Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Pentagon’

Empire of Bioweapon Lies

Posted by M. C. on May 16, 2022

So just when we thought we could enjoy the summer by watching Europe commit hara-kiri, it’s time to stock up on those Aperol Spritz. Get ready for a new hit series, season 1: Inside the American bioweapon racket.

By Pepe Escobar

What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man, / You cannot say, or guess, for you know only / A heap of broken images, where the sun beats, / And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief, / And the dry stone no sound of water. Only / There is shadow under this red rock, / (Come in under the shadow of this red rock), / And I will show you something different from either / Your shadow at morning striding behind you / Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; / I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land: I. The Burial of the Dead, 1922

This glimpse of “fear in a handful of dust” already ranks as one the prime breakthroughs of the young 21st century, presented this week by Chief of Russian Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Force Igor Kirillov.

The provisional results of evidence being collected about the work of U.S. bioweapons in Ukraine are simply astonishing. These are the main takeaways.

  1. U.S. bioweapon ideologues comprise the leadership of the Democratic Party. By linking with non-governmental biotechnology organizations, using the investment funds of the Clintons, Rockefellers, Soros and Biden, they profited from additional campaign financing – all duly concealed. In parallel, they assembled the legislative basis for financing the bioweapons program directly from the federal budget.
  2. COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers Pfizer and Moderna, as well as Merck and Gilead – of Donald “known unknowns” fame, and affiliated with the Pentagon – were directly involved.
  3. U.S. specialists tested new drugs in the Ukraine biolabs in circumvention of international safety standards. According to Kirillov, acting this way “Western companies seriously reduce the costs of research programs and gain significant competitive advantages.”
  4. According to Kirillov, “along with U.S. pharmaceutical companies and Pentagon contractors, Ukrainian government agencies are involved in military biotechnology activities, whose main tasks are to conceal illegal activities, conduct field and clinical trials and provide the necessary biomaterial.”
  5. The Pentagon, Kirillov pointed out, expanded its research potential not only in terms of producing biological weapons, but also gathering information on antibiotic resistance and the presence of antibodies to certain diseases among the population in specific regions. The testing ground in Ukraine was practically outside the control of the so-called “international community”.

These findings, amply documented, suggest a vast “legitimized” bioweapon racket reaching the highest levels of the American body politic. There’s no doubt the Russians plan to thoroughly unmask it for the benefit of world public opinion, starting with a War Crimes Tribunal to be set up this summer, most probably in Donetsk.

An ongoing U.S. bioweapons program in Ukraine was one of the Top Three reasons that led to the launch of Operation Z, side by side with preventing an imminent NATO-managed blitzkrieg against Donbass and Kiev’s desire to re-start a nuclear weapons program. These are Top Three red lines for Russia.

The strength of the collected evidence may directly correlate with what was largely interpreted as a carefully measured Victory Day speech by President Putin. The Kremlin does not bluff. It will certainly privilege the meticulous presentation of – bioweapon – facts on the ground over grandstanding rhetoric.

The return of Nord Stream 2

Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Dmitry Polyaniskiy announced Russia’s demand for an open meeting of the UN Security Council to present further evidence related to U.S. biolabs in Ukraine. Even if the meeting would be vetoed by the U.S., the evidence will be entered by Russia on the UN records.

These developments provide an extra indication there’s absolutely no space left for diplomacy between Russia and the U.S./collective West, as Polyaniskiy himself suggested when commenting the possible accession of Ukraine to the EU: “The situation has changed after Mr. Borrell’s statement that ‘this war should be won on the battleground’ and after the fact that the European Union is the leader in deliveries of arms [to Ukraine].”

It gets worse. The next chapter is Finland’s drive to join NATO.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Will the Pentagon Induce Russia to Use Tactical Nukes in Ukraine?

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2022

by Jacob G. Hornberger

For the past 25 years, the Pentagon has moved inexorably toward admitting Ukraine into NATO, which would then permit the Pentagon to install its nuclear missiles in Ukraine — that is, on Russia’s border. Thus, the Pentagon has progressively used NATO, an old Cold War dinosaur, to place Russia into a position of making a choice: Either (1) accept the fact that our nuclear missiles are going to be placed in Ukraine pointing at your cities, or (2) invade Ukraine to prevent that from happening.

Russia, of course, could have simply acquiesced in the installation of the Pentagon’s nuclear missiles on Russia’s border. But for the last 25 years, Russia has made it clear that it had no intention of letting that happen. The Russian position has been the same as the U.S. position has long been with respect to Cuba: No foreign nuclear missiles pointed at the United States will be permitted so close to the United States.

Despite Russia’s steadfast opposition to Ukraine’s admission into NATO, which, again, would permit the Pentagon to install its nuclear missiles on Russia’s border, the Pentagon refused to waver. Its position remained that Ukraine would be invited to join NATO, which would then enable the Pentagon to install its nuclear missiles on Russia’s border.

Thus, the Pentagon placed Russia in the position of making a choice between two alternatives, each of which came with horrific consequences. If Russia backed down, the Pentagon would be able to install its nuclear missiles pointed at Russian cities on the Ukraine-Russia border. If Russia choose instead to invade Ukraine to effect regime change and thereby prevent the Pentagon from installing its nuclear missiles in Ukraine, it would mean worldwide condemnation of Russia, not to mention the loss of thousands of Russian soldiers. 

In the end, as we all know, Russia chose option (2) — the invasion alternative.

However, thanks in large part to a massive infusion of weaponry and other support from the Pentagon, the CIA, and NATO, Russia has been stymied in its attempt to prevail in the conflict. If Russia is not able to effect regime change, that means that Ukraine will still be able to join NATO, in which case the Pentagon will succeed in installing its nuclear missiles in Ukraine. 

Thus, the Pentagon is now placing Russia in a position of, once again, having to make a choice between two alternatives, each of which comes with horrific consequences. 

One choice is simply to acquiesce to Russia’s defeat in the war and its failure to effect regime change. That choice would then enable Ukraine to join NATO, which would then mean the Pentagon gets to install its nuclear missiles on Russia’s border, something that Russian president Vladimir Putin has long vowed will not be permitted. 

The other choice is to use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine in order to win the war. WIth this choice, Putin could point to precedent: The U.S. government’s use of nuclear weapons against Japanese cities in World War II as a way to shorten the war and save the lives of U.S. soldiers. Russia could maintain that that’s what it too was doing by dropping tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian cities.

It’s easy for Americans to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After all, Ukraine did nothing to attack Russia. In fact, it is always easy to condemn evil in foreign regimes. 

As I point out in my new book, An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, however, it is not so easy for many Americans to identify, confront, and condemn evil within their own regime. Instead, silence or, even worse, outright support of evil becomes the name of the game, especially when it involves the U.S. national-security establishment — that is, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, who, it is believed, keep us safe by protecting “national security.”

What all too many Americans simply cannot — and will not — see is that the Pentagon’s manipulation of events in order to place Russia into making the particular choices outlined above is evil. After all, there is no good reason that Ukraine has to join NATO, especially since NATO should have been abolished at the ostensible end of the Cold War, when its ostensible mission had been accomplished. There is also no good reason why the Pentagon has to install its nuclear missiles on Russia’s border. Steadfastly maintaining these two positions, the Pentagon’s placing of Russia into the position of making those particular choices is nothing less than evil.

Ironically, or maybe not so ironically, that is precisely what evil did to Dallas businessman Abraham Zapruder, who, through sheer happenstance, filmed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As I detail in my new book, just as it has done with Russia the U.S. national-security establishment placed Zapruder in the position of having to make a choice between two alternatives, both of which came with horrific consequences. The choice that Zapruder made, as a result of his encounter with evil, ended up destroying the rest of his life.

Manipulating people into a position of choosing between two bad alternatives is sometimes how evil operates. In my new book, I quote the late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, whose book People of the Lie was about evil: “The people I’m calling people of the lie are into looking good. And they place a high premium on that. And they’re into disguising their own evil from themselves as well as from others. And so they place a high premium on respectability. And their crimes are often much more subtle than those that get people in jail.”

 An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story: Buy it today at Amazon. $9.95 Kindle version. $14.95 print version.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Truth About China, Russia and the Pentagon’s Global Bioweapon Complex

Posted by M. C. on May 9, 2022

Matthew Ehret

This week, I was invited to speak on the Mel K Show in order to shed some light on the strategic roots of the Pentagon’s global bioweapons complex running 320+ biolabs across the world.

How did this opaque and dangerous network grow out of the 2001 Anthrax attacks which began on Sept. 18, 2001 and the earlier Dark Winter exercises? How is this connected to the absorption of General Hiro Ishii’s Unit 731 bio terror network into Fort Detrick after WWII? How were plans for a post-war age of win-win cooperation sabotaged by the same machine that funded and directed the rise of fascism both prior to and even during WWII?

During the interview, a sober assessment of the growth of the US full spectrum “containment” policy encircling both Russia and China, and the various US military satraps of the Pacific whose sovereignty is in name only. Among those military colonies, we discuss South Korean, Japan, Taiwan, Guam and even increasingly the Philippines.

Other questions addressed: How have WWII nazi collaborators in Japan been glorified as national heroes in Japan, just as they have in Ukraine? How has Ukraine become the “Ukraine of the Pacific”, how has Hong Kong become the CIA of the Pacific? What asymmetric, economic and biowarfare techniques have been deployed by the Anglo-American oligarchy against both Chinese, Russian and American people? And finally, what can we do about this?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Necro-Neologism of Lethal Legal Experts

Posted by M. C. on March 31, 2022

As both the drone program and the opioid prescription debacle illustrate, when government agencies such as the Pentagon and the FDA have been captured by industry forces focused above all on maximizing profits, they will simply look the other way as the corpses pile up,

by Laurie Calhoun

barack obama 1174489 1280

The power of language is magical to behold. Through the mere pronouncement of words, people can be persuaded to do what they would never have thought to do, left to their own devices. The playbook with the most success in this regard is that of war. When people are “informed” that they and their families are in mortal danger, they can and often will acquiesce to any and all policies which government authorities claim to be necessary in order to protect them.

Young people can be coaxed into killing complete strangers who never did anything personally to them. Citizens can be brainwashed to believe that suitably labeled persons can and indeed must be denied any and all human rights. When the stakes are claimed to be life and death, even apparently intelligent people can be goaded to accept that the mere possession of a divergent opinion is evil, and the expression of dissent a crime. The use of military weapons to execute obviously innocent, entirely innocuous civilians, including children, suddenly becomes permissible, so long as the victims have been labeled collateral damage. All any of this takes is to identify “the enemy” as evil.

In centuries past, “the laws of war” were said to require the humane treatment of enemy soldiers. They were diagnosed as suffering from “invincible ignorance,” misled and mistaken about the dispute said to necessitate recourse to war, but still acknowledged as persons capable of being courageous combatants who found themselves through historical fortuity on the wrong side. An enemy soldier was to be provided with the opportunity to lay down his weapon and surrender in order to save his own life. Disarmed or incapacitated soldiers were not to be executed by their captors, for they had already been neutralized and posed no more danger than unarmed civilians. Prisoners of war were to be treated as human beings, and when they were tortured or summarily executed, this constituted a war crime. Such “laws of war,” which form the basis of international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions, have needless to say often been flouted, but, in theory, they were to be upheld by civilized people.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, political leaders and government officials proclaimed that “everything changed.” The Bush administration legal team deployed linguistic innovation to issue in an entirely new era of warfare, wherein the “laws of war” would still be said to obtain, but they would be inapplicable to entire classes of human beings. Jihadist soldiers for radical Islamist causes were labeled unlawful enemy combatants, whose “unlawful” status was said to imply that they were protected by neither international norms such as the Geneva Conventions nor the laws of civil society.

Under this pretext, terrorist suspects were tortured while held captive at prisons in Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and Baghram, in addition to many black sites around the world. Ever keen to cover their tracks, the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) also flatly denied that they ever tortured anyone, by redefining as enhanced interrogation techniques the abusive practices inflicted on hundreds, if not thousands, of men in an effort to extract from them actionable intelligence. And just in case any of this “logic” was called into question by pesky human rights advocates, Bush administration officials also derided the Geneva Conventions as “quaint.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Don’t Apologize, the Antiwar Movement Was Right

Posted by M. C. on March 28, 2022

Now the Iron Curtain is being rebuilt, the Pentagon’s self-fulfilling prophecy of “Great Power Competition” with Russia and China has succeeded in reverting humanity back to the Cold War with the increasing possibility of nuclear weapons killing us all, and Congress just approved its “largest-ever defense spending bill.” The National Security State got what they wanted.

by Connor Freeman

8525983904 2377fabcd0 c

The antiwar movement, the anti-imperialist movement of America, has nothing to apologize for and obediently doing so now is tantamount to facilitating our own systematic demonization, silencing, and persecution.

There were notable analysts in the independent media, antiwar orbit who called this correctly, predicting a Russian attack, leaving the door wide open to an invasion as a major possibility. Those who apparently assumed American policymakers would choose diplomacy and not ultimately risk the deaths and displacement of millions of Ukrainians and Russians, a possible global economic meltdown, catastrophic destabilization in Europe, or all out brinksmanship between the two greatest nuclear superpowers were unfortunately mistaken.

However, the U.S. antiwar scene has always opposed America’s hostile post-Soviet Union policy of coups, color revolutions, NATO’s eastward expansion menacing the Bear, ringing Russia’s borders and coasts with NATO troops, bases, missiles, tanks, bombers, and warships.

The reason for this is not simply because these policies are plainly unnecessary for American security, abhorrently costly, polluting, and aggressive. These new Cold War policies are condemned rightly because they inevitably lead to war, or more likely nuclear war.

For instance, the George W. Bush government’s decisions to tear up the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and place dual use “anti-missile” launchers capable of firing hydrogen bomb-tipped Tomahawks in Poland as well as Romania were not in any way authored by non-interventionist libertarian writers and thinkers.

Similarly, it was not leftist antiwar activists, editors, and websites that provoked the Georgians to start a war with Russia and promised Kiev and Tbilisi eventual NATO membership. That was the Bush administration again.

Likewise, the Bush regime made the unprecedented choice to—in the midst of killing countless Somalis and Afghans plus more than one million Iraqis—expand the NATO Article 5 umbrella to include Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania. If we maintain our hostility with Russia, this expansion is destined to lead to World War III. For decades, old right conservatives and libertarians alike have opposed U.S. involvement in NATO and this later eastern European policy. This has nothing to do with America’s interests properly understood. There is nothing “sacred” about collectively pledging to blow up the whole world with nuclear bombs for Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, or even London.

In 2014, Barack Obama launched the Maidan coup in Ukraine. Following the “Orange Revolution,” this was the Washington regime flipping Ukraine’s government for the second time in a decade. The government installed by coup plotter Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative Project for a New American Century founder Robert Kagan’s soulmate, was infested with anti-Russian Nazis. Nuland teamed up with then Vice President Joe Biden, who helped lead the coup from the White House.

This illegal overthrow of a duly elected government led to a brutal war in eastern Ukraine which has killed more than 14,000 people. This is the war that precipitated the crisis we see today. The ethnic Russian people of the Donbas region, the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, refused to be ruled by an anti-Russian coup junta. Kiev launched a merciless so-called war on terror against them. Nazis and jihadists attacked the people of the Donbas. Putin then sent deniable, clandestine forces to support the republics’ autonomy. But he refused to recognize their independence for seven years.

Five years ago, Donald Trump began arming Ukraine with anti-tank missiles. As with Biden’s administration, the Trump regime poured weapons into Ukraine, which fell into the hands of Nazi security forces. The arms were sent to Kiev and used in the east to mass murder ethnic Russians in a violent effort to consolidate control of the divided country. Though they knew well that thousands of people were dying in numbers far higher than anything we have seen thus far during Russia’s war, Washington continued to funnel tons of weapons into the country including armed patrol boats, rocket launchers, sniper rifles, and more missiles.

Trump bombed Russian mercenaries in Syria while American troops illegally occupied the eastern third of that country, itself a key Russian ally, explicitly to steal its oil resources. He also expanded NATO and continued the GOP tradition of ripping up critical arms treaties such as the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Open Skies.

Beginning with the Obama government, CIA paramilitaries and the Pentagon’s Special Forces were deployed to train militants to carry out Kiev’s war. Concurrently, the CIA has been training these same forces at a secret base in the southern United States.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Pentagon Drops Truth Bombs To Stave Off War With Russia

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2022

The second article directly undermines Biden’s dramatic warning about a false flag chemical attack. Reuters reported: “The United States has not yet seen any concrete indications of an imminent Russian chemical or biological weapons attack in Ukraine but is closely monitoring streams of intelligence for them, a senior U.S. defense official said.”

It quoted the Pentagon official as saying, “There’s no indication that there’s something imminent in that regard right now.” Neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post published the Reuters article, which appeared in the more obscure U.S. News and World Report. 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story — even if it could lead to the most devastating consequences in history.

By Joe Lauria
Consortium News

Two leaked stories from the Pentagon have exposed the lies of mainstream media about how Russia is conducting the Ukraine war in a bid to counter propaganda intended to get NATO into the conflict, writes Joe Lauria.

The Pentagon is engaged in a consequential battle with the U.S. State Department and the Congress to prevent a direct military confrontation with Russia, which could unleash the most unimaginable horror of war.

President Joe Biden is caught in the middle of the fray. So far he is siding with the Defense Department, saying there cannot be a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine fighting Russian aircraft because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

“President Biden’s been clear that U.S. troops won’t fight Russia in Ukraine, and if you establish a no-fly zone, certainly in order to enforce that no-fly zone, you’ll have to engage Russian aircraft. And again, that would put us at war with Russia,” said U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin earlier this month. (The administration plan is to bring down the Russian government through a ground insurgency and economic war, not a direct military one.)

But pressure on the White House from some members of Congress and especially the press corps is unrelenting to recklessly bring NATO directly into the war. (Secretary of State Antony Blinken who initially backed a plan to send NATO plans from Poland to Ukraine has backed down and now opposes the no-fly zone. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also supported the Polish planes scheme, which was shot down by the Pentagon.)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, hailed as a virtual superhero in Western media, has vacillated between openness to negotiating a peace settlement with Russia and calling for NATO, again on Friday, to “close the skies” above Ukraine. To save his country he appears willing to risk endangering the entire world.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What About Pentagon and CIA Aggression Against Cuba?

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2022

Keeping government in perspective. The perspective never changes.

Operation Northwoods called for real terrorist attacks against American citizens, in which Americans would die. The attacks (and murders) would be carried out by Pentagon agents secretly posing as Cuban communists. 

by Jacob G. Hornberger

While the mainstream media and American statists remain transfixed on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s difficult not to notice their moral blindness with respect to the evil and hypocrisy of the Pentagon and the CIA, which have spent years ginning up this deadly and destructive crisis as part of their political gamesmanship against Russia.

After all, let’s face it: When it was the Pentagon and the CIA invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the reaction of the mainstream media and American statists was totally opposite to how they have responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. During those deadly and destructive invasions, there was hardly ever any sympathy for the victims and instead accolades, praise, and glorification of the invaders. Don’t forget the daily mantra that everyone was exhorted to recite, “Support the troops!”

But let’s leave Iraq and Afghanistan aside and let’s go back to the early 1960s, when the CIA and the Pentagon were doing everything they could, including committing fraud, to induce President Kennedy to invade Cuba, which is every bit as sovereign and independent as Ukraine. 

Let’s begin with a recent statement by U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price, who was expressing the official position of the Pentagon and the CIA. Price stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to violate “core principles,” including “the principle that each and every country has a sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy, has a sovereign right to determine for itself with whom it will choose to associate in terms of its alliances, its partnerships, and what orientation it wishes to direct its gaze.”

Price was referring to Ukraine’s “right” to join NATO, the corrupt bureaucratic dinosaur that should have gone out of existence at the ostensible end of the Cold War. Price’s statement confirms, of course, the point I have long been making — that the war in Ukraine is not about freedom, it’s about NATO.

Keep Price’s statement in mind as we go back to the height of the Cold War and see how the Pentagon and the CIA were hell-bent on doing to Cuba what Russia is now doing to Ukraine.

That’s what the CIA’s invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba was all about — an effort to invade the island for the sake of ousting the Castro regime from power and replacing it with another corrupt and brutal U.S. puppet dictatorship, such as that of Fulgencio Batista, the brutal pro-U.S. dictatorial puppet that the Cuban revolution succeeded in ousting from power.

But that’s not all there is to the Bay of Pigs story. As I detail in my new book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, the Pentagon and the CIA were engaged in political gamesmanship against President Kennedy, who the CIA considered to be a neophyte president who could easily be manipulated into ordering an invasion of Cuba, one that would have been no different from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

The CIA told Kennedy that its invasion would succeed without direct U.S. military air and ground support. It was a lie — a deliberate, knowing, intentional lie. The CIA was just playing and maneuvering what they considered was an easily manipulable president. The CIA figured that once the invasion began faltering, Kennedy would have no choice but to send in air support,

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

When the Pentagon Wanted to Nuke Russia

Posted by M. C. on March 12, 2022

by Douglas Horne

The following is an excerpt from FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

On July 20, 1961, at a National Security Council meeting, JFK was compelled to consider the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. This meeting occurred in the context of the escalating Berlin Crisis with the USSR. During this meeting he was briefed on the Single Integrated Operational Plan for general nuclear war, SIOP-62. [The SIOP plans were named after the fiscal year for which they were effective; fiscal year ’62 commenced in July 1961.] This plan represented the philosophy of General Curtis LeMay, promoted throughout the 1950s by SAC, and first implemented as a “SIOP” (a national plan for all the armed services) in 1960 by his chosen successor as SAC’s commander, General Thomas Power. National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy later disapprovingly referred to SIOP-62 and its predecessors as “a massive, total, comprehensive, obliterating strategic attack … on everything Red.” It called for the overwhelming destruction of all Communist Bloc nations — both military bases and urban/industrial centers — in the event of war with any one of its members. (Thus, China would have been destroyed in the event of war with the USSR — as well as little Albania.) It allowed for no flexibility once nuclear general war — the use of strategic weapons — began.

A seminal article was written about this meeting in the fall 1994 issue of The American Prospect, co-authored by Heather A. Purcell and James K. Galbraith [the son of JFK’s former ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith], titled: “Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?” Key information in the article was obtained from a memo written for LBJ by his military aide, USAF Colonel Howard Burris, as well as from an oral history interview of Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatrick in 1970.

Historian James Douglass has written in detail about the meeting in his book JFK and the Unspeakable:

At the July 20, 1961 NSC meeting, General Hickey, chairman of the ‘Net Evaluation Subcommittee’ of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented a plan for a nuclear surprise attack on the Soviet Union “in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions.” Other presenters of the preemptive strike plan included General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and CIA Director Allen Dulles. Vice President Johnson’s military aide, Howard Burris, wrote a memorandum of the meeting for Johnson, who was not present. … While the Burris memorandum is valuable in its revelation of the first-strike agenda, it does not mention Kennedy’s ultimate disgust with the entire process. We know that fact from its disclosure in an oral history by Roswell Gilpatric, JFK’s Deputy Secretary of Defense. Gilpatric described the meeting’s abrupt conclusion: “Finally Kennedy got up and walked right out in the middle of it, and that was the end of it.”

Kennedy’s disgusted reaction to this National Security Council meeting was also recorded in books written by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; McGeorge Bundy; and Dean Rusk. None of them, however, identified the first-strike focus of the meeting that prompted the disgust. They describe the meeting in only the most general terms as “the Net Evaluation, an annual doomsday briefing analyzing the chances of nuclear war” (Schlesinger) or as “a formal briefing on the net assessment of a general nuclear war between the two superpowers” (Bundy). However, as much as JFK was appalled by a general nuclear war, his walkout was in response to a more specific evil in his own ranks: U.S. military and CIA leaders were enlisting his support for a plan to launch a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Kennedy didn’t just walk out. He also said what he thought of the entire proceeding. As he led Rusk back to the Oval Office, with what Rusk described as “a strange look on his face,” Kennedy turned and said to his Secretary of State, “And we call ourselves the human race.”

The attitude behind the recommendation at the July 20 NSC meeting to seriously consider launching a pre-emptive first strike in 1963 was that which had been advocated by Curtis LeMay throughout the 1950s. Robert McNamara summarized LeMay’s philosophy in the documentary Fog of War, when he said: “LeMay believed that ultimately we were going to have to confront these people [meaning the Soviet Union] in a conflict with nuclear weapons, and by God, we’d better do it when we have greater superiority than we will have in the future.” At various times during JFK’s Presidency, Dean Acheson (one of the “Wise Old Men” of Washington), Paul Nitze, Roswell Gilpatric, and many others within the policy-making apparatus felt the same way.

This post was written by: Douglas Horne

Douglas Horne served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board and is the author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ukraine: Why the Pentagon and the CIA Hate Julian Assange

Posted by M. C. on March 6, 2022

In other words, Burns’s cable constitutes conclusive proof that the Pentagon and the CIA knew with absolute certainty what Russia’s response would be if they threatened to have NATO absorb Ukraine.

by Jacob G. Hornberger

As most everyone knows, the hatred that U.S. officials have for Julian Assange has no bounds. For years, they have relentlessly and obsessively done everything they can to destroy, isolate, persecute, prosecute, incarcerate, torture, and hound the guy to death. They have even contemplated assassinating him through their omnipotent, dark-side, non-reviewable power of assassination, a power that the U.S. national-security establishment wields and exercises on a regular basis without any interference by the federal judiciary or the Congress.

Why do they hate Assange so much? Because he disclosed to the American people dark-side secrets of the U.S. national-security establishment. In a national-security state form of governmental structure, that is among the gravest offenses that a person can ever commit. 

Consider, for example, a certain cable that Assange’s organization WikiLeaks revealed to the world. The cable was sent in 2009 — 13 years ago — by William J. Burns, the U.S. Ambassador to Russia. It stated in part: 

NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains “an emotional and neuralgic” issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.  Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia’s defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally….

….During his annual review of Russia’s foreign policy January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat. While Russia might believe statements from the West that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential…. While Russian opposition to the first round of NATO enlargement in the mid-1990’s was strong, Russia now feels itself able to respond more forcefully to what it perceives as actions contrary to its national interests.

Now, keep in mind something important: U.S. Ambassador Burns became CIA director on March 19, 2021. Why is that important? Because Burns has been the director of the CIA for almost a year before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

In other words, Burns’s cable constitutes conclusive proof that the Pentagon and the CIA knew with absolute certainty what Russia’s response would be if they threatened to have NATO absorb Ukraine. As I and others have pointed out, by threatening to absorb NATO, the Pentagon and the CIA knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately cornered Russia into making an untenable choice: (1) permit Ukraine to join NATO, which would thereby enable the Pentagon and the CIA to install military bases, missiles, tanks, troops, and other weaponry on Russia’s border, or  (2) invade Ukraine to prevent that from happening. (See my articles “Dismantle the U.S. National Security State, Now” and “The Evil and Malevolence of the Pentagon’s Brilliant Strategy in Ukraine.” Also see “It All Comes Back to NATO” by Ron Paul.”)

Do you see why they hate Assange so much? Do you see why they have gone after him so viciously? If WikiLeaks had not revealed Burns’s cable, the Pentagon and the CIA could have acted innocent and labeled anyone who outlined their strategy as a “conspiracy theorist.” The disclosure of Burn’s cable foreclosed that possibility and revealed as an absolute certainty that both the Pentagon and the CIA knew that Russia, when placed in the corner in which the Pentagon and the CIA maneuvered it, would choose to invade Ukraine rather than permit the Pentagon and the CIA to install their military bases, missiles, tanks, troops, and other weaponry on Russia’s border.

I ask you a simple question: Which is more evil: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or the Pentagon’s and CIA’s political gamesmanship that brought about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? After all, at the risk of stating the obvious, simply because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is evil doesn’t convert the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s strategy to induce Russia to invade Ukraine into something good. Despite the evil of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s political gamesmanship that produced Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remains evil as well and is possibly even more evil.

Notice something important about the U.S. mainstream press. They focus exclusively on the evil of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They don’t even mention the evil of the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s political gamesmanship that brought about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Why is that? 

The Pentagon and the CIA have lots of assets within the mainstream press. Anyone who honestly thinks that the CIA abandoned its Operation Mockingbird program after it became public is suffering from extreme naïveté. Why would the CIA abandon a program in which mainstream journalists are available to spout the national-security establishment’s propaganda whenever called upon to do so?

But what about American statists, especially those who are expressing outrage over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Why aren’t they as outraged over the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s political maneuvering as they are at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They too are focusing exclusively on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with no focus whatsoever on the evil of the role that the Pentagon and the CIA have played in producing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After all, the condemnation of both events are not mutually exclusive. One can easily condemn both. See, for example, Andrew Bacevich’s excellent article, “US Can’t Absolve Itself of Responsibility for Putin’s Ukraine Invasion.”

The answer lies in the extreme refusal of American statists to criticize or condemn the U.S. national-security establishment. The Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which are the three principal components of the U.S. national-security establishment, are a triune god to American statists, no different from the triune god that American Christians worship on Sundays. That’s why, for example, American statists cheered when the Pentagon and the CIA were doing to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan the same thing that Russia is now doing to the people of Ukraine.

After all, for the past several years or even months there could have been massive protests by American statists against how the Pentagon and the CIA were using NATO to intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately bring about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Those protests could have conceivably pressured the Pentagon and the CIA to direct President Biden to publicly foreswear NATO’s absorption of Ukraine. If Biden had just made that simple announcement, there never would have been a Russian invasion of Ukraine, and all those dead Russian soldiers and Ukrainian people would still be alive today.

But as we all know, no such protests ever took place. Given the unswerving devotion to their political triune god, American statists could not even conceive of going down what to them would be an “unpatriotic” road — a road that entailed open opposition to their triune political god. That’s undoubtedly the big reason for the silence that characterizes American statists today toward what the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s political gamesmanship toward Russia has wrought for the people of Ukraine.

It’s worth mentioning the outcome of the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s political gamesmanship. Massive death and destruction in Ukraine. A new (and old) official enemy for the U.S. that is now garnering the ire of the entire world. A massive rallying to the Pentagon and the CIA, possibly even more so than during the Cold War or after the 9/11 attacks. Unlimited tax-funded largess flooding into the coffers of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA and their ever-growing army of “defense” contractors. Ever-growing omnipotent power of the national-security establishment within America’s federal governmental structure. Ever more federal spending, debt, and inflation. The ever-expanding destruction of the rights and liberties of the American people. Greater possibility of all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States.

But at least the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s deadly, vicious, and destructive gamesmanship is there for all who care to see it. Is it any wonder why they hate Julian Assange?


Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Experts from Russia, Europe and US discussed the reasons for the geopolitical clash of the West with Russia

Posted by M. C. on February 21, 2022

“The Biden administration simply needs a new cold war to satisfy the appetites of the Pentagon. American politicians are investors and shareholders of the largest arms companies, so they have a financial interest in supporting conflicts around the world, regardless of the loss of life, ”Dugan said.

Among the largest contracts, Dugan mentioned the supply of hundreds of tons of weapons to the Ukraine, a contract for 250 Abrams tanks to Poland and 64 F-35 fighter jets to Finland.

From Batko Milacic for the Saker Blog

On February 15, the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation hosted an international conference “Geopolitical war of the West against Russia: Ukrainian case”. During the event, political scientists, experts, journalists and public figures from Russia, United States, Italy, Germany, Finland, Belgium and other countries discussed possible developments around Ukraine.

Director of the Democracy Research Foundation Maxim Grigoriev reminded the audience about the Colin Powell’s accusations that Iraq has nuclear weapons, which launched the US attack on Iraq and about the massive disinformation campaign in the part of Western press against Syria. Grigoriev was a member of the commission that traveled to the Syrian city of Douma, where, according to some media reports from the West, government forces carried out a chemical attack against the civilian population, which served as a pretext for Washington to launch another missile strike.

“I personally was in the same house and entrance where video footage of dead people was allegedly filmed,” Maxim Grigoriev said. “We interviewed the people who lived there. None of them were hurt. We described in detail that information war against Syria and the activities of the White Helmets group in our book.”

The situation in Ukraine that has developed over the past eight years has much in common with the information provocations of the United States against Syria.

“As you know, the shelling of the civilian population of Donbass, whose victims include women and children, is qualified by international humanitarian law as war crimes,” Grigoriev stressed.

Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin in his speech emphasized that the massive information campaign against Russia is an obvious evidence that the US is interested in new war and it is preparing for it. Experts from the US and Europe discussed the reasons for the geopolitical war of the West against Russia.

“The fact is that from a geopolitical point of view, Washington needs this war for several reasons,” Korovin explained. – Firstly, this war will very seriously throw Russia away from Europe and create a huge number of problems in building Russian-European relations, including building a geopolitical axis. Secondly, Washington certainly needs some kind of common enemy. There was a moment when the US lost this enemy. They were assigned international terrorism, then Islamism, which was equated even with fascism. Now such an enemy is again being made from Russia.

Another reason for the aggressive policy of some Western countries towards Russia, Korovin see in the need to consolidate the NATO bloc, which has lost all meaning without a clear geopolitical opponent, in the role of which the USSR used to act. The policy of sanctions and pressure is also one of the elements of the geopolitical game of the US with Russia.

“Ultimately, the imposed sanctions should greatly undermine the position of the Russian president, turn the elites against him and thereby accelerate what Western strategists want – the removal of the Russian president,” Korovin said.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »