JFK, the Berlin Crisis, and the forces that took his life

[Hugo Langendoen]

I don't agree at all.

If a writer's bona fides are suspect, as this guy's certainly are, then it is perfectly alright to bring in comparisons with his other work to further elucidate the guy's background.

Here is a guy who worked for the WSJ for almost 30 years.

He has his book reviewed by someone else who works for the WSJ.

He is CEO of something called the Atlantic Council of the United States (Which really sounds like some spinoff of the CFR)

He is in the CFR

HE has written a previous book whitewashing the Bush/CIA invasion of Panama which needlessly killed thousands of civilians in order to stop a newly designed Panama Canal

And his book on Berlin criticizes JFK for not using the opportunity to collapse East Germany?

And its not relevant to bring all this in? The heck it is not.

Would we not figure NANA and her ties with Svetlana Stalin important in any discussion of Priscilla Johnson?

What is offbase is Chip Tatum. What he has to do with Kempe and Berlin escapes me completely.

Jim,

I can see what you mean, and I think we agree. It was not a coincidence that I posted my request only after Robert's post. I can see why you made the comments on Kempe and on his other works. After your conclusions about him in post number 16 I think it is clear what perspective mr Kempe takes. But then Robert noticed we are a bit off track, and he started to put in a post totally on Noriega and so on. That is why I made my request at that moment.

[Greg Parker]

I don't agree at all.

If a writer's bona fides are suspect, as this guy's certainly are, then it is perfectly alright to bring in comparisons with his other work to further elucidate the guy's background.

Here is a guy who worked for the WSJ for almost 30 years.

He has his book reviewed by someone else who works for the WSJ.

He is CEO of something called the Atlantic Council of the United States (Which really sounds like some spinoff of the CFR)

NATO spinoff, Jim

He is in the CFR

HE has written a previous book whitewashing the Bush/CIA invasion of Panama which needlessly killed thousands of civilians in order to stop a newly designed Panama Canal

Currently studying the history of the canal as part of a larger project. Fascinating stuff. Colombia (of which Panama was part during canal negotiations) was the proving ground for later Latin American operations/interventions. This history, imo, led almost inexorably to the assassinations of the '60s in the US.

And his book on Berlin criticizes JFK for not using the opportunity to collapse East Germany?

And its not relevant to bring all this in? The heck it is not.

Would we not figure NANA and her ties with Svetlana Stalin important in any discussion of Priscilla Johnson?

What is offbase is Chip Tatum. What he has to do with Kempe and Berlin escapes me completely.

[Anthony DeFiore]

In a complete overview of JFK's responses to the militarists surrounding his administration and the players not in his close circle (JCS, Acheson, LBJ, Rusk and even to a large extent McNamara and the Bundys), it is obvious to me how JFK was being quickly potrayed in his presidency (before he even was sworn in) and scapegoated as an appeaser like his Dad. In this background, it is conclusive to me how JFK was assassinated more for his reluctance to go into Vietnam with MacArthur by his side and JFK's desire to deal with Castro / Che / Soviets in the western hemisphere. From the militarist's view (thank you to Daniel Elsberg), American Cold War Foreign Policy was planning to proceed with it's devised plan on engagment with the Soviets on a worldwide domino theory attack rather than JFK's view that the policy of world wide engagement was flawed and strictly a MIC devised plan to militarize the USA instead of seeking peace worldwide. Kruschev's bellicose nature and public persona fed this fire to a ridiculous flame ~ a detriment to world peace ~ even thought Kruschev knew his country could not win a world takeover even with the Chinese. The frenzied belief of the militarists can be understood in the backdrop of WWII, McCarthy, Hoover and the belligerence of men like Acheson and Dulles. But the deeper truth is how all of this documentation in memos and footnotes has come to illustrate how the CIA WAS the defacto US Goverment of the USA during the Cold Ward up until Carter eviserated it with Stansfield Turner. It made the CIA a private corporation manipulating Reagan until the wall came down. The Bush Presidencies further justifies my belief that the CIA STILL controlled our country up until perhaps the day Richard Helms died, and Gorbi fell to a house coup. Gorbi knew the Soviets were doomed on the world conquest stage, and Mao had completely devastated the Chinese threat to preserve his own power. With all this said, in a very terse summary, JFK was a percieved mortal threat to the CIA in 1960. The young pups at Foggy Bottom weren't even safely ensconced at Langley yet, and here is this President threatening to break it into pieces. Fletcher Prouty's descriptions in his many writings attests to all of it. But even darker to this all is how Nixon's and LBJ's roles contributed to JFK's eventual demise via Operation 40 and LBJ's & Nixon's involvment and servitude to the MIC. The growth of the MIC production and economic base in Texas and California from the 1960's thru 1990's illustrates my point profoundly. With the rash of assassinations and worldwide attempts on government leaders thru the 50's and 60's can we honestly just blame the wise guys and the crazy and divided pre-Castro Cubans as the only conspirators to the obliteration of JFK's head on Elm Street and into the lap of his wife on that November day in 1963. No way. JFK's annihilation that day was a visible warning to all elected officials around the world that facisim was alive and well in the world and living under the (limited media coverage of that day) quilt of democratic governments. It wasn't a Cold War. It was a Hot War, and billions of people suffered under it and it was a mystery to us all because the press was limited and infiltrated by the intelligence boys all along ~ when did Mockingbird really start? When Ben Bradlee went to the WP, Tom Braden's presence on CNN's Crossfire or Alsop carring the water for the CIA all those years? Unfortunately, by the time JFK and RFK realized how pervasive the intelligence community's hold on our country was ~ they were killed. The spirit of The Kennedy Influence on our country is best illustrated by the unceasing memorials and street signs that bear their names. And to the unflinching perpetuation of this site and the research of a great many to expose the JFK Assassination for what it truly was ~ the end of the democratic music in the USA. Nuff said. A sad ramble ~ but more hauntingly painful to write and contemplate. But with so much said, I await the comments condemning my comment as the rant of another crazy person.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Anthony DeFiore

[Greg Parker]

In a complete overview of JFK's responses to the militarists surrounding his administration and the players not in his close circle (JCS, Acheson, LBJ, Rusk and even to a large extent McNamara and the Bundys), it is obvious to me how JFK was being quickly potrayed in his presidency (before he even was sworn in) and scapegoated as an appeaser like his Dad. In this background, it is conclusive to me how JFK was assassinated more for his reluctance to go into Vietnam with MacArthur by his side and JFK's desire to deal with Castro / Che / Soviets in the western hemisphere. From the militarist's view (thank you to Daniel Elsberg), American Cold War Foreign Policy was planning to proceed with it's devised plan on engagment with the Soviets on a worldwide domino theory attack rather than JFK's view that the policy of world wide engagement was flawed and strictly a MIC devised plan to militarize the USA instead of seeking peace worldwide. Kruschev's bellicose nature and public persona fed this fire to a ridiculous flame ~ a detriment to world peace ~ even thought Kruschev knew his country could not win a world takeover even with the Chinese. The frenzied belief of the militarists can be understood in the backdrop of WWII, McCarthy, Hoover and the belligerence of men like Acheson and Dulles. But the deeper truth is how all of this documentation in memos and footnotes has come to illustrate how the CIA WAS the defacto US Goverment of the USA during the Cold Ward up until Carter eviserated it with Stansfield Turner. It made the CIA a private corporation manipulating Reagan until the wall came down. The Bush Presidencies further justifies my belief that the CIA STILL controlled our country up until perhaps the day Richard Helms died, and Gorbi fell to a house coup. Gorbi knew the Soviets were doomed on the world conquest stage, and Mao had completely devastated the Chinese threat to preserve his own power. With all this said, in a very terse summary, JFK was a percieved mortal threat to the CIA in 1960. The young pups at Foggy Bottom weren't even safely ensconced at Langley yet, and here is this President threatening to break it into pieces. Fletcher Prouty's descriptions in his many writings attests to all of it. But even darker to this all is how Nixon's and LBJ's roles contributed to JFK's eventual demise via Operation 40 and LBJ's & Nixon's involvment and servitude to the MIC. The growth of the MIC production and economic base in Texas and California from the 1960's thru 1990's illustrates my point profoundly. With the rash of assassinations and worldwide attempts on government leaders thru the 50's and 60's can we honestly just blame the wise guys and the crazy and divided pre-Castro Cubans as the only conspirators to the obliteration of JFK's head on Elm Street and into the lap of his wife on that November day in 1963. No way. JFK's annihilation that day was a visible warning to all elected officials around the world that facisim was alive and well in the world and living under the (limited media coverage of that day) quilt of democratic governments. It wasn't a Cold War. It was a Hot War, and billions of people suffered under it and it was a mystery to us all because the press was limited and infiltrated by the intelligence boys all along ~ when did Mockingbird really start? When Ben Bradlee went to the WP, Tom Braden's presence on CNN's Crossfire or Alsop carring the water for the CIA all those years? Unfortunately, by the time JFK and RFK realized how pervasive the intelligence community's hold on our country was ~ they were killed. The spirit of The Kennedy Influence on our country is best illustrated by the unceasing memorials and street signs that bear their names. And to the unflinching perpetuation of this site and the research of a great many to expose the JFK Assassination for what it truly was ~ the end of the democratic music in the USA. Nuff said. A sad ramble ~ but more hauntingly painful to write and contemplate. But with so much said, I await the comments condemning my comment as the rant of another crazy person.

No condemnation from me, Anthony. I agree with the majority of your "rant".

But then, if you're a little crazy, maybe I'm a little punch drunk...

[Len Colby]

In John Perkins book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, he discusses the whole Panama thing going back to Torrijos. He has little doubt that Reagan and the CIA had Omar killed by a bomb in his airplane, a la Dag Hammarkskjold.

Torrijos is the guy who got Carter to sign over the canal. Further, he was an earlier version of Chavez. He wanted the natural resources of his country to go to the people, and he wanted to remake the Panama Canal. He wanted to get rid of the locks and make it a straight over type canal in order to increase traffic.

After he was murdered, Noriega was going to continue with that idea, except he was not going to do it with Bechtel, i.e. Schultz and Weinberger's company. He was going to sign a deal with a Japanese company. Secondly, he would not provide refuge and logistical help for Oliver North's illegal Contra war against Nicaragua.

Not that Bush might not have had ulterior motives for invading Panama but there are several gaping holes in the above narrative

1) Perkins is NOT a credible source. A) He actually claimed to have been working at the behest of the NSA not the CIA. I could see the latter doing such things but the former deals exclusively with communications intelligence He failed to produce supporting evidence C) He admitted to having been dishonest in the past, in fact his treachery is the basis of the book D) in other books he promotes crackpot notions like use powerful including frog poisons enables people to shape shift into otherspecies and travel outside their bodies, he even claims to have done such things himself after living with shamen E) In my younger days I smoked quite a bit of pot and occasionally took acid or mushrooms but I wonder if his extensive use of ayahusca and frog poison rewired his brain.

2) It is not possible “get rid of the locks” of the Panama Canal because parts of it are 85 feet above sea level.

3) Noriega was notoriously corrupt and it would have been easier just to bribe him to award the contract to an American company.

4) No such project was even initiated or AFAIK seriously proposed. It was not until about 25 years after the invasion that concrete steps were taken to expand, not eliminate, the locks. So the theory has to explain why the project was dropped after the US invaded Panama to win the contract for Bectel

Edited August 1, 2011 by Len Colby

[Jim Phelps]

The "Berlin Crisis" was certainly a pivotal moment in the JFK presidency. He designed for Peace and the IKE Network he inherited was designing for another war, a nuclear war against Russia. It did set the stage for what was to come. Things like "Umbrella Man" were protesting this JFK stace against "Communist Expansion". "Umbrella Man" was upset with JFK over Berlin and trying to say JFK was like UK PM Neville Chamberlain in making soft deals with Hitler. Somehow, it appears that Joe Kennedy in Britain inherited this umbrella imagery of Chamberlain's.

At the time of Chamberlain's deal with Germany it was a pretty safe bet that Hitler would not go after his German Cousins on the Throne of England, as the "Windsors". But that would change as the Rothschild bankers get into the plan and they work New York's Jewish population to boycott Germany. Then matters got worse as the Rothschilds got Britain into the war and they dragged in the US. The Royal Oligarchs of banking hated Joe Kennedy over this, as he was US Ambassador to England at that time of Chamberlain's deal.

In England, the town of York and several others were known for their Jewish populations, and when the US came along the name New York automatically implied this was a city for Jewish folks and it indeed became the banking and financial center highly connected with European Royalists and especially the Rothschild's banking conglomerate groups. So, naturally the Rothschild's war against Hitler kicked off in New York because Hitler was unhinging the Versalles deal with the Royalist Bankers and kicking all the Jewish good ole boys out of German Government.

JFK came into the Mil / Ind Network's push for aggressive actions on Communism and to take it to their turf, not ours. Ike's term Mil / Ind Network should be more correctly put as the Royalist's political counter attack on the role of Communism in the world. Almost all the Ike years were geared toward quickly building the nuclear arsenal to be able to take on Russia with a nuclear power ratio of 10:1. JCS Lemnitzer, LeMay, et al wanted an all out shoot out with Russia and to nuclear punch out Russian Communism on that Continent. They wanted to bring the war to them. And as the Russians figured out their game they countered with like measures.

In Europe, the Marxists response against the holdings of vast capitalistic oligarchic type wealth became Communism. Communism rebelled against the Czar and had him killed. The Russian Czar supported Abe Lincoln's revolt against the US Southern Capitalists and their UK Atlantic Triangle Trade routes supporting slavery. The Jewish led Marxists of Germany well saw the Germans that took over the Thone of England from the Stuart's Clan, and the Windsor Germans even had to change their names to avoid being exposed as a bunch of Royalists seeking Germans.

As Hitler's power grew, the extreme capitalists of Europe, generally assosciated with the "German Rothschilds" name changers, ran to the "German Queen" and the "Windsor Germans Royalist Power" for help with the Royalists designed capitalism. This was the Royalists Power and what was to become the Mil / Ind Networks crank up in the US during the Ike/DDE Administration.

It has been a long road of history, but history shows the Czar tried to help Lincoln with freedom issues against the UK allied South. History shows there was all kinds of "Crook Games" to install the Federal Reserve in the US and the next day kick off WWI and have the US citizens pay the bill. The Big Crook Players even switched the Olympic for the Titanic and killed the prime resistors to the Federal Reserve in the US. It has only gotten worse since, with the games employed to exploit a stupid American population, who are being led down the road to exploitation by corrupt media influences.

JFK lead conspirators were this group's efforts to start WWIII.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Jim Phelps

[David Andrews]

In England, the town of York and several others were known for their Jewish populations, and when the US came along the name New York automatically implied this was a city for Jewish folks.

Please. The capture of Nieuw Amsterdam by Britain, early in the restoration of the Stuart line of kings, led to a naming for Charles II's brother, James, Duke of York, the future James II.

Jewish merchants and bankers followed the Dutch before the English, though their treatment by either was incompletely cordial (see Peter Stuyvesant). New York's Jewish population is largely a product of the city becoming the continent's premier port of entry. Many seeking greater tolerance than afforded by English colonists migrated to Newport, Rhode Island, founding the famous synagogue there.

Edited August 2, 2011 by David Andrews

[Len Colby]

To those unfortunate enough to read Colby's latest, John Perkins' book is not a straightforward, simple memoir.

In certain areas he discusses, he uses the work of others.

As alluded to in Post 16, and alluded to specifically, Perkins makes use of the Harris book, Shooting the Moon, and the Eisner book about Panama and Noriega. If Colby wants to critique those books, then go ahead and show us they are false stories. But those are two pretty good reporters and those are two well regarded books that blow up that whole senseless invasion and the phony trial afterwards.

Amazing you can’t even refer to your own posts accurately. In Post # 16, you never indicated that “Perkins makes use of the Harris book, Shooting the Moon, and the Eisner book about Panama and Noriega” or any other book for that matter. But your post hoc rationalization is not very accurate.

Harris’ book is available on Amazon Reader all pages can be text searched and most can be read in full. Bectel is not mentioned. It mentions the canal but not its locks and only once makes reference to the former as a basis for invasion. I found no evidence that a new canal was discussed anywhere in the book.

Both the Perkins and the Eisner books mention the supposed plan to build a lockless canal but only short snippets of them are available through Google Books so I was unable to determine what evidence either author produced. However my impression was that Eisner simply took Noriega’s word for it and Perkins simply quoted Eisner. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to spell out what independent confirmation there is for the supposed plan. Then you can explain why:

• the US went to war to win a construction contract rather than pay off the notoriously corrupt dictator
  
• 32 years after the war was one no seems to have tried to implement the contract
  
• 32 years after the fact apparently the only evidence for the story traces back to 2 very questionable sources (i.e. Noriega and Perkins)
  
• 
  
• The project to expand the canal bear no resemblance to the one the war was supposedly fought over.
  
• Why the US didn't invade Panama when it awarded the expansion contract to Spanish and Italian companies
  

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/15/panama-canal-idUSN1537673020090715

[Len Colby]

In England, the town of York and several others were known for their Jewish populations, and when the US came along the name New York automatically implied this was a city for Jewish folks.

Please. The capture of Nieuw Amsterdam by Britain, early in the restoration of the Stuart line of kings, led to a naming for Charles II's brother, James, Duke of York, the future James II.

Jewish merchants and bankers followed the Dutch before the English, though their treatment by either was incompletely cordial (see Peter Stuyvesant). New York's Jewish population is largely a product of the city becoming the continent's premier port of entry. Many seeking greater tolerance than afforded by English colonists migrated to Newport, Rhode Island, founding the famous synagogue there.

Did you ever see “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”? The bride’s father has a theory that every English word is ultimately of Greek origin. Whatever word people suggest to him his is able to rationalize an etymology to justify his belief. Phelps is like that but his theory is that Jews, and to a lesser degree “royals”, are ultimately the root of all evil.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Len Colby