowed to go
hot - but requires a professional class of experts in intelligence and
covert operations that maintained
Hell man, Linus Pauling was called a "Red" by many including Hoover.
Yes, and these folks figured the OSS leadership were perfectly suited
to be the generals in the coming Cold War.
Pauling had the double helix down way before Watson and Crick and was
barrded from leaving the country because the State Dept., thanks to
Hoover, called him a Red. That same sort of lunacy, dubbed
McCarthyism, is what leads to thinking that JFK was supporting them
and not us.
You are making moral judgments over details that don't matter based on
an outdated morality. The big picture is that
a) the bulk of the world's people were poised to develop industrially;
b) all societies who developed industrially engaged in major warfare
and projected power globally
c) warfare in the coming period would be nuclear
d) the USA would get involved or be a target of any major war
therefore,
We are in a period NOW where we must take ALL MEANS NECESSARY to
a) keep development slow to non-existent so that
b) all societies are too part to even think of warfare and those that
wish to project power are focused on their own backyards;
c) keep technology secret and contained so nuclear capabilities do not
spread
d) keep USA isolated from conflicts and world affairs so they do not
get involved or become a target
This is the cold war - we're still in it. 9/11 changed things -
because 9/11 was a failure of (d) and possibly (b) - and us enriching
the Middle East - following Nixon's going off the gold standard, and
letting the oil companies set energy policy for the USA - was a
failure of (a).. and Nixon's detente with China has led to a failure
of (c) with the Chinese helping Korea and Pakistan get the bomb.
You seem to think that the timing should have been before hand. No!
I thought you were saying the BOP was caused by these NSAMs - I
misread what you wrote. I am saying just what you are saying - that
the NSAMs were a reaction to the failure of the BOP.
Good.
JFK wroet these memos as a reaction to the failure of the
BOP. What part of THAT dont YOU get?!
That's exactly what I was saying because I thought you were implying
the JFK caused the failure at BOP and these NSAMs proved it. In
response to that apparent statement - which you didn't make I now see
- I was saying that these NSAMs came after the BOP and could not have
affected the BOP one bit.
It was the BOP that caused the NSAMs not the other way around.
agreed
The invasion had already failed. What these NSAMs are about are Bundy,
McNamara and Kennedy's efforts to make damned fucking sure the
President, or any future President for that matter, wouldn't have his
fucking *** hanging out after committing resources and people (even
non-nationals as in this case!)
The memos were based upon lessons learned. Do you not see where the
CIA was stripped of power?
Absolutely.
Or at least that was what was attempted by
these memos?
That wouldn't have been enough for the CIA to organize a coup. There
had to have been information already circulating that the Kennedy's
were on Stalin's payroll or something like that.
Or, that the MIC, of whick Ike warned the contry about on his way out,
decided that JFK was going to cost them too much money by making the
DOD basically go dormant during the Cold War.
The CIA wouldn't have been involved for something not directly
impacting their marching orders, and if they weren't involved they
would have destroyed any attempt on JFKs life. No, there had to have
been specific order of battle so to speak based on pre-existing rules
of engagement - and JFK had to have something that existed in his
background that triggered the pre-existing panel to begin looking at
doing him in after he made his series of decisions that adversely
impacted the ability of the CIA to carry out its mission. Understand,
that in the Cold War- the CIA is more important than the Army or Navy
or Air Force - it is the primary instrument of national policy - and
must remain flexible enough and capable enough to meet ANY threat
cooked up by a scientifically advanced adversary in the nuclear age.
Even if it were
unlikely, if there was any scintilla of evidence, they would have
analyzed that in light of his recent actions and stated goals, applied
a Bayesian analysis to it and generated a paper saying that the
President was not acting on behalf of the best interests of the USA
and had violated his oath of office -and was part of a Communist
conspiracy - yadayadayada.. before they organized a coup - if that's
what they did. LBJ had to have been a part of it - it would be
interesting to see whom he met with in the days and weeks preceding
the assasination of Diem.
Wealthy Texans within the oil and defense industries?
No, it wouldn't have been that shallow. If it were that easy to
trigger CIA involvement, we'd be a bannana republic already where the
winner arrests and murders his opponent after each election. The CIA
is more professional than that - if it were involved at all. It may
very well be that it is forbidden for the CIA to murder a sitting
president no matter what the provocation. However, I cannot imagine
folks like Hoover and Dulles allowing a Manchurian Candidate free
reign. At the same time, I cannot imagine these same folks letting
the US sink to using the CIA as a lever to become the world's richest
bananna republic. That is a failure mode that's easy to see and
avoid. The trouble is - rules of engagement and so forth - have their
own less obvious failure modes.
That is, look at the dates of the invasion - look at what happened -
and look at the dates on the NSAMs - and what the President was
saying.
Yes, I know!
Me too! lol. I thought you had said (but I see now you did not) that
the NSAMs proved JFK had screwed around with things and caused the BOP
failure. Since the NSAMs came after - they were the result of the BOP
- not the cause of the BOP - on that we agree - I thought we did not.
That's all.
In the intervening two months from April to June the President was
given a lot of stories FROM the CIA and DOD explaining the 'failure'
in Cuba - and in response to that the President with HIS advisors was
laying down the law to both those groups of assholes - don't *** with
the President!
Right, but do you see where it saif "Joint Chiefs of Staff" several
times, and "paramilitary", also several times, and how paramilitary
ops were to be turned over to the JCS?!? Translation: Covert
operations going away from the CIA and shifted over to the military,
as per JFK's memos.
Yes - and in retro-spect - JFK needed to tread a little more lightly
in dealing with these fellows - reassuring them personally that this
was in the best interests of the USA and so forth - it might not have
changed things - if they did organize a coup - but it is likely that
it might. haha - but we're piling speculation upon speculation here -
and I get rather tired of that - haha.
I think you're missing a huge point regarding the "follow the money"
angle about all this.
If the CIA was involved, it wasn't about money - it was about the
security of the USA.
Clearly, JFK wasn't killed over pure idealogy
related to Communism vs. Capitalism. He was killed because a powerful
group was being hit in their pocketbooks due to his policies.
No - not at all. If it were that easy to subvert the agency, we'd
already be more controlled than Marcos' spain! lol. No, no. no. The
money serves the CIA - not the other way round. If the CIA were
involved, then they had to be convinced - to the point of scientific
certainty - that the USA would be better of as a nation by the
assasination. Period. Now, these NSAMs reign in the power of the
CIA. Perhaps there are others still classified, that did more damage
- perhaps the firings were viewed as a concerted effort to undermine
the agency - with clear evidence - still classified - that JFK was
doing this to harm the USA - at the behest of Russia. If such a story
could be scientifically validated - and if the agency has the
authority from the outset to murder a sitting President under these
conditions - i.e. the USA is better off after - THEN and only then -
would such action have taken place.
Those
same felt and got what they wanted out of LBJ. Who does that leave?
Once you have the rules in place, and the process in place to execute
those rules - then all that has to happen is that the process
conditions are met and the action takes place - if no one has the gots
to stand up and say no.
Look at the case of Colonel Stanislav Petrov. In 1983 Petrov deviated
from standard Soviet doctrine by positively identifying a missile
attack warning as a false alarm. This decision, according to several
sources, was a major factor in preventing an accidental retaliatory
nuclear attack on the United States. This was a high risk decision by
Petrov - and cost him his career. But, we are all alive today to
thank him for it. IF the CIA was involved in the assasination of JFK,
it had to be a similar malfunction of a pre-existing process - which
no one was able, or willing, to make a high risk decision to stop.
You think the CIA is hired by business interests. No, the CIA uses
business interests to carry out its mission. The only failing is
common mode failure not being able to question or make high risk
decisions within the organization.
That's all this is. Any effort to paint it as anything more is
ludicrous - any effort to say it had any impact on April's operations
- is also ludicrous and impossible.
Okay, so these memos get written AND Dulles, Cabell and Bissell, the
top 3 men in the CIA get replaced a few months later
Yes - but I doubt that given the nature of these men's commitment to
the USA - that their sacking alone would have resulted in a CIA backed
coup to kill JFK.
No, but they sure as hell could be counted on when the operation came
down, no?
No, the way the CIA has to work for it to actually carry out its
mission - is that there had to be scientific quality proof that JFK
dead left the USA stronger than JFK alive. The CIA would never be
involved in internecine rivalry that in the end would weaken the USA.
In fact, any claim of controlling political discourse within the
country must stem from the fact that a Civil War would so weaken the
USA that it would be at risk - so, political discourse leading to such
a situation would be managed to avoid it. See? If the CIA is as
involved as some fear - it HAS to be this way - for it to be otherwise
would mean that we would already be living in such a capricious and
repressive regime - we wouldn't be having this conversation! lol.
Bissell, the plans guy, what kind of plans did he do? Coup de etat and
that sort of thing. Assassinations!
Of course - if the CIA has responsibility for dealing with a sitting
President that is a Soviet mole - with a pre-existing authority to
take him out - then those plans are ALREADY worked out in detail. It
is merely developing the conditions so that the process in place is
triggered.
Like the malfunctioning soviet satellite that Petrov refused to
believe - it may be an unfortunate set of conditions that JFK created
that set off the process - and there was no Petrov like character
willing to risk his career or even his life - making high risk
decisions.
Cabell, sacred cow of Intell since WWII. His brother just happens to
be the mayor of Dallas in 1963!
You can see all sorts of shadows - but if the CIA was involved in the
asassination of JFK - something we cannot establish with certainty -
then the CIA operated according to procedures in principles in place
at the time - and no one stood up and said no. It was an unfortunate
malfunction, or the evidence developed against JFK was
incontrovertible.
Once the decision was made - if it was made - then it would be carried
out professionally - and such correlations would be expected. Such
correlations are not proof of the original thesis however. When the
evidence is released - along with other records - we'll see.
Dulles, sits on the Warren Commission after being sacked by JFK all
they while investigating the assassination itself! More like making
sure the CIA doesn't get implicated actually. You don't smell a rat in
these three?!
Sure. But this is all weirdness. Lets break it down to something
obvious. JFK gets killed, then RFK in June 1968 - a few months
earlier MLK, Malcolm X in 1965, Medgar Evers in 1963 - ever since Sun
Tzu wrote the Art of War - assasination has been an important means to
carry out an effective war effort. Now, behind closed doors at the
end of world war two - we have a group of people who worry about;
1) the propensity of societies to engage in warfare as they
industrialize
2) the bulk of humanity on the verge of industrializing
3) the fact that the USA gets involved in every single world conflict
because of its leading position
4) the fact that any future conflict will likely involve nuclear
weapons
5) the fact that the USA will not survive a surprise nuclear attack if
unprepeared..
this creates the conditions necessary to create a new sort of
professional soldier - that operates in secret - to carry out a cold
war - to maintain conditions in the world that keep the world from
slipping into a global thermonuclear conflict - this is beyond
communism, beyond selfish interest - the USA will cease to exist if
such a war is allowed to occur - so we must take steps to make sure it
does not.
That is the organizing principle behind the CIA - and we are at war -
right now - and if this cadre of experts decides that the USA is safer
with someone dead than with someone alive - then they will organize to
make sure that someone is dead - no matter who they are or how
deserving they are - or what the rules outside the agency say should
happen - to do any less makes the rules moot since the USA would cease
to exist if left in an unsafe condition.
Not taken into consideration is the danger of what I have called here
common mode failure - and the inability of the agency to effectively
take high risk decisions that would avoid such failure.
Now ask yourself that if the same three had been Soviets in the KGB
and the same thing happened over there with their Premier; you'd be
fine with LHO lone nut as the killer?
Who knows? You can argue until you're blue in the face and it gets
you nowhere since you don't have any knowledge. You are accepting
things as articles of faith. I prefer to look at things rather
simply. JFK was killed, RFK was killed Teddy was discredited - at
interesting times in their careers. If the CIA was involved - it was
involved at a professional level - not a selfish or narrow level.
That is not to say that if it was involved, it wasn't a failure or
malfunction of the rules of engagement. It was. or it seems so - but
even that is a guess about a guess about a guess - haha..
1) if the CIA was involved and
2) if there was evidence of JFK malfeasance
3) I am assuming the evidence should have lead to a high risk decision
to ignore it.
see? You can fabricate all sorts of things in your head - but
without accurate sure knowledge - you are only going to see what you
want to see. You see conservatives and money interests killing a
liberal candidate. That's more a reflection of your internal thought
process than fact. I see the CIA being setup for deadly serious
purpose - and so, I see that.
Somehow we are supposed to
simply be above that sort of thing because were are we!
No the CIA is above all that because its primary goal is to maintain
the safety and security of the USA in the nuclear age against a very
specific range of threats. If the CIA has authority to take out a
sitting president under certain conditions, those conditions will be
very well spelled out. Furthermore, those conditions will be
scientifically proven. Finally, there will be rules of engagement.
This will be proof against misuse of this power in the minds of those
who set it up. They under-estimate the potential of complex systems
to malfunction - as in the case of the Soviet satellite - and the need
for folks in the decision making process - to be authorized to make
high risk decisions - to avoid common mode failure.
What
Bull***!!!
If the CIA was as compliant as you suggest, we would already look
longingly at the freedoms of Marcos' Spain! lol. Fact is, you are
attempting to paint the assasination of JFK in terms of class -
conservative vs. liberal, rich vs. poor, ignoring that Kennedy was one
of the richest families on Earth at the time. This is your agenda.
Its obvious.
I look at the same situation and say - the CIA is not compliant. It
cannot be and still function. If the CIA was involved - then I view
that as a failure of the agency to detect common mode failure and take
high risk decisions to avoid such malfunctions of the processes put in
place.
Of course, the CIA might not have been involved. It might have been
the mob, or some other special interest - in that case, yeah, sure.
But who knows? Its only an agency like the CIA that has the staying
power to make sure that RFK and Teddy don't become avenues of their
undoing. So this is suggestive but by no means conclusive.
I *do* think if there was any stain on the private
life of ANY of the Kennedy's that suggested there might be a
connection back to Stalin, the Communists, and so forth - THAT would
have been re-evaluated in light of THESE decisions - and blown into a
rationalization to implement a pre-existing SIOP that involved a coup
of a harmful President. That is, if these men or others like them,
did organize to kill JFK, they convinced themselves it was the right
thing to do given the best available evidence at the time..
Or they were driven by greed.
Who? Then all they have to do is wait for the next election.
sheez. Look, you have to ask yourself - are these wealthy powerful
folks so poor that they can't wait and buy the next election? haha..
Of course they can. That by far is the easiest path for them. So
that shoots in the head the idea that a bunch of rich bastards
organized this. That leaves two possibilities - a band of
malcontents with no real power - mob guys, Castro, whatever... - or
the CIA executing some process that already pre-existed and got
triggered somehow and couldn't be stopped once it was triggered.
I think you project your emotions onto
them.
You're the one talking about emotions - I'm not! lol. Why do you
need to see this as a class warfare thing? Hell, LBJ said that he
thought JFK would have died of Addison's disease before the end of his
second term. There's nothing the President could have done while in
office that very rich very powerful families and businesses could not
have undone after he left office. So, he didn't go into Vietnam and
Bell helicopter would have to carry a few more years' losses on the
textron division before they became profitable. This isn't a reason
to kill a sitting president. No, the only two things that make sense
is - some malcontents (either alone or as a group) do it, or the CIA
has proven to itself that the president is a clear and present danger
to the USA in the nuclear age and must execute the plans it has in
place already in that eventuality.
Of course
once this happened - if it happened - the requirement to maintain the
secret and so forth - would take precedence following the killing.
Clearly all the CIA did during the Cold War years under Ike made them
more emboldened.
Hubris.
Does that make it right?
You are trying to inject morality into a process who's only measure of
performance is the answer to the following question; Is the USA safer
and stronger in the nuclear age as a result of this action? If so,
then the action MUST be carried out - regardless of conventional
morality - to do less means to invite a global thermonuclear war after
which conventional morality would be moot.
It is "groupthink" gone
arwry
Yes, the question and the purpose of the agency is rife with paths of
common mode failures. A sophisticated system that on occasion
malfunctions - and no one has the authority or capacity to make high
risk decisions - since such authority or capacity could be exploited
by a scientific adversary to destroy the agency from within.
until something like the JFK assassination comes about.
If the agency were involved in the assasination I would count it a
failure of the agency. If the agency were not involved in the
assasination I would count it a failure of the agency as well.
However, the failure of the agency in the first instance, is small
compared to the failure the agency is leading us to today. The agency
has failed to see that it has failed to secure all the goals for which
it was organized - and has failed to take high risk decisions to
reinvent itself in light of today's challenges.
They can
convince themselves it was the right thing to do until they go to the
grave,
Yes.
but is it?
No it was a malfunction of the machinery and no one had the authority
to challenge its operation.
Was the coup in Iran given the whole Shah business
in 1978-9?
This is lower on the arc of seriousness... no one would challenge the
agency's right to carry out these actions in light of the goals of the
agency.
Guatemala, Argentina, Congo, and so on...?
You are arguing from conventional morality and ignoring that if a
global thermonuclear war takes place - such morality would be moot.
I have read that the CIA and especially the plans division is likened
to a gun. It is suppose to point outward and at the enemy to protect
the US. But who has control of that gun and who decides where it
points?
They do, based on a simple decision - is the US benefitted by this
action?
What happens when a whole bunch of CIA people find themselves
out of a job?
They would go to their deaths to see that the USA survives the cold
war - I cannot imagine that such people would act selfishly if they
lost their job. Now, on the other hand, if a lot of them found
themselves out of a job, they would naturally ask themselves - is this
a good thing for the USA or a bad thing? If they convince themselves
it was a bad thing, then they would naturally ask themselves, would
the USA be better off if this decision was reversed? If they
convinced themselves of that - without bringing their own needs into
it - then, they would naturally move to have the decision reversed.
Through this series of events, the pre-existing process that was put
in place to protect the USA against a rogue president, may have been
inadvertently triggered - without anyone being able to catch the
malfunction.
Does that ability to wield the gun simply go away
because of a bunch of pink slips got distributed?
If the CIA were so narrow and selfish, we would already be history.
Such is not the case, so I think the CIA acts with more than a modicum
of self restraint and professionalism.
Or, can another
with enough resources and $$$ pick up the pieces and create their own
"gun"?
Like I said, malcontents might get away with one assasination attempt
- not two and a successful discrediting of a third.
Perhaps access to the gun can be subverted at the top levels
with just knowing exactly what buttons to push?
No one knows exactly which buttons to push that's another point. No,
for your thesis of the CIA to be involved at all in the assassination
of JFK to be correct, some malfunction of a pre-existing process had
to have caused a triggering of events - and no one stood up to make
the high-risk decision to stop it.
and you're
telling me the memos were what again?
a response to the failure of the BOP.
You fail to see the firing of
the top CIA officials and the memos with "JCS and paramilitary" all
over them together to paint the bigger picture.
I see that - and that is something totally different than what I
thought you were saying. I do not believe that the mere sacking and
reassignment of authority would be sufficient to trigger a coup.
Not trigger (pun!) the coup but assist with the coup.
The CIA with such broad authority must also be set up to avoid USA
weakness due to political infighting. This is another powerful reason
that makes me believe the CIA wouldn't be party to such infighting.
They'd be like cops undercover looking for folks who are seeking to
hire a hitman. They'd gather evidence and then use it against the
perps for their own ends. They wouldn't go out and aid and abet such
infighting.
So, for these reasons what you say doesn't make sense.
Rich powerful families and businesses that have money to last
generations - don't NEED to have a president killed today. They can
wait - especially when killing someone gives power to the killer to
blackmail them and so forth. The CIA is set up and given its authority
to make sure the USA avoids all weakness in the cold war era - which
has got to include restraints on political infighting - so they're not
going to aid and abet such fights. This leaves two possibilities -
malcontents - either singly or in groups - that have nothing to lose
and need to see action for whatever reason today - OR - the CIA has
decided the continued presence of JFK in office poses a clear and
present danger to the USA and he must be eliminated for the good of
the nation. This - based on clear scientific evidence that is
incontrovertible.
Like I said, if the CIA was involved, it is very likely that such
evidence existed prior to JFK coming to office and that it was
dismissed until such time that he sacked the people he did - and
someone somewhere re-interpreted that old evidence (because it was
their job) and this set of a train of events that resultedin the
assasination - and no where along the line was anyone able to make a
high risk decision to stop the malfunction.
Assuming the CIA was involved, which it may not have been, that seems
most reasonable to me.
I *DO* believe that a) plans for executing a coup were already pre-
existing - given the arc of resonsibility listed above, and b) that
following the changes called for in these NSAMS - old data about JFK
was revisited, and people honestly felt that the pre-existing plan
needed to be carried out.- this is the most likely scenario in my view
- if the CIA was involved at all - which it may not have been. haha.
Heck even the House Select Committee on Assassination in 1979 lised
"rogue elements" within the CIA were involed along with Cuban Exiles.
Have you read the HSCA report?
no.
[...]
Sure we are the good guys in white hats, with God on our side, and the
Godless Russians and their KGB were the evil wearers of black hats.
Gimme a break!
People actually believed that back then - many did.
Yes, I know. My father was in Military Intelligence from 1958 - 1980
specializing in the Soviet Union. He speaks fluent Russian to this
very day.
Well, I might be willing to give you a break, but I doubt anyone alive
back then would - and they didn't give the President a break either -
if they were involved with this.
My dad was in counterintelligence.
McCarthyism fell on its face and it is good that it did because rather
than out a bunch or people that were evil it became more of a way to
control people through fear.
Seeing people as evil, rather than as people, limits the range of
responses available to you - which weakens you. This is part of the
common mode failure I'm talking about.
A terrorist kills people,
On man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Surely you
daddy told you this.
what have the
US communists ever done to anyone in the US other than be different
and believe in a failed system?
I haven't bothered to study such history - if I did I am certain I
could generate a list of people who died at the hands of Soviet
agents. Didn't Whitaker Chambers write a book about that?
I think I'm more concerned about being
blown up.
Only because the media has made this into a cause celeb' - were you
concerned about being blown up after the first attack on the world
trade center? after the failed attempts by Al Queda to down
airliners over the Pacific? after Hart Rudman warned the nation that
it needed better homeland security more than star wars defense in the
post soviet era?
Had Newt Gingrich allowed Clinton to go after Osama Bin Laden rather
than worry about how presidential he would look - and how that would
impact his plans to use Monica Lewinsky scandal to bring him down -
thousands of AMericans might be alive today and you might not be so
concerne with being blown up - and we might be better able to engage
those who challenge us openly.
Really don't have to create a bunch of pulp telling me the
evils of terrorism in the face of suicide bombers, now do you?
The only thing we can control is ourselves. To what extent did we
create the conditions we find ourselves in? To what extent can we
modify our relationship to the world to reduce the number of suicide
bombers? These suicide bombers are cardboard cutouts of people. Does
anyone anywhere in the media study them - their history background -
and so forth - calling them crazy and evil and so forth - doesn't
really help. It limits our options. Understanding them as human
beings - understanding what they are responding to - and taking
actions based on that understanding - is likely to produce greater
results at less cost - than responding to a cardboard cutout.
[...]
As fellow Irishmen JFK was considered less likely to really come down
on McCarthy as they were old friends.
Yes HUAC was a response to the Soviet Bomb - and the UN. I think
there is some evidence that the CIA opposed the UN on grounds that
were outlined in their forming documents. Unfortunately the people of
the US supported the UN at that time - and haha - there are elements
in our government that have been going about changing that attitude
since that time. The outing of Alger Hiss was just the first step.
What is so bad about the UN, in your opinion?
I didn't say the UN was bad, I said only that the UN stands against
the goals of the CIA in the cold war. Recall,that industrial
development of the world is a bad thing in the modern age - the UN
stands for such development (as JFK did as well)- and it is likely
therefore that the CIA targeted the UN early on. It is no surprise to
me therefore that Whitaker Chambers outed Alger Hiss, who was an
important political force supporting the early organization of the UN
- the whole HUAC thing can be seen as an attempt to change the US
opinion about the UN.
Check out the timeline -
1945 Defeat of Germany and Japan - with Russians as allies.
February 4-11: Yalta Conference meeting of FDR, Churchill, Stalin -
the 'Big Three'
Soviet Union has control of Eastern Europe. The Cold War Begins
May 8: VE Day - Victory in Europe. Germany surrenders to the Red Army
in Berlin
July: Potsdam Conference - Germany was officially partitioned into
four zones of occupation.
My father worked in Frankfurt babysitting the Russians that were in
the American zone from 1974-1975. I graduated from
Frankfurt American High School. By my 18th birthday I had spent 8
years in what was once called West Germany.
Right. If he was presented with evidence that a President was a
Soviet mole planted in the USA a generation before- schooled to sell
out the USA to Russia in a cleverly crafted plan - if there were real
evidence developed - and then shown these then secret NSAMs - would HE
come to the honest conclusion that a coup needed to take place? What
if the Vice President sat in on the meeting? I can imagine that
there were a dozen honest men - true and unsullied - with clearances
and reputations for keeping secrets well. That this was bounced off
of - as a way to convince those they were acting prudently in the best
interests of the nation - assuming, of course, the CIA was involved in
such an act - which it may very well not have been.
The JFK assassination was a right-wing domestic coup.
No it wasn't.
If JFK was
killed because enough powerful people convinced themselves he was bad
for the country then we needed a change alright,
Powerful people cannot impact CIA decisions. To allow that to happen
means the CIA couldn't function. No, if the CIA was involved, then
the CIA had to make the decisions internally based on clear
incontrovertible scientific evidence that the USA was in clear and
present danger from a rogue president. I do think if this is what
happen, that is was a malfunctioning process - and that process needed
more people capable of making high risk decisions to stop it - like
Colonel Petrov's case.
and that would be
from those that planned and implemented that coup!
Business types would never have given that much power to those who
carried out the coup - besides the very powerful and rich - could
wait. Every business person in the world knows about the wanting it
tax. If you want something really badly - you pay a premium.
So,every successful business person knows - to walk away from a deal
until you can get a better deal. It would be so easy for powerful
rich families to sit down and wait until the next election.
That's why malcontents are always out there in the fray. They can't
wait. They need action now.
IF the CIA were involved - then they had to have come to the
conclusion that they couldn't wait either. That for some reason there
was clear scientific proof that another day another week another month
with this rogue president created a clear and present danger to the
continued existence of the USA.
This is a tall order - but not tall enough if the system
malfunctions. As the Soviet experience with Petrov proves - even
complex systems are subject to common mode failure - and in such cases
people have to be in a position to make high risk decisions - to avoid
such malfunctioning systems.
[...]
However, committee
member Richard Nixon received secret information from the FBI which
had led him to pursue the issue. When it issued its report, HUAC
described Hiss's
Nixon got is information from Hoover (and the FBI) who felt HE had to
do more than that upstart agency the CIA.
I got that impression too! In JFKs campaign speech about Democratic
supporters of Nixon - he said Nixon is okay as a follower - but as a
leader he makes him nervous. He said Nixon reminds him of the symbol
of his party. Ivory in his hair, a long memory, and poor vision.
Good at being led around by the nose, attached to the tail of the
elephant in front - but as a leader - prone to trample and destroy
things we hold dear. A great speech.
The CIA felt it had a sacred trust - this is the way they've described
it - and it is consistent. The USA was drawn into two world wars it
did not benefit from fighting. It was attacked by surprise and it
could not weather a surprise attack in the nuclear age. What to
do? The CIA is an important element in maintaining peace in the
nuclear age, while maintaining US superiority in income and might.
Interesting concept today as we see the dollar losing hegemony to the
euro on a daily basis.
Yes, the CIA can achieve all the sub-goals its programattic rules
generate it to achieve - and STILL fail against all logic to achieve
the goals for which it was setup. This is called common mode failure
- or malfunction of the system. The only way to avoid such failures,
is to have human beings in the loop - like Colonel Petrov - capable of
making high risk decisions - to avoid such failures. By high risk
decision I mean, willing to risk their career or very life to
interrupt the logical operation of the system -
Whenever a nation or people industrialize - this is the lesson of the
great wars of the 19th and 20th centuries - they use their wealth to
build their military might and then project power outside their
region. The bulk of humanity was poised to industrialize at the end
of the second world war. And we had developed nuclear weapons. If
the USA assisted in this global development - the theory went - we
would accelerate the propensity of poorer nations to go through the
very same destructive phase the USA, Europe and Japan went through.
Who are the most radical folks around today? Muslims! Who are
growing richest fastest on oil wealth? Muslims. The correlation
still stands. - in the minds of those who see it. There are other
things going on to be sure - and to a large extent we don't see how we
are creating our own problems - at least not inside CIA HQ. People
who talk about global peace and getting along and helping one another
- those people are the enemy in this view - because they're promoting
inevitable social advance that results in those very same people
getting the bomb and using it on us. That and the need to take pre-
emptive action - puts the challenges to our intelligence community in
perspective. Are they right? They think so - and its not open to
discussion - because they know that the American people think more
highly of others than they do - and they know the American people have
a moral character they cannot afford to develop.
The problem is, through common mode failure, the CIA and others are
bringing about the very thing they were organized to prevent - the
absolute destruction of the USA. JFK - irrational as his visionary
goals and plans were in the middle of the 20th century - were the
exactly right things for this nation to be doing in that era - and
that they did not get done - whether the CIA was involved or not -
harmed the USA today and continued following of the rational path -
uninformed by a higher vision - will guarantee our failure - no matter
how irrational that may seem to us now.
Clearly you believe that the CIA has been taken over by special
interests?
Not at all. You are saying that in fact, you can't seem to see
anything other than that! lol. The CIA does not bow to special
interests. No, I'm saying that you can follow all the rules and still
fail. In fact that is what common failure is.
[...]
October 1 : Communist Mao Zedong takes control of China and
establishes the People's Republic of China
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
***THIS SCARED THE *** OUT OF PEOPLE****
Not really. We thought we could defeat Mao by supporting Chiang Kai
Shek.
I think you are confused by the stories we told ourselves at the time
to feel better - and what we really felt. haha. Kids do that -
you're 8 years old, everyone's saying Oh ***, China went communist -
and then the adults talk brave bull***, and the kids believe it!
lol.
And Regan makes China our most favored nation WRT trade all the while
touting China's lousy human rights. Hell, if you REALLY want to make a
difference then boycott Chinese goods! Can't you say? We are tied to
them and it would wreck our economy, etc., etc. Then what good is our
whining about their human rights when the one thing we could do to
change things we can't do because we're tied to then economically.
Better to just shut the hell up then...
We are in the position we are wrt China because the Chinese have given
very careful thought on how to challenge US hegemony without direct
confrontation. The US - suffering from hubris - appears incapable of
making policy outside the rules set up at the end of world war 2 -
this is a common mode failure that will hurt us - and that others
seeing our inability to think creatively or act creatively - will
exploit to gain the upper hand - another aspect of common mode
failure.
December 1 - Chiang Kai-shek moved to Formosa and created Nationalist
government
We we more than just supported.
Sure until Reagan.
Yep, we are stuck with them and still bitch about their human rights.
Their support of muslim terror cells in their hinter-lands, their
supplying US gangs with chinese automatic weapons and drugs from the
golden triangel, their accumulation of US debt, and US manufacturing
capacity and technology, their penetrating US nuclear weapons secrets,
and so forth - create a troubling pattern - they seem to be setting up
to benefit from terror attacks and at the decisive moment, undermine
the US economy, and take control of the world's raw materials.
[...]
The CIA hires all sorts of people -haha- Noriega and Saddam Hussein
were on CIA payroll at some point. That has nothing to little to do
with their goals and organizing principles.
Why hire them then?
To carry out the policies of the USA - keep folks focused in their own
backyards. Korea divides Japan and China and keeps China out of the
world's oceans. Israel keeps the old Ottoman Empire from reforming.
A divided Yugoslavia keeps a united Europe focused inward. Corruption
and drugs keep South America down while tribal conflict keep Africa
down, while we remove all the riches at bargain basement prices.
Remember, the moment people get rich, they spend gobs of money on
weapons systems and project power outward. The CIA wants to help
other agencies keep that from happening in the nuclear age. So, we do
whatever it takes to keep people focused in their own back yard.
The problem with this program, is that the USA cannot help being seen
for what it is - even in secret - and it will become everyone's enemy
- and people will oppose us. Crazy people with nothing to lose will
oppose us openly. Prudent people will do so covertly.
Why doesn't China help us more to get the handful of loose nukes under
control? Why do they help proliferate and develop the first muslim
bomb? Why don't they get better control of their borders? They
spend a lot of effort keeping Tibet down - but let the muslims run
riot in their Western frontier - a frontier Osam bin Laden is likely
to be inhabiting. Why is that? Our own military trains gang bangers
to be better murderers, while the golden triangle provides drugs for
them to distribute on their return, and the Chinese provide weapons.
Meanwhile, the chinese are patiently making stuff at low cost to be
sold at Walmart - and taking our mortgages and notes in lieu of real
payments.
The Europeans are doing a pretty good job buying up the US as well.
Budweiser is owned by the Belgians now. That's as bad as letting
Harley-Davidson go to the Japanese which we didn't let happen!
This is not fundamental - what is fundamental is the decision by Ike
to have our manufacturing go overseas. This was supported by the idea
that we wanted to maintain a large disparity of income with the
world. There are three general areas of economic activity in a free
economy. Extraction, manufacturing, and retail. Extraction - mines a
dollars worth of ore, or grows a dollars worth of wheat.
Manufacturing turns that ore into steel products, or the wheat into
bread and noodles - creating 5 dollars where there was 1. Retail and
finance takes the steel products and bread and noodles and brings it
to market in convenient quantities and finances the distribution and
warehousing - creating 25 dollars where there was 5 at the factory.
Obviously for every 25 dollars made in this economy, 20 dollars is
made by the shopkeep and banker. So, Ike wanted to make America
shopkeep to the world. A farmer in India would grow cotton and ship
it to a weaver in Japan, to make T-shirts. T-shirts would go to a
retailer in the USA, who would then sell 20 Tshirts to US citizens who
also worked at the mall, or in the banking offices, - and 4 T shirts
would go back to Japan - and 1 T shirt would go to India. This
allowed us to moderate the growth of economic activity in the world -
while maintaining a large disparity of income. This approach to
things fails when commodity shortages increase the value of
commodities like oil. It also fails for a variety of other reasons -
and most importantly -blind adherence to this ideology - blinds us to
opportunities not part of the ideology - and blinds us to common mode
failure which others like China can exploit to destroy our position.
I cannot say what will happen in the future - but it may be that one
day, one day soon perhaps - muslim terrorists will set of russian
loose nukes in 5 or 6 cities in the USA - and on that day - China
announces a multi-billion dollar aid package, along with writing down
ALL of its US debt. The USA on that day will be bankrupt. Raw
materials in Africa, South AMerica, and the Middle East will begin
flowing to China - and we will not be surprised to learn that China is
a lot more generous with development dollars and sharing the wealth -
with all these places - than the USA is. It may be that the way China
sees it - when all these nations grow richer - and begin to project
power - the Chinese have a plan to make the USA target for the next
300 years.
300 years is a long time.
Well, for as long as it takes the poorest in the world to become what
sociologists call 'late sensate' - which means they're like the kids
growing up in the 50s with every advantage - or like the silver foxes
selected for tameness in Russia - where they don't study war no
more. Those that do - will be directed - in this thesis - to vent
their anger at the USA - keeping China safe.
This is what I mean when I say common mode failure - the Chinese, and
Europeans and Asians, and Australians, and Aficans, and South
AMericans, and Mexicans and Canadians, read Noam Chomsky. They really
do. They also have a vital literature surrounding Chomsky's core work
- and they don't see it as anti-Americanism- they don't feel the same
'hate america' emotion Chomsky exudes. haha.. I remember one day at
MIT I asked Noam why he didn't just state facts without all the anti-
american bile - he'd get more converts that way, and be more
effective. I pointed out that he seemed to be writing merely to
identify malcontents for the CIA. - and get embarassing things into
the public record closely associated with anti-american feelings. He
interrupted me and said I was an ***! lol. I didn't get a chance
to ask him what impact he thought his works had on those overseas?
How their intelligence communities saw things - how their history
books would be written.
Did you know that Noam Chomsky believes in Lee Harvey Oswald lone nut
WRT the JFK assassination?
Of course he does.
Chomsky with all his talk is actually a
lone nutter like some American-can-do-no-wrong right-wing delusional
idealist!
I don't know about all that - all I know is that he takes the most
unfortunate things known publicly about the USA and associates it with
anti-American vitriol - so that its impossible to speak about these
unfortunate things without being accused of being anti-American.
This limits the range of discourse available to Americans - it does
not limit discourse overseas however.
He's a great linguist that should have stayed within his
field. I don't him anymore.
<shrug> He can do what he likes - it doesn't change anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpF6HwMVZUA
and how that would evolve over time - to harm the USA.
You forgot Osama bin Laden and his Muljahaden, of
which Reagan referred to as Freedom Fighters akin to the Americans
fighting the British during the Revolution.
Sure. Clinton knew where to send the cruise missiles after the first
attack against the USA because WE built those camps for them! OF
course while Newt Gingrich worried that his Lewinsky diatribe would
fail to stick if the President looked too presidential - they got away
and established new hideouts. Good job Newt! lol. This will go down
in history as a parallel with Rome - the senators worried about power
in DC while we ignored what we should have been paying attention to.
And what should we have paid attention to? Why they turned against
us. The turned against us for the simple reason that we over-promised
and then failed to deliver on those promise when they ran afoul of our
long term goals - it is our adherence to these rational and logical
goals that are killing us - and our total lack of imagination in
dealing with the world in anything but ideological terms - with the
ideology being the secret belief system incorprated in the CIAs
founding.
- which Nixon exploited to get into
trouble over Watergate -
Nixon called it when he said if Hoover were still alive this wouldn't
be a problem for him.
Yes, I agree. A guy like Deep Throat, who we now know was Mark Felt,
would not have been able to operate had Hoover been alive.
Hoover had a dossier on everyone who was
important and could use it to bury anything.
I have read Anthony Summers book on Hoover, Bill Turner's book on
Hoover, Ovid Demaris and Cartha DeLoach's book on Hoover.
The trouble in the
modern world is that people have become desensitized to so much. That
is why some folks believe the CIA is behind the kidnapping of truant
children and using them in sex slave trade - in order to maintain
power over key people. I'm not saying this is true, but I am saying
it is consistent with goals and means of the agency.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280183.shtmlhttp://en.wikipe...
Please note the parallels between Whitaker Chambers and Jeff Gannon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitaker_Chambers
Today the charge of 'child molester' has the same gravitas as
'communist' in the 1940s.
Except being labeled communist was a right vs. left thing and everyone
hates a child molester.
Every one hated a communist back in the day. To maintain that same
power- the CIA or FBI needs to be able to accuse anyone of something
people will simultaneously believe of anyone - and hate them for it -
regardless of their prior history. That is why there is a media
frenzy on this subject - to maintain the proper epistomology in the
nation. Foreigners can see it when they come here - and I can see it
when I leave.
and since the fall of the Soviet Union - Bush
1 and Bush 2 have viewed the US Democratic party as a threat to the
'American Way of Life' - and have not troubled themselves to worry
about using CIA info-war tactics against the American public to
maintain control by the Republican party.
Clearly government agencies should not be too left or too right to be
of any value in a balanced USA.
Actually juding things according to 'left-right' is being held captive
by an ideological paradigm that causes people to ignore reality - at
great cost to society - due to common mode failure. Consider the
monument building of Easter Islanders leading to their collapse - or
how easy it was for the Spanish to take over the Aztec culture
following the assasination of their leaders - again due to common mode
failure
Are you saying that Easter Island and the Aztecs went 100% right or
100% left with no sense of balance?
I'm saying that their thought process-whatever it was- didn't allow
them to approach their problems creatively and come up with a solution
that would have worked.
"plans" division of the CIA was not set up under Truman and Ike
allowed it to occur by turning a blind eye to
it until it became obvious during the Church Commitee investigation in
1974 that it had gotten out of hand
during the previous 2 decades.
You are naive in the extreme - and are blind to the actual operations
of the CIA - preferring only to read the handouts of the CIA itself as
an explanation of its role in the world.
I beg your pardon? The actual operations of the CIA differ than that
of Truman's vision of the Agency he signed into law.
Yes, you quote a handout from the very agency itself and then claim
you're not doing it? haha...
The CIA claims to be the agency that Truman set up when that serves
their purpose. Surely you are aware that Truman never
approved of a "Plans" division.
I don't know anything about that. I do know however, that this or
that detail won't make a damned bit of difference if there is no
allowance for creative thinking - and this or that detail won't harm
the nation if there is.
I never said that the Agency didn't develop a Plans Division. In fact,
I stated that they did, still do, and that Truman never approved of
it. What part of all that don't you get?
So? Truman probably wouldn't have approved of a lot of thing. As
the agency any agency grows it evolves. The point is, what sort of
creative response to our difficulties is it capable of? Is it over
lain by an ideologically dictated straightjacket? Does it believe its
own lies?: If so, it will suffer a common mode failure and bring
about the very thing it was put in place to avoid.
How different would the world be if we hadn't created a plans division
and the have to go about creating enemies to keep said plans division
busy?
I think you are focusing on details that don't make a damn bit of
difference. How do you carry out effective actions without being able
to plan them? That's not the point of failure. The point of failure
is that no one is forced into the high risk decision - someone bets
their career or dies - for this to take place. see? If one or three
or five people ALL died - making a decision to kill the President of
the USA - or NOT after a careful review - then that process would only
be triggered when it was really needed. See? A team gets together
to determine whether or not the evaluation committee to kill the
president should be organized. THEY KNOW AT THE OUTSET THAT ALL
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITEE WILL BE KILLED WHEN THEY ARE DONE WITH THEIR
REVIEW - this is a high risk decision. This is a safeguard on the
gun's trigger so to speak. You can use it - if you really need to -
but there's a barrier to its casual use. This isn't the only barrier
in a well designed system - but its illustrative of how such things
would work.
Much of the organizing documents, and the legal history of the agency
and its other more secret counter-parts, is still secret - so you
acting like you're speaking with authority - is ludicrous.
There are historical aspects that have been unclassified by various
committees (Church and Rockerfeller) that have through investigation
revealed agency misdeeds. I quote nothing from authority that hasn't
been revealed to the public. An intellience agency shouldn't be so
secretive that it hides its own corruption from a checks and balances
society that claims to be free. Nothing ludicrous about that Mr.Mook!
I am certain that more thought went in to how to respond to these
failures than went into getting this information and analyzing it on
the outside. There are only 435 members of Congress and 100 senators
- there are over 100,000 workers in the CIA and US intelligence
communities - they're expert at managing political opinion - the
politicians are more like talented naturals but lack the depth of
knowledge of the trained expert. So, it wouldn't surprise me that in
any run in between the agency and Congress - the agency will suffer a
lot less than it might - and Congress will suffer lasting changes in
response. What happend to Rockerfellars career or church's career
after?
Rockerfeller retired rich like we was before he got in and was caught
flipping off another congressman that got a big laugh. Church, not
sure.
He retired - which is suggestive. Re-election rates are damn high
for US Congress - the fact he retired and was not in Congress - is
suggestive. HE was rich regardless - he didn't get rich in Congress.
Church died of a pancreatic turmor 2 years after he left his committee
he created on Intelligence- at the age of 59.
Secret agencies exist to maintain secrets - I serously doubt you have
penetrated any critical secrets now held by the USA - and quoting
declassified literature puts you at risk of having your belief system
managed by those releases.
Lemme see, believeMookor read the likes of Peter Dale Scott,
You are setting up a false choice.
who has
spent countless hours doing research?
You are now setting up expert authority -
Do yourself a favor and look up
Peter Dale Scott.
Do yourself a favor and realize what I say doesn't need any further
information than what we all already know.
Riiight! Your intepretation of reality is correct. Riiight.
reality is what reality is - whether we interpret it correctly or
not. Only we are at risk if we are wrong. reality doesn't need our
defense. We need clear understanding of reality however to be
successful and happy.
The only accurate way to view things is to look at the details of what
actually happened and piece together some ideas based on patterns of
activity. As I mentioned, the history of the Kennedy's is
interesting for this reason - suggesting the agency thought of Joe
Kennedy - the father - the same way it thought of Alger Hiss following
his outing by Whitaker Chambers - Joe Jr. died, Jack was assasinated
in his first term, Robert was assasinated after he won the California
primary, Ted was discredited the day before the first moon landing
which his brother initiated.
All done by the CIA according to you?
Not at all. I'm not saying the CIA did any of the things it might
have done, or was capable of doing, or even at some level planned on
doing. I don't know anything about what happened with Teddy Kennedy.
All I know is that the timing of the events at Chappaqui*** were
interesting that's all.
Do you think that I support the actual operations more than Truman's
vision of it? Please be clear.
You are reading public documents about the operation of a secret
agency and taking it at face value is ludicrous.
Explain to me what you know about Truman and his personality that
makes today's CIA out to be the agency that he envisioned.
What agency do you know of that is exactly the same as when it was
founded? none. Do you know the largest agency in washington
today?
In dollars or what?
the most buildings and people and whatnot? Agriculture.
Oh...
Do you know the oldest agency in washington today? Agriculture.
Things grow over time. The income tax was a way to pay off the debt
for the first world war. It was to be rescinded at some point -
according to papers at the time. That's how the AMerican people
swallowed it. Besides, only Rich Northeastern Tycoons would pay it.
Senators argued that they should put a 5% cap on it - but others
argued they didn't want to send a message to future generations that
5% income tax would be acceptable. lol. Did the income tax get
rescinded? no. did it grow? yes. will it continue to grow and
change - following its own inevitable and internal logic? yes. The
CIA is the same. To say that it must live according to the rules set
out by Truman is unrealistic. To say it must have elements within it
that give it a creative ability to reinvent itself - and reject fixed
ideologies - is not (but unlikely in today's environment)
Covert wars are bad and they foster corruption.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A happy society
is one where power isn't needed or sought.
Period. I don't care
where the come from they should cease or at least not be allowed to
proliferate.
At the end of world war two we had a choice. We could have stood up
and publicly debated the issues before us - and stood up and told the
world what was going on - and done the hard work and taken the big
risk - and fought openly for the sort of world we neede. We didn't
do that. We instead create a secret agency to wage a cold war
against an impoverished world - that would remain poor - while
isolating the AMerican people from their genius, their strength, and
their moral standing - and creating a situation that guranteed the
eventual destruction of the USA .
Do you know anything about Hoover? Do you know how the agency changes
or what makes it change? You do not have to know every secret detail
to know how the agency works based upon cause and effect.
That's right. Fire codes are written in response to fires.
Structural codes in response to failures. SEC rules in response to
successful crooks. Ken Arrow proved that such processes as we use to
make decisions - cannot work as we expect. There will always be
common mode failure.
Please define "common mode failure" as you use the term a lot.
You have a set of rules that are guaranteed to avoid a certain result,
but when the system gets beyond a certain level of complexity, the
rules themselves operate to bring about the result anyway.
This comes about when things are not statistically independent - and
one failure leads to a train of similar failures leading to collapse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_mode_failure
The success of any system hinges on the fact
that as old elements fail, new elements arise naturally to take their
place. Such is not the case in human affairs - yet. But perhaps
before we bring about the total destruction of America - we can figure
it out. Not by engaging in the old arguments and politics - but by
giving birth to something new - to misquote Tennyson! lol.
The Russian/Georgia thing going on right now, do you have any clue as
to who is our ally and who is our enemy?
They are doing what benefits the USA - they are focusing the attention
of Russia and Europe into their own back yards, and doing it in a way
that benefits McCain - the war hero - against Obama.
Wait, so do we have a media war going on right now?
The US intelligence community and DOD are engaged in information
warfare - yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA344848
Since the 'failure' in Vietnam, the DOD has been cognizant of the need
to win the hearts and minds of the American public. To this end they
have catalogued the 88,000 or so newspersons operating in the USA and
mapped out their decision making process - they have modelled the
decision making process of groups of Americans and have modelled how
they interact with thes 88,000 points of reference. They then manage
information in the global information environment in a way to have
predictable effects on epistimology - or belief system - of all
Americans - so that Americans naturally come to support the goals of
the US military without question.
Is the liberal
media,
The liberal media doesn't really exist in the modern world except as
an idea. All important liberal ideas and ideals are mouthed by
comedians to defuse their impact and import in American hearts and
minds. So,you have Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Al Franken, Michael
Moore, as the mouthpieces of liberalism - while conservative ideals
are mouthed by non-comedians. This creates a disparity of seriousness
- but even this is secondary to the goals of the military and
intelligence community, for their goal is that the American public
remain plastic enough in its feelings and ideals to support any action
the American military may be called upon to do - before it does it -
thus assuring the hearts and minds of Americans will not be lost in
the future.
of which the conservatives bitch about daily and is obviously
behind Obama,
<shrug> The point is, without a real honest to God discussion of
reality - common mode failure is assured - no matter how you re-
arrange the deck chairs.
at war with the "they" to whom you speak aupporting
McCain?
Obviously Georgia being attacked by Russia at this time accentuates
for the American people the importance of a President with a military
background.
Would that be the US Information Agency or is there a more
global propaganda branch at work here that is not the "liberal media"?
Who supports McCain as a form of media?
I don't know what you're asking or why my observation led to this
question. Its really rather simple. The world is in turmoil
generally. Every day the JCS and President look at dozens of issues
that could get out of hand, or not. If you fail to send the right
signal - or send the wrong one - things can get out of hand. Once they
get out of hand you can ignore it or draw attention to it. It is not
possible for the President to bring events about - it is possible for
a president to shape events and how they appear in this country.
Its childs play for infowarrior to take this situation and allow
events to evolve that would benefit this or that candidate. Bush is
not popular right now, but he is a Republican. Right now, McCain is
trying to distance himself from Bush, to counter Obama's strengths.
Obviously, if Bush lets an attack take place and then sends the signal
he could have sent privately - he has a media event that is beneficial
to McCain the war hero - with an air of complete deniability.
How both are being viewed and
how the information is being manipulated? Take a guessMook, who do we
support in the Georgia/Russia thing?
The USA - and to a lesser extent - McCain.
Who, exactly?
The President of the USA working with his infowarriors to shape the
election - without harming the USA obviously.
[...]
So when LBJ asked Hoover if anyone was shooting at him while he too
was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63; it was just a good acting job to make
him look vulnerable and less like a suspect? No having LBJ "know"
would have never worked. No doubt the perps benefitted by an LBJ
presidency and a coup does fit, but not by LBJ himself. He had no
need to know.
I don't know anything about that.
Among other things...
*** you too sweetheart! haha- I read your bull*** and respond to
it, and this is how i get talked to? fucking jackass!
Temper, temper.
then watch your mouth! lol.
We were doing real fine here until you lost it...
you did - you did.
Perhaps the dig was below the belt.
yes.
But a response like yours is
suppose to do what exactly?
why don't you stop by my place and find out.
I hope you feel better but I won't
respond in kind.
no, you've already struck below the belt without provocation - and now
you've let yourself off the hook. fucking slime bag.
You know a lot about a lot, but the amount you don't know is still
much more than what you know
This is true of any intelligence - fortunately, reality doesn't depend
on our knowledge, we do.
and it will always be that way.
For anyone yes.
Such is
life.
C'est la vie. Which is why its important to avoid hubris.
Better to be just committed to being smarter and more
knowledgable tomorrow than you are today as a sort of process and
leave it at that...
Living a happy life - and not doing harm - those may be achievable -
with a sense of humor to boot.
YEs, which means not hitting below the belt.
You do that and guys
like Guth won't be able to get to you as is his want. ;)
haha - I don't think anyone will get me any time soon. lol.
[...]
The military is given a difficult task in the modern world - and has
basically undermined any ability for this nation to generate the
political leadership that it needs. Common mode failure.
So we need spook (covert) warfare, according to you? Make up your
mind!
We will fail - no matter what we do. We can design the system to
sustain failure, or we can undergo a rigid common mode failure that
destroys everything all at once.
CMF again. Sounds like we need to focus and how to avoid that.
Yes. The way is to make certain decisions high risk - and to allow
elements to fail and be reinvented without risk of overall failure.
[...]
Don't forget the Gore connection to MC, err, Armand Hammer.
I don't knowanything about that.
Among other things...
Listen you goddamned motherfucker, I don't need to be spoken to like
that! If we were talking in a bar or over dinner - and you said that
to me as I was talking to you - I'd kick your fucking ass -
Geez Mook, get a grip.
You quit your goddamned snipes
Besides you might try to kick my ass and fail.
That's unlikely.
I tend to defeat hotheads simply because their hotheadedness is
wrong! Got it?
You're the one who kit below the belt - for no damn good reason you
fucking slimeball.
The death of Kennedy can be proven to be a coup de-tat not by careful
analysis of the details of his death - as in the movie JFK - but
rather - the fact that his brother Robert was killed when it was clear
he would win the nomination in 1968 by another lone gunman.
Those too events, though similar, were different. Clearly Sirhan, who
is still alive, looks a lot more guilty than does a dead Oswald.
Sirhan was one of the famous subjects of MK-ULTRA experiments
according to some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA#Conspiracy_theories
Yes, I have heard that.
So was the una-bomber -
And MK ULTRA guinea pig?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA#Famous_subjects
On July 18, 1969 - one day before a manned landing on the moon -
2 days. Actually, it was one day, but you have the day wrong.
Chappaquid*** was July 19, 1969 and Apollo 11 was July 20, 1969.
Wiki states the Mary Jo Kopechne died on July 18th. I guess the
incident spanned two days with the party being on July 18 and the
investigation by the police being the next day, etc. Anyway, you're
right the the timing and that of moon landing is wierd to say the
least.
Especially given the Kopekne and the 6 others at the 'party' managed
RFKs campaign. These folks clearly got together to organize to
benefit from the PR bounce of the moon landing - and get ready for the
'72 presidential campaign. The MK-ULTRA techniqes were easily capable
of exposing the Senator to drugs that would cause a complete memory
lapse and loss of control. Again, Crimmins the chaffeur brought the
Senator there, and when Kennedy asked the driver to take him and
Kopekne away from the party, her to her hotel and he back home - the
driver gave him the key - and he took it saying he didn't want to
break up their comraderie? lol. Teddy is either lying or was
drugged at that point - and Crimmins was working for the CIA or
drugged himself - in a way very similar to the way LSD and other drugs
were introduced to country clubs and so forth. I'm not saying I know
this - I'm saying that the events that happened are consistent with
this view of events - to discredit Teddy before the moon landing.
Perhaps. Look at John Edwards now. Similar type thing. Was the woman
Edwards had an affair with a plant?
No - there is no overriding need for the agency to be involved. If
Teddy got elected, he would have uncovered the coup - in this thesis -
that created the need to take action- if the original idea that a coup
indeed took place.
Why can't Teddy uncover the coup as a senator?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA#Aims
Please review the aims of MKULTRA - particularly;
aim 1 -
Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to
the point where the recipient would be discredited in public
and aim 6
Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or
otherwise enhance its usefulness
If the Senator were convinced - on an emotional level through a
combination of hypnosis and drugs - of his own culpability, and
ordered not to investigate it further or suffer irreversible emotional
loss - he would not be able to get to the bottom of it.
In fact, a post hypnotic suggestion might be implanted so that those
that suggested to him he wasn't responsible, might make him angry,
distrust them, and evict them from his life - while those who
suggested that he was responsible and should work hard to overcome
this 'failure' would be brought closer and he would organize his life
around that.
I don't know what need the agency had to hurt Edwards. If they did,
Edwards is too good looking powerful and rich to require one - all you
have to do is wait around and hope he'll fall. Failing that you then
up the ante in quiet controllable ways. If that's what's happening.
The way MK-ULTRA worked is that people got drugged without their
knowledge. Now, it was the goal of the program to find drugs that
caused people to behave in ways that would embarass them. They looked
at hypnotism too. How do people become trusted by others? I am sure
there are courses on that in the agency and experts that are trained -
along with ways of penetrating any organization.
Assuming this was a goal and the agency was involved, it is far more
likely a trusted Edwards aide became a confidante and advisor that
Edwards trusted - and whom suggested at an appropriate time it
wouldn't be so bad if he had a tryst if he wanted one - plant the idea
- if that failed to materialize the behavior they desired - then they
could up the ante - drugging Edward's drinks and so forth - again, if
there was a sound reason for the agency to want that - which doesn't
exist in my book.
Drugs aside, the use of women to compromise men has been around for a
long time.
Yes, but drugs and hypnosis make even the best of men more vulnerable.
Teddy on the other hand was JFKs and RFKs brother. I am certain that
if he were ever elected president in 1972 - that the first order of
business for him - and the nation - would be to get to the bottom of
the assasinations. Assuming the agency was involved in the original
coup - this would have created a powerful reason to discredit him.
Ted Kennedy being with Kopechne was probably enough to undo him.
No, Kopechne was with the Senator and a half dozen others who were
important in RFKs bid for the presidency the year before. They had
all gathered together for dinner that night to discuss what the
Senator should say TOMORROW during teh moon landing, and arrange PR in
advance of his bid for the 1972 election. This was never reported -
but clearly was the purpose of the meeting.
Now the Senator arrived by limosine. He said he was ready to go
home. Kopechne wante a lift back to the hotel where she was
staying. He agreed. The limo driver said he was too busy to drive
them back, and gave Kennedy the keys to drive himself. This was
highly unusual. And unecessary. And illogical and impulsive. If
Kennedy wante to *** Mary Jo in the back of his limo - having the
driver drive her to the hotel would have permitted that. and given
him deniability - the driver was there the whole time see? As it was
Teddy got lost made a wrong turn, and drove into the water. He was
unclear as to how he got out - and how he got back home.
The
death was most likely an accident regardless if he were drugged or
not.
The most unusual thing to me is that the driver refused to drive him
back and he accepted that. That is highly unusual. Like I said, the
best way to be alone with a lady in the back of a limo is to have a
driver up front. there is no reason for him to accept the driver's
refusal to take him home - besides how woudl the driver get home? it
didn't make sense. it didn't make sense to say Teddy wante to be
alone with MAry jo - because the driver wouldn't have objected no
matter what went on and the driver's presence would have given him
deniaability.
I don't believe she was supposed to die. Do you?
I don't know what the hell went on - neither does Teddy if you read
his testimony. This suggests to me that something weird happened.
Teddy
Kennedy - attending a party in celebration with Mary Jo Kopecne - Mary
Jo an aid to Robert Kennedy's failed bid at the presidency.- and
witness to Robert's death just a year before - was found drowned at
Chappiqui*** at Martha's Vineyard.- in Teddy's car - Teddy claimed to
have driven the car - after getting the keys from his Chauffer
Crimmins. Which was weird, Teddy seldom drove himself.
The whole thing was weird and it costed Ted any hopes of winning the
White House.
Yes - which would have been the point of discrediting him. If he had
DIED in the accident along with Mary Jo, that would have caused too
much of an outrage - JFK - '63, RFK - '68, EMK - '69 .. no,he needed
to be discredited - and the techniques developed by MK-ULTRA assured
that.
Harder to prove or even surmise that RFK and Sirhan-Sirhan.
of course - we can't know these things - i just think the timing is a
bit odd - that's all I'm saying - and its consistent with the larger
pattern of JFK and RFK getting killed.
Its like looking at pixels from a space probe. Lots of noise, but
when you look at a lot of pixels a pattern emerges.
Again, I find it interesting to the point of incredulity - that the
day before the moon landing - with Nixon in the White House - that
Chappiqui*** happened to Teddy THAT DAY-
Imagine the news headlines following the moon landing - had
Chappiqui*** not happened! HE likely would have beaten Nixon in
1972 - and won re-election in 1978 - and would have carried out much
of the program of his brother - AND REVEALED THE COUP DE TAT - and;the
CIA would have many more problems than the Church committee.
Hard to say for sure.
Had RFK gotten into office, depending on what the facts were
obviously. But if there were a larger conspiracy like we're
hypothesizing here - the CIA wouldn't have survived in its present
form.
But, we cannot know for sure. That's the nature of secret operations
- they're supposed to be that way! The only thing is to look for a
repeating patterns that have consisten motivation. I jokingly said
where was G. Gordon Liddy that day? lol.
Vying for a talk radio show, maybe...
That came years later
Clearly LBJ's CIA was a lot more like Ike's CIA and both were much
different that JFK's vision for his CIA.
Nonsense. The CIA helped orchestrate JFKs death at the behest of LBJ
and other powerful interests following the suspicion that JFK was a
Soviet mole.
Based upon your logic, JFK committed suicide and used the CIA as his
method.
I didn't say that at all, and my 'logic' doesn't suggest that at all.
The point is that the CIA is supposed to work for the president within
the Executive Branch of the govt.
Within limits. I think it reasonable to believe in the modern age,
that they would review any occupant of the White House and get rid of
him or her if they thought doing so would be in the best interest of
the nation. Its not something done lightly, but I would not be
surprised if it were not part of their standing orders.
This begs the question of who has the authority to make "national
security" decisions regarding those that are supposed to protect our
national security.
The CIA has this authority - if they have the authority to kill those
who threaten the USA's security - if they do not, then they weren't
involved.
I have heard the term secret goverenment thrown
around.
A secret by its definition is unknowable - in anyone's life - these
are only factors -
I doubt that the President would have thought it possible for any
agency under his control to challenge him let alone assasinate him.
Notice how all presidential tickets look very different than JFK/LBJ.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
The point is that in hindsight JFK and LBJ were very different people.
yes
Unless of course you state that Ike's CIA orchestrated JFK's death and
LBJ inherited it.
I think it may have been likely that if there were a larger conspiracy
LBJ knew about the assasination plans well before they happened. He
had to - to do otherwise would have introduced a weak link in their
plans. He had to be on board or it wouldn't have gone forward -if it
was more than a lone gunman. Why didn't he run again in '68? Why
didn't he help Humphrey more? Why didn't he move heaven and Earth to
investigate RFKs assasination very thoroughly?
I don't doubt that LBJ knew that there was a conspiracy,
IFthere was a coup - he HAD to be in on it. There is no way they
would have let him out.
After the fact, yes.
No, they would have included him before. That is likely part of the
procedure if it exists. They develop their scientific evidence and
they present it to a committee of independent experts - and then go to
the next in the chain of command - after they vet them of course - if
this occurred - it likely didn't involve a high risk decision on the
part of anyone which left the way open to common mode failure - or
malfunction of the complex process.
but at the
time admitting that was too much for the country to deal with on top
of JFK's death.
The country would have fallen apart. The riots in August 65 showed
how far the nation could have gone - it wouldn't have just been a
subgroup of citizenry - it would have been EVERYONE - it would have
been a common mode failure - done earlier rather than later, and at
our own hands rather than the hands of the Chinese and everyone else.
It was much easier just having Oswald be the
scapegoat.
Do you read your shakespeare? It had a dramatic symmetry - as did
the killing of RFK, MLK, and even folks like Huey Long and George
Wallace going all the way back to Lincoln or - we know the dramatic
pattern even before we hear the story - and so, we don't question it
because it is part of the dramatic story. The dramatic structure is
so incorporated into our psyche that unhappy people enact it - and
reinforce it. There have been 17 attempted assasinations of
Presidents - 3 have been successful,
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and JFK is four. I just read a book on
assassination.
hmm.. yes, you are right.
2 resulted in injuries - and
there were even 2 against Nixon - one by Arthur Bremer, the guy that
shot wallace two months later. - Samuel Byck attempted to crash a
commercial airliner into the White House killing Nixon - but shot the
pilot and copilot when they refused - and then himself.
You are aware of how the specter of an international
communist conspiracy was laid out to the new LBJ govt. to the point
where LBJ went out of his way to take the lone nut LHO bait, don't
you?
No.
It was laid out in Mexico City during the summer of 1963 with Oswald
or a double having gone to Mexico City in an attempt to defect to
Cuba.
There was plenty of evidence to connect LHO to a Cuban and/or a
Russian communist conspiracy to kill JFK.
<shrug> We cannot know anything for sure about these details. We can
see however a pattern, JFK is killed in 63, RFK is killed when running
for President in 68 - and Teddy is discredited the day before he is to
make an announcement that would have kicked off his bid for Presidency
in 72. - that's a helluva interesting pattern - and haha - it doesn't
take a helluva lot of time and study to see - and so it lets me live a
reasonably normal life and have some fun - not shut up in a room
reading lots of arcane and likely inaccurate books - lol.
In which case you state basically the same thing that I did above:
hmm.. No, the President does not control the CIA except nominally -
the CIA has been given ultimate authority over the future of this
nation - defacto power - regardless of what is written in the handouts
we can see. Such power is hard to get back - harder to get back in a
way that's beneficial to all concerned. As Ted Kennedy said, the CIA
has a sacred trust - the problem is even the best efforts of the best
people are subject to common mode failure - which occurs in complex
systems even when all the details are done right.
LBJ's CIA was a lot more like Ike's CIA and both were much
different that JFK's vision for his CIA.
This is where we disagree. LBJ does not control the CIA - LBJ serves
as long as those elements that judge LBJ not to be a harm to its view
of national security deem it so. The moment LBJ crosses the line -
he's given ample warning - and he *knows* what's next - being party to
the last assasination - if it wasn't a lone gunman.
The point is that JFK tried to do something about the CIA while
president, whereas both Ike and LBJ were hands off, laizze faire type
presidents
Well, in the case of LBJ that's consistent with the idea that he
knew. It is likely that Eisenhower knew the roles of the agency
better than JFK or LBJ did when they came into office. After all he
was a military man and trusted organizations to carry out their roles
- and knew where his limits lie. JFK stepped over those limits in
this thesis - I don't think that if the agency acted it did so by
following a strict procedure - and that it wouldn't have happened if
they couldn't have developed some credible threat to the USA from
JFK. That likelywill be released with theother stuff 80 or so years
from now. Of course, LBJ would have been scared shitless of the
agency following JFKs death- if the thesis of their involvementin a
coup - is correct - which is may not be.
Well LBJ's Vietnam policy sure as heck was different than was JFKs.
yes
when it came to the CIA and their wealthy friends. Do not
forget who intel's favorite fellows are in industry.
I don't think the agency bows down to anyone.
This is where we disagree.
That's only because you are wrong.
The agency as an agency does what it is
directed to do.
The CIA will not compromise the security of the USA for narrow
political ends. If it were this flexible, then it would have long ago
become a tool of special interests and would have quickly brought
about the demise of the USA for which it was designed to avoid. I
think this was a sort of failure those who created the agency were
most familiar with -and they didn't want the USA to become a bananna
republic where election winners arrest election losers following the
election. lol.
The president and the National Security Council are
supposed to be who provides that direction.
Yes, but the CIA is engaged in an ongoing war, and they have
bureaucratic control of their ongoing operations. I am certain that
if the CIA was involved in JFK assassination that for this reason, it
had to have been triggered by events totally outside the control of
the usual suspects. That according to this thesis the NSC in
creating the CIA *already* decided that a Manchurian Candidate type
rogue president had to be dealt with - and already put into place all
the bureaucratic elements to deal with it - and they operated without
any further need or oversight. Once their operation was triggered,
then the result is inevitable.
I count this as a failure of the agency - a malfunction of a complex
system - if it happened - which it may not have.
However, the agency is not
a monolithic entity
Hell no.
as are none of the goverenment agencies.
That's right.
That said
at various levels there is outside influence within government. Hell
all one need do is look at the sheer number of lobbyists in Washington
to get a feel for just how much influence there is.
Yes. Power is limited to those who seek it, and lobbyists hope to
influence events by enlarging the power of those who feel restricted.
The CIA being
secret as it is has a unique brand of lobbyist.
The CIA has a simple task and has all the resources it needs to carry
out this task. Those within the agency are unknown, and have no power
other than to carry out the task of the agency. Those within the
agency watch those within the agency in light of its importance to the
nation. I mean Colby released the MKULTRa files to the Church
committee - and he died under mysterious circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Colby#Theories_about_death
The CIA is as immune to politics as any powerful agency can be. This
doesn't stop common mode failure from occurring however.
What makes you think
that at least at some level secret lobbyist influence with the CIA
can't simply be bought?
Because the lobbyist and the CIA officer would die.
Surely you have heard enough and believe that
the CIA or at least CIA operatives actually run drugs?
Yes. Are you suggesting they did so for personal gain? lol.
Ludicrous.
Or is that all
a bunch of BS?
I don't know - but if I were the CIA and charged with the goals of the
agency - I would look at drug laws and how people respond to drug
availability and how they use drugs - and the money that can be made
off the books, and the favors that can be gaine among criminal
elements - as a means to carry out my assigned tasks. Running drugs
in this context can be consistent with the goals of the agency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking
They are ideologically
driven and operate for teh benefit of the USA against anyone who would
harm the USA - either knowingly or unknowningly. They don't care
about fairness, they don't care about money
Wrong!!!
Bull***. They work for the people that print the money. sheez.
- they print the money -
The CIA is now the Treasury Dept.?
No, but they have a special relationship with them.
those who become very wealthy do so in part because they seek to
become very wealthy - and those sorts of personalities have a
fascination not only with wealth and power - but death also. These
sorts of personalities are drawn to the agency - the agency uses them
like it uses all things to advance its ideological agenda.
Surely you have
heard of the "power elite"? Perpahs you have heard Bush refer to his
"base".
Bush was DCI back in the day. He proved himself to the agency,
selling his interests in Zapata, running for office, defending Nixon
when he was indefensible - proving his worth - the agency didn't work
for Bush, Bush proved he was worthy to work for the agency.
Sounds like Bush bought his way in sort of like a seat on the stock
exchange.
Nonsense. Bush was trying to prove himself to them - so he could gain
power and prestige.
Unfortunately, this makes common mode failure more certain - it is
only the success of wild cards like Kennedy - in reigning in th
eagency and then the pieces reinventing itself appropriate to the new
era that Kennedy would have created - that we have a continuation of
vitality and life for AMerica - the failure of Kennedy - of all the
Kennedy's magnify the common mode failure when it comes - and only
then do we see if we are lucky - that the small failures we avoided-
were actually opportunities for growth and change - that would have
made us stronger and longer lived.
The Manchurian Candidate was released in 1962 - which involved the
assination of a Presidential candidate who was brainwashed. hmm...
do you think they were preparing the American people for the 1963
assasination of JFK? maybe.
Secret operations are hard to prove by their very nature. YEt the
goals of secret agencies cannot be hidden - they cannot help BE what
they are. So, one looks for patterns. JFK was killed by a lone
gunman. Ok. But when RFK was killed when he ran for office the
following term - that's a pattern. Then Teddy Kennedy is dishonored -
THE VERY DAY BEFORE HE WAS TO EMERGE VICTORIOUS following the moon
landing his brother helped bring about? another pattern - and movies
floating the ideas in fiction form that Presidents need to be
assasinated if they're brainwashed? a year before a president gets
assasinated?
Well, was JFK a Soviet mole or not?
I don't know - even if he wasn't that wouldn't stop some elements
within the intelligence community to think so. I mean, our top
scientists passed our most sacred secrets to the Soviets, our most
trusted journalists and political leaders were Soviet moles, the
Soviets were making gains around the world
It flows both ways. We got key defectors as well. Someone once said
that a country deserves the leaders it elects. Well, countries also
deserve the traitors and defectors it gets!
The whole idea that we need leaders to prosper and are vulnerable to
traitors - undermines the genius and strength of a free people.
No one is 100% free nor is anyone 100% invulnerable.
Actually we are all absolutely free and we are all absolutely
invulnerable. Those who seek to convince us otherwise are out to
enslave us.
- Kennedy wanted to join
with the Soviets and share with them missile secrets they wanted
desperately, caved to them on Turkey, failed to secure Cuba, had cold
feet in helping out in Vietnam, wanted to end racial differences, end
poverty - nationalize medicine, education, give college educations to
all Americans - sounded pretty pinko to some I bet. It wouldn't take
much to believe that there were elements within the intelligence
community that developed 'evidence' that such was the case -
sufficient to 'take out' the President.
Other than Vietnam, what was so different between JFK and LBJ?
LBJ changed the space program from sailing on the vast new ocean of
space - uniting the world in joint adventure in the nuclear age -
beating our nuclear technology into plowshares of exploration - LBJ
took this grandiose vision of an interplanetary humanity leaving Earth
the way those in the rennaisance left Europe - and turned it into a
moon program. Nixon turned it into a man on orbit program. Soon, we
will have no man in space.
Naw, our competition with the Chinese and Russians will prevent that.
JFK signed the Peace Corps into existence with a presidential order.
LBJ reigned in the peace corps and Nixon merged it with another
agency, which turned it into a front for CIA operations. JFK lay down
a blank check to the world, to assist free people wherever and
whenever they needed it - to have all free men and women join together
against a common enemy ignorance, privation and fear. LBJ created a
great society where the USA would be a beacon of hope and a model for
others to emulate - but which the USA had no compunction to help.
Need I go on?
My point was that JFK and LBJ differed mostly on Vietnam.
I am
not talking ideals here, actual policy...
Right.
Clearly LBJ and JFK differed on Vietnam policy. What else?
On every level - the very first thing that LBJ did was cut the budget
for the space program - and shape it into a moon program - with no
follow on after - this the very day he gave a speech over the slain
President in the rotunda. He felt it was important for the nation to
see it continue following the assasination - Kennedy felt it was
important for the world to have a new frontier appropriate to the
ablities of our age, and that we lead the world into that frontier.
Kennedy believed that Buckminster Fuller was right (they were both
natives of Massachusetts, and both served in the US Navy and both
attended Harvard) that science had an unlimited capacity to create
wealth and he saw that the only way the USA could maintain its leading
role in the world was to lead the way and take practical steps to help
our younger brothers along the way. LBJ was a poor dirt farmer from
Texas and felt that if the USA was going to spend its resources
enriching the world, it could only end up impoverishing itself.
I don't doubt that LBJ had little use for science whereas JFK saw it
as a means to an ends.
yes. A different world view creates different decisions. LBJs
decisions were consistent with the ideology of the nations leadership,
JFKs decisions were not.
Again, who knows? The idea is consistent however.
These are patterns - suggesting a larger conspiracy - and suggesting
that your naive view that the President a hired hand that never spends
more than eight years in office - can control agencies committed to
secure the USA against even a rogue president - is naive.
Your view of a "larger conspiracy" is naive
You're only saying that because I called your analysis naive earlier.
No read on...
as it implies a string of
events on a timeline rather than a deeper politcal notion
We cannot know what the motivation or politics are.
Bull***! They have been the same for millenia. Julius Ceasar and the
Senate. To get and to maintain power. Period.
The CIA was derived from OSS - it was needed in the nuclear age for
the USA to survive in the coming epoch - and avoid a global
thermonuclear war - and avoid getting drawn into it. This ideology
drives the agency - power is used for that goal to maintain the
'American way of life' and secure it against these threats - that
cannot be addressed in any other way in the present age. They do not
seek power, nor do they want power - according to this ideology -
which they no doubt believe. They seek only to secure the safety and
power of the nation as a whole - and events are tying them into knots
- and without the ability to creatively reinvent themselves - will
lead to a rather massive common mode failure.
In some sense the agency is far in advance of the Roman senate - and
has a lot more in common with the Vatican.
We can know what
happened and when and where people are. JFK being killed by a lone
gunman - is reasonable perhaps - as an isolated incident. JFK being
killed, followed by LBJ - a very power hungry indivdual, not seeking
relelection in 68, followed by RFK being killed in 68, followed by
Teddy Kennedy being discredited in 69 before the moon landing -
suggests a pattern of activity to keep the Kennedy's out of the white
house in the 60s and 70s. This is consistent with the notion that
there were secrets that would come to light if the President were a
Kennedy that some very powerful folks didn't want to come to light.
This is Deep Politics in a manner in which "conspiracy" as a notion is
naive. My point.
I think if the agency is involved in this thing in the way were
theorizing - my feeling is that they will view it as a continuing and
everlasting problem that they don't know how to resolve efficiently.
more akin to
a 3-dimensional matirx than a single line with pattern points.
I don't know what you mean and definitely don't know why you are
saying that.
Yep, I figured as much. Read, "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK", by
Peter Dale Scott.
I don't want to. I was merely pointing out the obvious - having lived
through all this ***.
So have the rest of us old enough to remember.
Right - I have spent more time on this than I'd like! lol. That in
itself is suspicious don't you think? lol.
Don't
confuse martix with the movie either,
??
I am comparing a straight line
(your view) to a mathmatical matrix where things cross and the
patterns you speak about exist and have existed for centuries and only
the names and places change.
I think more in terms of eigenvalues - there's an orientation where
rotational moment is maximum.
That is your spin. LOL!
Yes, Literally! lol.
Yes, I know...
me too
Read "Deep Politics". Peter Dale Scott.
Do I have to? I'd rather spend my summer nights with the love of my
life, holding her hand and looking at the stars and dreaming.
No, you WANT to, you just don't know that you do.
This is a hypnotic technique - my response is now I will never read
the book lol.
You will find the
book enlightning.
Actually, I have spent far too much time reading your stuff - haha -
I'd rather honor Kennedy thinking of things that never were and asking
why not - rather than worrying about how things are and asking why!
lol.
Eric
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- From: Eric Chomko
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- From: Willie . Mookie
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- References:
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- From: Willie . Mookie
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- From: Eric Chomko
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- From: Willie . Mookie
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- From: Eric Chomko
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- From: Willie . Mookie
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- From: Eric Chomko
- Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- Prev by Date: Re: Brad Guth - secret agent of DARPA
- Next by Date: Re: Brad Guth - secret agent of DARPA
- Previous by thread: Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- Next by thread: Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
- Index(es):
