Can JFKA Historians Save the World?

[W. Niederhut]

Serious question here.

George Orwell wrote, in 1984, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. "

JFKA researchers are among the leading world experts on the true history of the U.S. military-industrial complex and its propagandists in the mainstream U.S. media.

Some have explored the broader implications of their research on JFK's assassination in relation to U.S. foreign and domestic policies since 11/22/63.

Examples include the writings of Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, James DiEugenio, (Destiny Betrayed) and Laurent Guyenot's From JFK to 9/11-- 50 Years of Deep State.

Granted, the MIC-affiliated mainstream media Gate Keepers still control public access to "the (mythical) past" in our mass media.

But an accurate understanding of our "Deep State" history is critical for the future of the world.  We can see this right now as we stand on the brink of a potentially catastrophic war with Iran.

How many Americans know that General Wesley Clark was told by Pentagon officials, shortly after 9/11, "We're going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off, Iran?"

 

[David Andrews]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

How many Americans know that General Wesley Clark was told by Pentagon officials, shortly after 9/11, "We're going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off, Iran?"

 

How much of that agenda do we feel has been accomplished, being that the five years shortly after 9/11 were contained within the GWB administration?  Who's driving the extended version of this plan across succeeding administrations?

I count Syria and Libya, though neither effort has been complete, or produced a kingdom peaceable to the west.

Edited January 10, 2020 by David Andrews

[Ron Ecker]

IMO that whole Conquest of the Middle East agenda was neocon New American Century hogwash. Yeah, Iraq was supposed to be just the first step. Funny how it ended there. We've really conquered Syria, haven't we? I remember speculation that Saddam's WMDs were buried in Syria. Well, why didn't we invade Syria and find out? We were supposed to invade it anyway according to the neocon manifesto. Everything just sort of stopped with Iraq. A case perhaps of biting off more than you can chew. And whatever happened to that war being paid for with Iraqi oil? That's what that neocon sleazebag Paul Wolfowitz told us while combing his hair with his spit.

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

IMO that whole Conquest of the Middle East agenda was neocon New American Century hogwash. Yeah, Iraq was supposed to be just the first step. Funny how it ended there. We've really conquered Syria, haven't we? I remember speculation that Saddam's WMDs were buried in Syria. Well, why didn't we invade Syria and find out? We were supposed to invade it anyway according to the neocon manifesto. Everything just sort of stopped with Iraq. A case perhaps of biting off more than you can chew. And whatever happened to that war being paid for with Iraqi oil? That's what that neocon sleazebag Paul Wolfowitz told us while combing his hair with his spit.

 

Ron,

     I'm no expert on this subject-- far from it-- but my impression is that CIA Operation Timber Sycamore was the Syrian phase of this post-9/11 Neocon Project for a New American Century.  Timber Sycamore was a CIA op to use proxy Sunni militias like Al Nusra, Al Qaeda (and perhaps "ISIS"?) to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria.  It failed, mainly because Putin intervened in 2015 to help Assad fight these proxy Sunni militias.

    Perhaps some of the better informed research people around here know more of the details. 

[Ron Ecker]

30 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ron,

     I'm no expert on this subject-- far from it-- but my impression is that CIA Operation Timber Sycamore was the Syrian phase of this post-9/11 Neocon Project for a New American Century.  Timber Sycamore was a CIA op to use proxy Sunni militias like Al Nusra, Al Qaeda (and perhaps "ISIS"?) to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria.  It failed, mainly because Putin intervened in 2015 to help Assad fight these proxy Sunni militias.

    Perhaps some of the better informed research people around here know more of the details. 

I'm not familiar with Timber Sycamore, and am certainly no expert. It's just my impression that the neocons found out that their conquest of the Middle East (I believe the PNAC euphemism was "spreading the zones of democratic peace") was not as easy as they thought after getting their "new Pearl Harbor." So who benefited at all from the new Pearl Harbor? I would say no one at all except for the usual suspects, the MIC. Oh, and eventually Iran, since we've pretty well laid the groundwork to make Iraq an Iranian client state.

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

I'm not familiar with Timber Sycamore, and am certainly no expert. It's just my impression that the neocons found out that their conquest of the Middle East (I believe the PNAC euphemism was "spreading the zones of democratic peace") was not as easy as they thought after getting their "new Pearl Harbor." So who benefited at all from the new Pearl Harbor? I would say no one at all except for the usual suspects, the MIC. Oh, and eventually Iran, since we've pretty well laid the groundwork to make Iraq an Iranian client state.

 

 

Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith (the #2 and #3 men in the Bush-Cheney Pentagon) wrote strategic papers for the Netanyahu government in the 90s proposing the use of the U.S. military to overthrow Saddam Hussein and to help create internecine civil wars to weaken Israel's Muslim neighbors-- Iraq, Syria, Libya, and, ultimately Iran.

Rumsfeld's insistence on the de-Baathification of the Iraq military and police in 2003 plunged the country directly into civil war.  (General Jay Garner told Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer that it "would take 50 years to stabilize" Iraq if they disbanded the Army.)

The Neocon/PNAC goal was not to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East, but to divide and weaken Israel's Muslim neighbors.

[Ron Ecker]

Paul Wolfowitz, #2 man at the Pentagon, was holding a meeting there on 9/11 when they turned on the TV and saw that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. This #2 man at the Pentagon later said in an interview, "There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was." 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Ron Ecker

[James DiEugenio]

In my essay in garrison called "Kennedy Faces the Middle East", I outlined this crazy strategy and showed how it was in conflict with what JFK was trying for while in office.

It really does seem like with TImber Sycamore, the CIA was attempting to do in the last of the secular, non fundamentalist rulers in the Middle East.  As I wrote, its almost like the idea was to back the extremes on both sides: Likud, and the Islamic fundamentalist forces, which Kennedy had warned about back in 1957. Its crazy the way the MSM does not understand this at all.

Kennedy's ideas were to repatriate the Palestinians, defang Israel through inspections at Dimona--to the point of even threatening to pull all funding for Tel Aviv; get an alliance with Nasser; and, through him, work to neutralize the worst aspects of monarchy and fundamentalism in the Middle East.  Nasser went to war with the Muslim Brotherhood and was against Sharia Law.  Nasser wanted a pan Arab league of secularism, progress, and democracy to spread through the area.  The opposite of what we have today.  The Saudis hated him because he wanted the oil of the Middle East to be dispersed throughout the entire region in order to modernize and help the lower classes and transform the area through huge irrigation projects.

In fact, Kennedy did not even want to meet with King Saud when he was in the USA.  The State Department badgered him into meeting with him once he got out of the hospital.   The Saudis were aware of this, and they then simply bought so much influence in America that what Nasser wanted was later neutralized.

One last point.  IMO, Carter was wrong to settle for that narrow Camp David Accord agreement.  IMO, Nasser would not have agreed to it.  It really hurt the Palestinian cause. Carter can attack Israel  and write as many books about Palestine as he wants.  But that agreement  hurt them.

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[David Andrews]

Don't forget that that narrow Camp David agreement got Anwar Sadat killed.  Folks are sensitive down there.

[Ron Bulman]

42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

In my essay in garrison called "Kennedy Face the Middle East", I outlined this crazy strategy and showed how it was in conflict with what JFK was trying for while in office.

It really does seem like with TImber Sycamore, the CIA was attempting to do in the last of the secular, non fundamentalist rulers in the Middle East.  As I wrote, its almost like the idea was to back the extremes on both sides: Likud, and the Islamic fundamentalist forces, which Kennedy had warned about back in 1957. Its crazy the way the MSM does not understand this at all.

Kennedy's ideas were to repatriate the Palestinians, defang Israel through inspections at Dimona--to the point of even threatening to pull all funding for Tel Aviv; get an alliance with Nasser; and, through him, work to neutralize the worst aspects of monarchy and fundamentalism in the Middle East.  Nasser went to war with the Muslim Brotherhood and was against Sharia Law.  Nasser wanted a pan Arab league of secularism, progress, and democracy to spread through the area.  The opposite of what we have today.  The Saudis hated him because he wanted the oil of the Middle East to be dispersed throughout the entire region in order to modernize and help the lower classes and transform the area through huge irrigation projects.

In fact, Kennedy did not even want to meet with King Saud when he was in the USA.  The State Department badgered him into meeting with him once he got out of the hospital.   The Saudis were aware of this, and they then simply bought so much influence in America that what Nasser wanted was later neutralized.

One last point.  IMO, Carter was wrong to settle for that narrow Camp David Accord agreement.  IMO, Nasser would not have agreed to it.  It really hurt the Palestinian cause. Carter can attack Israel  and write as many books about Palestine as he wants.  But that agreement  hurt them.

 

Jim, you W and Ron are getting way too deep in a hurry for most of us.  I've read a very little on JFK and Dimona and I've been interested in the assassination of JFK for years.  Most people know Jack Ruby from a picture if they know him at all.   I'd never heard of the Timber Sycamore.  I've read about the USS Liberty.  I don't pretend to be a historian.  The masses including me need a lot of education in pursuit of the Truth.

I remember a Camp David Accord.  But no details.  Can you elaborate on that part a little bit?

[Ron Bulman]

10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Serious question here.

George Orwell wrote, in 1984, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. "

JFKA researchers are among the leading world experts on the true history of the U.S. military-industrial complex and its propagandists in the mainstream U.S. media.

Some have explored the broader implications of their research on JFK's assassination in relation to U.S. foreign and domestic policies since 11/22/63.

Examples include the writings of Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, James DiEugenio, (Destiny Betrayed) and Laurent Guyenot's From JFK to 9/11-- 50 Years of Deep State.

Granted, the MIC-affiliated mainstream media Gate Keepers still control public access to "the (mythical) past" in our mass media.

But an accurate understanding of our "Deep State" history is critical for the future of the world.  We can see this right now as we stand on the brink of a potentially catastrophic war with Iran.

How many Americans know that General Wesley Clark was told by Pentagon officials, shortly after 9/11, "We're going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off, Iran?"

 

Anything is possible.   Getting the Truth about History to the public in the USA and the masses around the world is essential.  How?  History Professors at Universities can't/won't do it, they're in effect censored even if interested in the subject.  MSM = 1 % owned propaganda.  The internet allows us to speak here but not to spread the truth in depth...to my limited technological knowledge.

[James DiEugenio]

Carter arranged for a meeting at Camp David between  Israel's Begin and Egypt's Sadat.

In return for the Sinai, Egypt recognized Israel's right to exist.

It was supposed to lay the groundwork for a future all inclusive treaty.  But the Oslo Accords of 1993 did not work.

Andrews is right, it probably got Sadat killed.

Edited January 11, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW Ron, if you do not have my article, you should read it.

I put a lot of work into it and had much help from Malcolm Blunt.  Its state on the art as far as JFK and the Middle East goes.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/midnight-writer-news-publications/garrison-the-journal-of-history-deep-politics-issue-001/paperback/product-24211732.html

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW Ron, if you do not have my article, you should read it.

I put a lot of work into it and had much help from Malcolm Blunt.  Its state on the art as far as JFK and the Middle East goes.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/midnight-writer-news-publications/garrison-the-journal-of-history-deep-politics-issue-001/paperback/product-24211732.html

I do have that first edition of the magazine Garrison.  Great article, very informative.  Why is the nyt and wa po too chicken xxxx to feature it?  It's the Truth.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Ron Bulman

[James DiEugenio]

A large part of the article, especially with the showdown between Kennedy and Ben Gurion, was based on documents that Malcolm Blunt sent to me from the JFK Library.

Some of those, I had never seen before.  Its hard not to conclude that it was JFK's stance on Dimona that caused the fall of Ben Gurion.

When LBJ came in, like almost every aspect of Kennedy's foreign policy, he reversed it.  After saying, "Let us continue."