Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice (Part 11 – Epilogue & Summary)

Image result for images president kennedy   –


If this is the first article you read in this series about “Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice”, you might be interested to read first about the 8 Presidents being discussed in the 10 earlier chapters . Start in this case at Part 1 or 2 and work your way up to Chapter 10. Perhaps one at the time. Those chapters  can be found in “Recent Posts” at the right upper area of this page in the July/August 2011 editions. Other articles can be found in different monthly sections….Whilst not everybody agrees, – it is my opinion that with the arrival of President Obama in 2009, a new chapter started with various and valuable dimensions, leaving for the US a dark past behind since the assassination of President John F Kennedy in 1963.

Image result for images president kennedy

The US is a country with wide spectrum divisions and dangers but still now more civilised than in the way certain things have been dealt with in the past at the level of the Executive Branch. Let’s hope it stay this way in the years ahead

Related image


 “I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world, not only for its strength, but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.”
Related imageRelated image
 –Related image
“With all the history of war, and the human race’s history unfortunately has been a good deal more war than peace, with nuclear weapons distributed all through the world, and available, and the strong reluctance of any people to accept defeat, I see the possibility in the 1970’s of the President of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have these weapons.”
“My fellow Americans, let us take that first step. Let us…step back from the shadow of war and seek out the way of peace. And if that journey is a thousand miles, or even more, let history record that we, in this land, at this time, took the first step.”    
Related image
“The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.”   John F Kennedy, the 35th US President.
Related image

The beauty of a democracy is that systems of government are far more flexible than an autocracy, provided that voters use their right to vote with wisdom and commitment to select the people who are able to represent them with the required integrity and courage to work those systems for the better welfare of the people they represent. “Profiles in US Presidential violations of Justice” has neither been an example of excellence in US Government systems in the domain of the Executive branch, nor has it been able to give the worst examples at the background of the past operating powers in the process of their actions.   The justice violations as part of Presidential powers or extended powers at the Executive branch of the US have been quite clear at certain areas and the US  both as a Republic and a Democracy has been quite damaged since the assassination on the 35th US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It is fair to say that there has been an increasing level of disconnection between citizens and their government, in part at least as due to the lack of transparency, the various cover up’s, the number of illegal and criminal covert operations, the massive increase and difficult to control intelligence units. Apart from the contribution to unrest in the world and sacrificing people on pointless battlefields.

Related image


Whilst most people working in US Agencies including those of the Military and the CIA are most valuable and do a good job in the interest of their country, the dangers of the Pentagon and the CIA being overpowering and misleading the US President to help long-term US military strategy, including the future US direction, are the most prominent dangers of the US as a democracy. As earlier reflected, a general will do most of the times an excellent job at war, the preparation, the logistics etc. Once they are ordered to go to war they will do it right and the army will do it right and if such a war has a real purpose as the last possible option after all other options did not work, there are occasions this could be a justified war. The first direction however should be always to prevent either war or terror. The military presence in US policy making and/or direction has always been more than much. Some earlier US Presidents did warn for the potential dangers in retrospect.

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image

Related image


After the JFK  assassination most US Presidents were at some level marionettes of those major background powers and with President Obama it is still wait and see how matters will evolve as he needs to balance with extreme caution amidst various dynamics.

Regarding the latest full Presidency of G.W. Bush and the 9/11 Commission it is worth to make the added notations:

The “Sept. 11 Commission”  did investigate  a claim that U.S. defense intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as a likely part of an al Qaeda cell more than a year before the 2001 hijackings but did not send the information to law enforcement. Republican Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said that the men were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as “Able Danger.” An earlier link to al Qaeda than any previously disclosed intelligence about Atta is correct. “The 9/11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohamed Atta or of his cell,”  co-Chairman of the “September 11 Commission”  Lee H. Hamilton said.  This is correct as well.

Many of the 9/11 family reactions on this late information is not surprising as it would seem some significant issues have not been properly investigated.  The question is about why  didn’t “Able Danger” report their finding to the FBI?  Why wasn’t Atta and other 9/11 terrorists put on a watch list even though there was evidence of their terrorist ties?  Have there been profound failures or were there other reasons which needed to be concealed at all cost?

The truth is that “Able Danger” was banned from sharing information with the FBI. One of the members of  the “9/11 Commission” herself was  deeply involved  in some Clinton scandals, including “Chinagate”. Jamie Gorelick was Janet Reno’s right hand “man” in the Justice Department.

The answer to the question about why this new information came that late, being banned from the Commission, is because Jamie Gorelick was on the Commission for the purpose to hide information, as such to protect the position of former President Clinton, – as it would seem. There have been never proper investigations in the the intelligence failures of the Clinton era. John Deutch, former Director of Central Intelligence, had signed a criminal plea agreement in connection with his mishandling of national secrets the day before being pardoned by the outgoing President Clinton.

During Clinton’s Presidency  in 1997 the Taliban was  invited in Texas to meet with former US President G.H.W. Bush.. They had their meeting.

Current President Karzai of Afghanistan worked for former US President G.H.Bush (Bush,sr) quite some time ago and there have been close longstanding Taliban connections  between former President Bush and the CIA at the time. The CIA supported the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets many years ago, as we did see in the earlier chapters. Within this context Osama bin Laden did visit the US for support and weapons to be distributed to the Taliban. It was within this context that there has been meetings between Taliban representatives and G.H Bush in Texas, at the invitation of the former US President. Whilst the CIA used Massoud (a famous Mujahideen leader)  for a while to help the US force, – during the meeting however between Bush and the Taliban arrangements were made to assassinate Massoud. Other issues, including money oil and drugs profits, were discussed as well. In the  Taliban’s rise to power there was very much fighting and complex dynamics. Ahmad Shah Massoud  tried to start a nationwide political process with the goal of national consolidation and democratic elections, also inviting the Taliban to join the process and to contribute to stability. The last really so much required in Afghanistan.  Ahmad Shah Massoud had defeated the Soviet Red Army nine times in his home region of Panjshir, in north-eastern Afghanistan. He was highly regarded. However the Taliban declined to join such a political process. Osama bin Laden and Massoud were in essence enemies of each other. In the case of the Massoud assassination Karzai did act for Bush, and ordered as requested by Bush the assassination of Massoud. Two day before 9/11 he was killed.  Massoud had his own intelligence network and knew too much of what was going to happen. Massoud was aware of the Bush Karzai connections and the Taliban visit to  Texas and him blowing the whistle about 9/11 was obviously not allowed. He warned before 9/11 about pending terror attacks.

There have been various occasions that the US could have disposed Osama bin Laden but always at the last-minute there was a stand down. Osama bin Laden had to help first a secret and well prepared mission supported by the US Government, despite the existing tensions. He was a culprit used for a mission to help US foreign policy and to help the US to prepare for war with enough public support.  Bin Laden did not know that al-Qaeda would have “free access” to the US at the time of 9/11, and that the damage would be of such extended level.

Recordings from Rumsfeld before 9/11 did show that the only way America would be able to retaliate was a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack would give an excuse to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing else would support such an agenda in the eyes of the world and the US. A terrorist attack would be the justification for plans being in place already. The CIA was well prepared to add to the damage on that fateful day in New York. On the night Bush gave his “Axis of Evil” designation to Afghanistan US forces were less than four hours from acquiring Osama Bin Laden. As requested by G.W.Bush Bill Richardson  intervened and the US missed deliberately a chance to get bin-Laden.

The time was not ready to dispose Osama bin Laden. Richardson was earlier the designated man to negotiate with the Taliban as part  of secret US policies in 1996 of a failed UNOCAL deal (Unocal Corporation) about the proposed building of an oil pipeline through the country. It failed, hence the US wanted to retaliate against the Taliban down the track. The Taliban and al-Qaeda (bin-Laden) were not always that friendly with each other. There have been various discussion to dispose bin-Laden but the US wanted to wait and allow Osama bin-Laden to execute his plan to attack the US. Massoud was aware of some part of the 9/11 plan, hence Karzai and his Taliban carried out the assassination for G.W. Bush  2 days before 9/11. Massoud would have blown the whistle in retrospect.

The Massoud assassination was however the biggest mistake ever made in terms of the US Afghanistan policy. The course of the Afghan unrest could have ended in favor of Massoud as he was both highly regarded and had most of the support for a different more fruitful direction in this troubled country, but it didn’t happen.  Massoud had intelligence information on 9/11 and 9/11 was supposed to go ahead as the G.W.Bush Administrattion with Cheney and Rumsfeld had prepared for it because (as mentioned) a trigger was required to start a war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, apart from the fact that it would give an excuse to attack Iraq as well if evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” being around could be created.  We know that there were no weapons of “mass destruction” in Iraq, but for attacking Iraq and disposing Saddam Hussein such required evidence could be fabricated in such a way that allies to join this mission would believe in a legitimate war against Iraq, and so it happened….

Massoud – in Afghanistan – had enough influence in retrospect to solve the problem in Afghanistan, to stop eventually the violence in a natural way. He had actually more influence than Osama bin-Laden and was of an entirely different nature.  He would have solved the problems eventually without any need for the US to intervene. However the US had mixed agenda’s and different interests.

Both Clinton and G.W.Bush had secrets to keep for the 9/11 Commission. Bush wanted to have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan and provided deliberately Bin-Laden and al-Qaeda the opportunity for the 9/11 attacks with a stand down in security systems (different but similar with the JFK assassination, however this time with Rumsfeld & Cheney support), meanwhile organising before the attack the CIA (?) to plant bombs underneath the WTC buildings facilitating a controlled demolition.  WTC7 was involved as well  as there was a lot of Intelligence information re 9/11 (on purpose stored there). This would be all destroyed when WTC 7 would come down. WTC7 did however not endure the impact of a plane. The Pentagon attack was inflicted by missiles and not by the impact of a plane, despite the Government report. The last was an attack not inflicted by al-Qaeda, neither were the explosives bringing down the WTC buildings related with al-Qaeda. Those additions were ordered by the Executive branch of the US Government.

There was no wisdom at all in US policy at the time of the G.W. Bush Administration. Subject to further Senate and court hearings, the actions of former US President G.W.Bush were both criminal within and outside the US. Traveling to Switzerland he would have to stand trial as part of human right abuses as part of Swiss legislation in line with the Convention from Geneva. In the US he is a free man, protected by legislation, – the wrong legislation in his case.

Former US President G.W.Bush was responsible for both the preventable 9/11 implications and 2 most expensive wars for which the US is still paying the price. If Massoud would have had US protection and support at the time  the problems in Afghanistan would have been resolved without any intervention and President Obama would not have faced the problems as they are now.  The 9/11 drama was a calculated and criminal decision in the White House to mislead both the US and the world at the time to facilitate a reason to go to a war being acceptable to the world. However it came at a cost for those living in New York, it came at a cost for all people being involved in the war’s which followed and it came at a cost of human rights, the last being violated at all dimensions. The Kennedy assassination in 1963 was the start of a trend to be continued in various Administrations,  – covert operations being continued, – but 9/11 was the worst.

We know Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US as was the President’s Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to President George W. Bush on the 6th of August, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda  36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacksCBS Evening News reported on this leaked memo document on the 15th of May 2002. The President’s Daily Brief (PDB) has important classified information on national security. The last collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies and given to the president and a select group of senior officials.  The PDB was reported in the 9/11 Commission Report on the 22nd of July 2004. The Phoenix Memo from the 10th of July 2001 reflects on FBI awareness. The recommendations were ignored and the person ignoring those recommendations was promoted after the 9/11 attacks by G.W.Bush.  Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice  are only a few groups as part of “the 9/11 Truth movement”, rejecting the outcome of the government facilitated “9/11 Commission Report”. As mentioned in the chapter about former US President G.W. Bush, – previous US President Carter did indicate the need for new investigations as well. It never happened.

Like the Government did stick in 1964 to the outcome of the Warren Commission report for many years, US Administrations will stick to the 9/11 Commission conclusions and do not and will not contest the outcome of this Commission due to the darker secrets being the foundation of ill selected wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only this, there was a hidden crime against US citizens in New York, allowed to be happening by the US Government at the time,  as mentioned to facilitate a reason to go to war.

It is this element of decision making in the White House which is so dangerous, –  if allowed to happen in the US without implications for those being responsible. I will come back on this. The US has a very poor record in the criminal justice systems when it applies to the US establishment.

Related image

For the purpose of this epilogue let’s just summarise the US Presidents from Lyndon Johnson until G.Bush, based on the information in the past chapters:

The 36th US President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

After the JFK assassination on the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas (Texas)  Johnson (LBJ) became the new US President. The June edition of this web blog on the JFK assassination provides more detail. Whilst Kennedy declared to withdraw from Vietnam, after the JFK  assassination Johnson increased the forces in Vietnam almost immediately and with the Civil Rights Act being pushed through Congress he did win the 1965 elections easily. He ordered in 1965 the Airmobile Division and various CIA forces to go to Vietnam to enhance the fighting strength in this region, followed by an increased military fighting strength from 75000 to 125000 man. As often happens in history there needs to be a trigger to get public opinion on board when it applies to extending or starting war. We did see this on various occasions, 9/11 included. LBJ used a surprise Vietcong attack at Pleiku in which 6 American military advisers were killed and 116 wounded on the 6th of February 1965.  LBJ’s aides assisted him with a 2 stage and premeditated contingencies plan , prepared several months before the attack. The first step was a retaliation airstrike in North Vietnam and the second step was to intensify the air war as implemented in 1965. It proved that LBJ decided on this level of intervention without really considering the costs and implications. This happened later as well when G.W Bush decided to go to 2 different wars. LBJ was pushed by both the CIA and the Pentagon not to change direction and as both the CIA and Pentagon were the background powers playing a part in the JFK’s assassination with full LBJ’s approval  beforehand, he had likely not much choice to continue the way it was to get an US military victory. This was the military aim. Lyndon Johnson was a most compromised and controversial man. By the end of August 1966 only 47% in the US did approve Johnson’s Presidency. The war became increasingly unpopular. By 1968 more than 500000 US military troops were concentrated in Vietnam. The war was costing some 2 billion dollars a month and meanwhile more bombs were dropped in Vietnam than during the second world war. LBJ did fully support the JFK assassination cover up with  the installation of the Warren Commission and “highly favourable” CIA representatives running the historical show this Commission provided to mislead the US people and Congress. Whilst LBJ deciding not to be reelected anymore in 1968 this did not mean that the CIA and Pentagon’s directions about Vietnam had changed. LBJ did serve a purpose, as other US Presidents served a military purpose. Issues around the JFK assassination as a matter of “national security”were still neither to be disclosed  nor the direction of Vietnam after 1968 to be  discontinued.  LBJ not being a Presidential candidate anymore in 1968 opened the way for new background dynamics.

Both the CIA, the FBI with Hoover and  the Pentagon were profoundly against a potential Robert Francis Kennedy being US President in 1968.  RFK would have been neither an US President being compromised by the military establishment nor by the CIA or Hoover. With RFK  winning the California primaries in June 1968 he became the person who would likely defeat Nixon in 1968. Nixon was aware of this, like FBI Chief Hoover. Nixon was from CIA perspective “100% save for US military policy” and the anti-war movement needed to be broken. First by taking Martin Luther King,jr out of the picture and when Robert Kennedy increased in popularity and became the likely candidate to win the elections after the primaries in California,  the premeditated strategy was to assassinate Kennedy as he was considered to be at this stage the main obstacle for the CIA’s defined “national security”, – like his brother ( the former US President) was in 1963. The implications would be horrendous if  Kennedy would be elected President in 1968.  He was perhaps even more determined than his brother “Jack”.  Both the FBI (with Hoover still being the Chief) and the CIA could not face this prospect as with RFK being President the withdrawal from Vietnam would become a fact. Hoover would likely lose his job with everything he inflicted at the background of the various scenes in which he played a role.  However, last but not least the JFK assassination with a floored Warren Commission report would be vigorously investigated and CIA involvement with Lyndon Johnson’s part would be disclosed to the public. As such Kennedy would likely get both Congressional and public support to reorganise the CIA and  bring LBJ to justice, – besides Nixon. Nixon was involved as well in the JFK assassination and in particular ordering Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. No, Nixon was not happy either with facing a second Kennedy in a Presidential contest as with RFK potentially winning he could forget his political future as well.

RFK became a security risk. As a US Senator of New York he was of no harm but being the potential next US President in 1968 after Johnson would open all the past corruptions from the LBJ US Government, including  various other people being involved in the assassination of his brother (the 35th US President) and “Bobby” for certain would not take any nonsense.  He did not make it.  The cover up was smart and well swallowed by the American public. Americans tend to swallow easily what the Government tells them and the media control has helped a fair bit. The question is who gave the order to take him as a second Kennedy out of the picture. Days before the JFK assassination Robert Kennedy was in the process of leaking most damaging information to Life Magazine about the Bobby Baker scandal in which Johnson was clearly involved, with an earlier political assassination in which LBJ was reportedly involved. LBJ did order that particular assassination. If this would leak with the other corruption issues, it would blow his political career for once and for all. However the 22nd of November 1963 did change history for once and for all. FBI Chief Hoover assisted LBJ to prevent the Bobby Baker scandal leaking to the press after LBJ’s inauguration. Hoover was always so helpful.

Both the combination of LBJ being unpopular, the riots in Chicago and the discouragement of both African – Americans and liberals after the assassinations of both MLK and RFK contributed to the fact that former Vice President Nixon (under Eisenhower) did win the Presidential elections  from Hubert Humphrey (LBJ’s Vice President). Robert Kennedy’s assassination did  not only play Nixon  in his favour, but it played his close ally Hoover and the CIA/military establishment in their favour as well.  LBJ likewise did not need to worry about RFK anymore. The secrets regarding the 22nd of November 1963 in Dallas would be even more secured with Richard Nixon than with Hubert Humphrey. The background powers in the US proved to be succesful in their strategic approach with impact on public opinion as well. Richard Nixon did win the Presidential elections carrying  32  States and 301 Electoral votes. Richard Nixon was an old close ally of both Hoover and the “old” military establishment, and they had the man in the White House they needed.

The 37th US President Richard Milhouse Nixon.

Nixon mentioned in the 1968 campaign that he had a secret plan  for a complete withdrawal from Vietnam. It could not be disclosed as yet. With the assassination of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King the main obstacles for escalating the war in Vietnam were however eliminated with the anti-war movement in part being crushed, and once Nixon became US President the war in Vietnam went to full gear. Regarding the assassinations in the US on prominent people, drop by drop new revelations were allowed. Many years later Coretta Scot King (MLK’s wife) did win a wrongful death civil trial against Loyd Jowers and other unknown co-conspirators in 1999.  Jowers received $100000,- to arrange the assassination on MLK and the Jury was convinced that Government Agencies were parties to the assassination plot. It would seem that the LBJ government was involved at setting the stage of this assassination, using James Earl Ray as a scapegoat, as publicly on TV confirmed by Jowers on ABC’ Prime Time Life.  Jowers stated that both the mafia and the US Government were involved in the MLK assassination.  Reportedly Memphis police officer Lieutenant Earl Clark fired the fatal shots. The conspiracy did include J Edgar Hoover, Richard Helms, the CIA, the Memphis Police Department(MPD), Army intelligence and organised crime.  A very key person within the civil right movement was on the government payroll, responsible for infiltration and sabotage. A Jury in Memphis,TN, in November 1999 came to above conclusion after seventy witnesses testified under oath with 4000 pages of evidence, much of it was it new. The news of one of the most national security trials was suppressed by the US Government. It was clear that the 1997 reports of the House Select Committee on Assassinations re James Earl Ray justified verdict were wrong, besides other findings. Nixon’s Administration from 1974 sustained remarkable controversy over the Vietnam war. The invasion in 1970 of Cambodia and his approval of heavy bombardments on North Vietnam took his toll in the public opinion and he signed in 1973 a cease-fire. After Nixon returned from the Soviet Union, four men were arrested at the Watergate complex as due to burglary into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. After his reelection in 1972 the Watergate burglars were convicted and several of them implicated Nixon’s closest associates. It proved that the Watergate-break-in was only one of the several acts of both sabotage and political espionage carried out by the Nixon Administration. Nixon tried to keep away secret tapes from hearings by the “principal of separation of powers”. He had however to give many of the required tapes but not everything. The unravelling of the Nixon Presidency was unstoppable now and in 1974 the “House Judiciary Committee”started to discuss Nixon’s impeachment. It proved that Nixon had engaged in extensive domestic wiretapping apart from his questionable tax deductions through which he paid almost no federal income tax in 1973. On the 24th of July 1974 the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to give the tapes he had withheld. Those tapes were supposed to contain evidence of Nixon’s personal involvement in the Watergate operations including reflections about Watergate burglars being engaged in CIA operations. E.Howard Hunt was involved. This name will come back. The verdict was that if Nixon would not leave office on his own decision, he would be impeached, convicted and removed from office. On the 8th of August 1974 Nixon announced his resignation and Vice-President Ford was administered the Presidential oath on the 9th of August.

The 38th US President Gerald Ford

Related image

Ford gave Richard Nixon a full pardon in in 1974, only 1 month in office. Ford pardoned Richard Nixon completely, avoiding as such further investigations in the Watergate burglary as this would have far more implications than the public would be allowed to know. Gerald Ford has been part of the Warren Commission with the task to investigate the JFK assassination. Gerald Ford “the CIA man in Congress” had very close links with Allen Dulles, ex CIA Director who was fired by John F Kennedy.   Gerald Ford had close links with Nixon as well, in part as he became his Vice-President at a time when there was the potential that Richard Nixon could run in trouble over Watergate. However he knew Nixon before. Not only at the time of the Warren Commission, but both were for some time Republicans being on friendly terms with each other. Nixon knew that the Warren Commission was a hoax. Ford knew this as well. Both had their involvements. As mentioned Nixon reportedly ordered Ruby to kill Oswald just after the Kennedy assassination as it was clear that further hearings of Oswald would prove that Oswald was not involved at all. Jack Ruby had close connections with Nixon as he worked for him when Nixon was a fresh Congressman. Both Nixon and Ruby had close connections with the mafia and the FBI. However Ruby had to pay for it in prison, fearful for his life as he knew that Johnson and others who did orchestrate the JFK assassination were still in power and would not shy away to kill him if there was a risk that he would speak out. Ford was fully aware.Fully aware as well about the CIA/military involvement in the JFK assassination.FBI Chief Hoover was still alive at the time. We know that Spiro Agnew had to resign but his succession was for strategic reasons vital. Gerald Ford was  very close with FBI Chief Hoover. In his memoirs just before his death he revealed besides his relationship with Hoover, that the CIA was involved in the assassination on President John F Kennedy. It should be noted that Richard Nixon and George Herbert Bush (the latter US Vice-President and US President) have been integral to the Bay of Pigs operations, which became a failure under the Kennedy Administration as Kennedy based on the utterly poor intelligence information being provided, misleading actually, did not want an escalating war on Cuba.  As Vice-President, Nixon worked under President Eisenhower, together with Allen Dulles from the CIA and other senior CIA staff on the strategic planning of the Bay of Pigs. The bestselling book “Plausible Denial” by Mark Lane in 1991 reflects on both CIA involvement in JFK’s death, as part of Kennedy ignoring CIA advise to deploy American troops in Cuba. The later President Bush  was at the time of the Pay of Pigs a CIA  operative and the FBI confirmed in documents being released many years later that Bush sr was involved in the CIA briefing the day after the JFK assassination.The role of FBI Chief Hoover in the JFK assassination is most controversial as well. Gerald Ford as member of the Warren Commission leaked all confidential information to FBI Chief Hoover. The general picture is that key CIA people were involved in both the JFK and RFK assassination with Bay of Pigs links, besides Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, FBI Chief Hoover and at the background H.W.Bush being involved as part of his CIA deployment at the time of the covert operation on Kennedy. Gerald Ford became US President after Richard Nixon had to resign.  Ford always defended the lone gunman theory within the identified cause of death by the Warren Commission. As reflected he had excellent relations with the FBI Chief Hoover at the time.  Deliberately and against all usual protocol he did help FBI Chief Hoover by providing him all the in’s and out’s of the Warren Commission  in private and “confidential”, as such allowing Hoover to keep an eye on those members who would perhaps not follow Allen Dulles verdict on the “lone gunman theory”. There were clearly 2 members of the Warren Commission having some reservations on both the process and the verdict and even though not all evidence reached the Warren Commission (Allen Dulles was in a position to avoid at least some part to reach the Commission), it was clear from the beginning that the CIA played a most controversial role.  Some people within the Warren Commission knew more than others and Gerald Ford  together with  FBI Chief Hoover were in full agreement that the truth should never allowed to become public. The truth was that it was an inside job from the CIA, authorised by the highest levels of the Executive branch of the US Government  (like 9/11 was a fully supported covert operation by the US Government). Hence the lone gunman theory was supposed to be the only possible allowed verdict for both the US and Congress. A hard lie to be swallowed. However Gerald Ford went on national television to defend the findings of the Warren Commission in a most convincing way. If the broader involvement of the Executive branch would be public knowledge with the people who had knowledge of the pending events on the 22rd of November 1963, this would have caused the most dramatic Constitutional crisis ever in US history at the time. The same applies to 9/11.The US would not accept one of its most popular Presidents being killed with gross government involvement. With Ford’s insight in the CIA and his “absolute pardon” for Richard Nixon, he wanted to avoid further damaging investigations in which the CIA would be exposed. Even 10 years after the Warren Commission report. The point is that the  “Watergate” burglars played a role in the Kennedy assassination as well and the CIA played a role in the Watergate break in as it was assumed that the Democratic Party had access to some top-secret documents and photographs related to the JFK assassination. Especially imaging from a police helicopter could slash the Lee Harvey Oswald theory on his involvement, besides this the later fully revealed Zapruder film ruled out the lone gunman theory.  The FBI facilitated payments meanwhile to the burglars via “the Committee to Reelect President Nixon” in 1972. H. W. Bush (the later President) was the head of this Committee and claimed until the last Nixon tapes being released that Richard Nixon was innocent, obviously not without a purpose. Bush as well had more background information about the JFK assassination and those who were involved.

FBI Chief Edward Hoover died meanwhile on the 2nd of May 1972. The acting Head of the FBI then L Patrick Gray was ordered to save the situation for Nixon and had to destroy evidence from the safe of E. Howard Hunt on his assignments and working schedule for the CIA. Hunt was both involved in Watergate and the assassination of JFK.  Because of this destruction of evidence after taking those documents from Howard Hunt’s safe,  L Patrick Gray had to resign from the FBI.   E. Howard Hunt then made claims at the White House as he wanted to avoid conviction, but after the suspicious death of his wife he did plead guilty to the Watergate burglary, being concerned about the rest of his family.

If Watergate would be reopened Howard Hunt’s case would be likely first investigated.  If he would tell everything he knew,  including all the connections he had with people connected to “The Bay of Pig crisis”, the CIA  and others, –  the JFK assassination would likely be far more important then the real Watergate burglary itself.  The RFK assassination could be well involved in this as well. Gerald Ford was fully aware of the potential implications as he was already a compromised person before he even became Vice President. Donald Kendell , President of Pepsi – Cola, was considered to be “the eyes and ears” of the CIA in Cuba. The day before the JFK assassination he was meeting with Nixon. The Watergate burglars were tied up with both the Kennedy assassination and the Bay of Pigs. At least one of the Watergate burglars was on the CIA payroll on the 17th of June 1972 (Eugenio Martinez). The other Watergate conspirators included ex- FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy, ex – CIA agents james McCord and E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis and Virggilo Gonzales. Hunt being deeply involved in the Bay of Pigs operations retired later from the CIA . Several reports do show that Hunt was in Dallas on the 22nd of November 1963 when JFK was assassinated. Marita Lorenz testified under oath that she observed him paying off an assassination team in Dallas the night before the JFK murder.The latest Nixon tapes are studded with deletions, especially discussions about Hunt, the Bay of Pigs and JFK.  In May 1972 Nixon disclosed on tape to his 2 top aides that the Warren Commission was “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”  Hunt later did admit on CIA involvement in the JFK assassination and he fingered CIA officers Cord Meyer, David Phillips, William Harvey and David Morales. See article about the 2011 assessment on the JFK assassination on the web blog.

Once becoming US President, Gerald Ford did promote Donald Rumsfeld (discussed in the chapter about G.W.Bush) to help him to set the priorities for his Presidential direction. His Nixon pardon was neither an act of courage nor an act to protect the law and the US Constitution. He was part of the club of Presidents to keep the Coupe d’Etat as it took place in 1963 secret and as we will see the military powers affecting US policy did gain the most from this. The culture in the CIA with all sorts of secret covert operations was more established now and the background powers were so strong that even with the election of a US president not fitting the picture of the CIA and the military background powers, there was a way out as we did see with Carter.

The 39th US President James Earl Carter.  

Related image


Carter  did win with a narrow victory from the sitting President Gerald Ford. Obviously disappointing for the military background powers. It’s the problem of a Republic based on democratic principles. Sometimes there is a President not fitting the picture. However the CIA knows this and apart from the good people working in the CIA, there are people ready to help to play the game in such a way that democratic principles can be managed at the benefit of the military background powers, as we did see with Nixon. As President, Carter  balanced actually very well between  things being allowed or required and those matters not being desired or required. President Carter was however behind an Anglo-CIA conspiracy in Iran installing Khomeini and the Nullahs, based on intelligence information being provided on Khomeini staying in France at the time. Considering the outcome with Khomeini’s regime and the predicaments it caused in Iran and for the US eventually as well, in retrospect this decision may be considered as an error of judgement, however again based on  intelligence information at the time. A genuine error. There are error’s with some US President’s less genuine than they are presented. The seizure of US embassy hostages by Islāmic fundamentalists in Iran with hardly any progression in the resolution of this predicament was a major problem. CIA Director in President Carter’s time was his old class mate at the Naval Academy Stansfield Turner. Turner ceased 800 operational positions and he testified for US Congress revealing many covert CIA operations’ between late 1950ties and late 1960ties. He became very unpopular within the CIA itself.  His reform initiatives did not produce results as they were largely obstructed within the CIA.The frictions within the CIA with Turner/Carter made powerful background dynamics planning a strategy to get Carter not reelected. As it appeared the  Reagan – Bush campaign was worried that President Carter would reach a deal with Iran resulting in the release of the hostages before the elections and therefore Carter winning a second term in office. The CIA was worried as well. This would not be favourable for the military establishment. Bush had good CIA connections, based on old traditions.Hence they made their own (most compromising) deal with a close relative of Khomeini during various meetings in both Paris and Madrid. The deal did include to accept fully the Islāmic Republic and non-interference in Iran’s internal affairs. In other words whist not being in power they made a deal with Iran (with no involvement of the Carter Administration) on the terms of Iran, hence the hostage crisis deliberately delayed to allow Carter being defeated and Reagan being elected. Part of the deal was to engage later in an Iran arms deal under President Reagan, which became the Iran Contra affair. US political history and the possible dynamics are most interesting, – as we see.

The 40th US President Ronald  Reagan.

Reagan became US President after winning the Presidential elections from Carter, via illegal backdoor dealings  at the cost of hostages in Iran and at the cost of long-term security interests of the US. The Iran-Contra scandal in which the Mena Airport in Arkansas was used for illegal cocaine trafficking  with full awareness of the Federal Government and the Governor at the time in Arkansas, Bill Clinton, was part of the legacy of the pre-election arrangement with Iran.

Reportedly both George H.W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Jeb Bush were involved in various cover up’s. Saline County prosecutor Dan Harmon was convicted of various felonies including drug and racketeering charges in 1997. He was released from prison in 2006 for helping prosecutors in a murder case. The allegations have been disputed, however former President Clinton failed in his duty to reveal the activities of the Reagan/Bush Administration to Congress.  The Iran Contra Affair during 1986/1987 became a dark issue involving illegal arms for hostage deals with Iran by Reagan’s senior staff, with his knowledge. It proved that Pointdexter and Oliver North (all part of Reagan’sNational Security Advisers) were involved in secretly facilitating the sale of arms to Iran which became into an arms – for – hostages scheme, where a portion of the profits from the sales were diverted to fund anti-sandinista and anti-communist rebels (the “Contras”), in Nicaragua.  As a result of the controversy Ronald Reagan’s  White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan and his National Security Adviser John Poindexter had to resign but it did however not affect Reagan himself.  However both he and in particular Vice-President G.W. Bush were fully aware.Interestingly some people involved in the Iran-Contra scandal  -who (nearly) convicted initially and afterwards pardoned   –  became then prominent members within the Administration of eg George W. Bush.  Elliot Abrams e.g.gained notoriety as due to most controversial decisions on foreign policy issues during the Reagan Administration on Nicaragua and El Salvador. Convicted in 1991 on 2 misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress in connection with the Iran Contra Affair investigation, he was appointed on February 2, 2005, by President George W. Bush to Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy. In this new position, Abrams became responsible for overseeing the National Security Council’s directorate of Democracy, “Human Rights” (we will discuss the human rights records of the former President G.W.Bush later), and International Organization Affairs and its directorate of Near East and North African Affairs. It is just one example that people owe each other in Government and the rules of justice are dealt with differently at this level.. There is still however secrecy around the Iran Contra scandal. An other example eg is Robert Michael Gates who served as the 22nd United States Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011. Prior to this, Gates served for 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, and under President George H. W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence.  Independent Counsel for Iran-Contra Scandal, issued on August 4, 1993, said that Gates “was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/Contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.  Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment. In 1984, as deputy director of CIA, Gates advocated that the U.S. should start a bombing campaign against Nicaragua and that the U.S. would do everything in its power apart from direct military invasion of the country to remove the Sandinista government. Gates was however a very knowledgable man and despite some errors in retrospect it appeared he evolved quite well in his profession, at least it would seem he learnt from his mistakes.

An other important issue for later Presidential dynamics (under the Reagan Administration) was the military support of the Taliban being provided in the early 1980s. The CIA and the ISI (Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and “by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.” There have been meetings in the White House.

The 41st US President George H.W. Bush. 


Bush,sr became elected US President after Reagan served his term for 8 years in the White House. He was faced with the Iran Contra scandal which was of a highly criminal and controversial nature, Reagan’s Vice President was George H.W.Bush. Needless to say Bush had immense experience and was generally spoken “a decent man”. However there are a few things which could have been dealt with differently. We discussed Watergate already with Bush as well. Opening Watergate investigations would open the link to Howard Hunt and if Hunt would speak about the Kennedy assassination, Nixon and all the others, – all the complexities of corrupted US governments after the JFK assassination would come to daylight. Hence  George H.W Bush’s closest business partner Bill Liedtke paid Hunt the requested $1000000,- to keep his mouth shut. Hunt got the message after his wife was killed in a mysterious plane crash. Bush had close connections with Liedtke via the Zapata Corporation. As reflected both former President Bush, Nixon and Johnson had joint interest and involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Those connections have been always there. Bush and the CIA had close links in the “Bay of Pigs” association. President Herbert Walker Bush as Vice President under President Reagan had an important role at the background and he was perhaps the smarter guy, not necessarily the better man.. There were many private sessions like his son the later President George W bush had with Vice President Cheney , the last presenting his arguments and whisper in the President’s ear.   So had Reagan H W. Bush the Vice President presenting arguments and whisper in his ear. Interestingly the later Vice-President Cheney’s firm Halliburton, Brown & Root in part financed Permindex. The last is the Corporate Front which operated the assassination on John F Kennedy. Like Bush, Ford was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity – a secret society.

Bush was a member of Skull and Bones as well, again a different secret organisation. “I think Skull and Bones has had slightly more success than the mafia in the sense that the leaders of the five families are all doing 100 years in jail, and the leaders of the Skull and Bones families are doing four and eight years in the White House,” says Rosenbaum..

On August 1, 1990, Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, invaded  Kuwait. Bush “unhappy” with the invasion despite clearly favouring Iraq above Iran, began rallying opposition to Iraq in the US and among European, Asian, and Middle Eastern allies. Secretary of Defense Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Fahd. Fahd clearly fearing a possible invasion of his country by Iraq as well, requested US military aid. The request was met in the affirmative and Air Force fighter jets arrived. Iraq tried to negotiate a deal allowing its country to take control of half of Kuwait. Bush rejected this proposal and wanted a complete withdrawal of Iraqi forces. The planning of a ground operation by US-led coalition forces started in September 1990.  General Norman Schwarzkopf was nominated to lead those forces.  At a joint session of  US Congress on the authorization of air and land attacks, Bush spelled out the immediate goals: “Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately, and without condition. Kuwait’s legitimate government must be restored. The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured. And American citizens abroad must be protected.” A  fifth  long-term goal was the following: “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: a new era – free from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony…. A world where the rule of law is stronger than  the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.” With the United Nations Security Council opposed to Iraq’s violence, Congress authorized the Use of Military force with a set goal of returning control of Kuwait to the Kuwaiti government, and protecting America’s interests abroad.

In retrospect Bush gave himself an A- for Desert Storm, allowing that “there are certain things that I could have done better.” In truth, Desert Storm merits far less than this.The cease-fire ending the war was poorly managed.The slaughter on the “Highway of Death,” along which the Iraqis retreating from Kuwait, simply decided Bush to stop the war. Before the Iraq war, Bush’s ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, agreed with the President’s wish to “moderate” Saddam Hussein with incentives to get an ally in him against Iran. Secretary of State Baker dropped a line in July 1990 indicated “to take no position on the border delineation issue raised by Iraq with respect to Kuwait.” Saddam was threatening Kuwait with war if the Emir did not surrender (oil-producing) territory on his border with Iraq and forgive $14 billion in Iraqi debt. Bush and Baker’s failure to deliver a firm and clear warning to Baghdad may have been a sign to Saddam that he could go ahead. He saw an opportunity in Baker’s apparent indifference on the border issue. If he left Kuwait largely intact, but annexed Kuwaiti oil fields and one or two of Kuwait’s islands, perhaps the Bush administration would permit this. It is this profound lack of clarity in the Middle East which contributed to the first Iraq war. Bush stopped all military activity in Iraq at once and did not pursue deposing Saddam Hussein, as part of a well known policy of duplicity. Saddam Hussein in the US perception could still be a potential ally against Iran, but this was a serious error of judgement, becoming more clear during the Clinton Administration. Likewise the support being provided in Afghanistan was very dubious and provided the seeds for all sorts of dynamics being difficult to control, apart from increasing the risk of terror due to self-inflicted foreign policy not being principle centred.   Regarding the 2011 situation in Afghanistan note that current President Karzai of Afghanistan worked for former US President G.H Bush and there were longstanding Taliban connections.

The 42nd US President William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton.

Clinton took over from G.H Bush as US President. There is no point in discussing the Lewinsky matter as within the bigger picture of his Presidency this is profound trivial. There was however one thing to be noted in this matter. He could lie until the bitter end, and he seemed to be very convincing in his lies. Compromised already over the Iran-Contra scandal in which an airport in Arkansas (Mena) was used for a large illegal CIA operation, involving large quantities of drugs to be sold with the profits to be transferred to a fund to support the Contras. – Clinton always argued that this has been a federal issue and that he was not involved. However as reflected he failed to report, he failed to respond to both requests from the public and attorneys to facilitate proper investigations.The controversy is quite clear and the incriminating reason is that he did neither act in terms of facilitating Congress to make formal enquiries and investigations, nor did he support the legal system to do its work once this was requested in his own State where he was the Governor of State.

The way the Clinton Administration dealt with the terror threat in the face of the 9/11 attack due to be happening  at the beginning of the Bush,jr Administration is an interesting question. We touched on this subject at the beginning.

Did this attack came totally out of the blue?  – – Clinton always defended the Government’s position, including the outcome of the 9/11 Commission and the way information was provided to Condoleezza Rice (National Security Advisor under President G.W Bush). On the 19th of July 2004 it was announced that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Sandy Berger (US National Security Adviser &  Foreign Policy Adviser during the Bill Clinton Administration) for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room before testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned by Richard Clarke,  detailing various internal assessments of the Clinton administration’s handling of the 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said that Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003. After a long investigation, Justice Department prosecutors determined that Berger only removed classified copies of material stored on hard drives from  the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.  Berger eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on the 1st of April 2005. We need to consider that those issues have been discussed between Clinton and Berger, and that Berger was prepared to do this on behalf of the former US President.  There are however mixed story’s whether all material returned and that nothing, not even a fraction  did not return.Vital information was at stake.The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals.The House Government Reform Committee however later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of originals, not copied, not inventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.” According to the House report, Clinton “designated Berger in 2002 as his representative to check NSC documents” to the 9/11 inquiry. Berger made four trips to the National Archives.  He did so likely to refresh his memory before testifying first to the Graham-Goss Commission and then to the 9/11 Commission. Berger made his first visit in May 2002, his last in October 2003. He was allowed to have unprotected access and it is not clear who did approve this. We know that part of the 9/11 investigations  took place behind strict closed doors and that the “behind closed doors conversations” with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton and al Gore were all “private and confidential”, touching base on national security. Reportedly Berger destroyed some documents during his four visits.  “The full extent of Berger’s document removal,” reports the House Committee, “is not known and never can be known.” Brachfeld met with DOJ attorney Howard Sklamberg. Obviously concerned that Berger had obstructed the 9/11 Commission’s work, Brachfeld wanted assurance that the Commission knew of Berger’s crime and the potential ramifications of it. The 9/11 Commission was not informed. On the 22nd of March, two days before Berger’s public testimony, senior DOJ attorneys John Dion and Bruce Swartz got back to Brachfeld. They told him that the DOJ was not going to tell the 9/11 Commission of the Berger investigation before Berger’s appearance. It would seem somebody ordered the DOJ not to tell the 9/11 Commission on purpose. It is not clear who ordered the DOJ. We can’t help it to think that to keep Clinton’s version of events leading up to 9/11, (for which he had to testify privately) he had dispatched Sandy Berger to the National Archives, at the risk of Berger’s career and reputation, and to edit the official record. If we look at the broader context of Clinton being a person trying to hide vital matters becoming public (like he did with the Iran Contra scandal and the CIA activities at Mena airport in Arkansas), –  this is a reasonable assumption.

There are matters to be searched, revealing however that there were  reasons to have those discussions behind closed doors as it was felt that the public should not know. It is good that the “freedom of information act” provides via the internet various links for those being interested to do serious research, accepting however that some matters however will not be known. It proves however that the American public has been fooled on various matters the last 50 years.

The 43rd US President George W Bush.

“Bush, jr”  took over from Bill Clinton as US President. Only 3 months in office in 2001 a terrorist attack took place on New York and Washington which implicated a dramatic change on US foreign policy. I touched base on this issue at the beginning of this “epilogue”.  G.W. Bush was surrounded by former aides and veterans including Cheney, Powell, Card, Rice and a few more. Bush, sr did influence his son’s administration from behind the scenes. The Bushes “have a long memory”, as Dick Cheney liked to remind people privately.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Cheney was vital in providing the primary justification for entering into a second war with Iraq. Cheney assisted to shape Bush’s approach to the “War on Terrorism“, alleging in various public statements that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He made many personal visits to CIA headquarters, where he questioned mid-level agency analysts on their conclusions. Cheney insisted to allege links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, even though classified President’s Daily Brief on September 21, 2001 reflected that the U.S. intelligence community had neither evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks nor  “scant credible evidence” that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda. Cheney has been characterized as the most powerful and influential Vice President in history. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Rumsfeld provided the military planning and implementation of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld highly favoured to send both the smallest and effective force as possible for both conflicts, a concept called “the Rumsfeld Doctrine.”

The G.W Bush Presidency was dominated by the war against terrorism, including both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the morning of 9/11, Rumsfeld spoke at a Pentagon breakfast meeting. According to his later description to Larry King, he stated at the meeting that “sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department that contributes to… that underpins peace and stability in our world. And that is what underpins peace and stability.” It sounds too good to be true. The day before Rumsfeld declared officially that over 2.4 trillion dollars could not be accounted for in the US military budget. It “disappeared”  and 9/11 prevented further investigations in this.  A loss of  2.4 trillion dollar in the military budget  (not being accounted for) does not reflect the best accounting system at the Defence Department. The issue has not been raised in the Senate at the required level of investigations till so far. However a 2,4 trillion loss in the military budget should raise more than only a few eyebrows.

Less than 3 hours after the start of the first hijacking and two hours after American Airlines Flight 11 striking the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld increased the US defense condition to DEFCON 3; the highest it had ever been since the Arab-Israeli war in 1973. On September 11, Rumsfeld was at 2:40 pm issuing rapid orders to his associates to find for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.” — meaning Saddam Hussein — “at same time. Not only UBL” (Osama bin Laden), Cambone’s notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. “Need to move swiftly — Near term target needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not.” Bush announced a global War on Terror after the 11 September attacks. The Afghan Taliban regime was unable to get Osama bin Laden, which provided Bush a reason to order the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban regime. As reflected at the beginning  G.W.Bush deliberately missed his chance to get bin-Laden at an earlier stage and with the assassination on Massoud,  on purpose he messed up things in Afghanistan, – just to facilitate the pending attack from al-Qaeda to provide his Administration a reason to go to war against both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Bombs were well positioned at the base of all WTC buildings before the al-Qaeda attack, to make the impact worse (at the cost of many American lives!).

It shows that nothing has changed since the JFK assassination. It would seem in such covert operations nearly anything is allowed as long as “the cover up systems” work properly, which they did. The 9/11 Commission conclusions were misleading.   In his 2002 State of the Union Address, at the end of January, Bush asserted that an “axis of evil” consisting of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq was “arming to threaten the peace of the world” and “pose a grave and growing danger”. The Bush Administration proclaimed to have a right and an obligation to engage in preëmptive war, also called preventive war, in response to all those perceived threats. This would  become the Bush Doctrine. It should be noted however that the general Bush doctrine proved to be a greater danger to peace in the world. Allies have been misled and are still fighting in a war which could have been prevented, as illustrated earlier.

Reportedly later, cities subjected to allied bombing had uranium concentrations at 400% to 2000% above normal, with birth defects sharply increasing. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US and British forces used an estimated 1,100-2,200 tons of depleted uranium weaponry, with unimaginable future health implications for both Iraqi and coalition military forces. Despite the Cold War’s being finished, the Bush administration has spent at least 12 times more on developing nuclear weapons than on securing/reducing existing stockpiles or on non-proliferation efforts. The Bush Administration has also repealed the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons, rejected international non-proliferation agreements, and pushed stockpiles of the so-called “bunker buster” which in fact is a nuclear weapon. Not to speak about extensive chemical warfare programs in preparation and exercised already at various locations.

We know the history. Mid-1979, at about the same time as the Soviet Union had their war in Afghanistan, the United States gave several hundred million dollars a year to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting for the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and against  the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs. The most famous of the Afghan Arabs was Osama bin Laden, known at the time as a wealthy and pious Saudi who provided his own money and helped raise millions from other wealthy Gulf Arabs.

Various warnings of a pending attack were ignored.  The September 11 attacks was not an intelligence “failure”. Intelligence deliberately allowed it to happen.  As some would say: “The actors may have been foreign. But the stage directors seem to have been all along here in the U.S.”   The purpose was to try and get both public and Senate approval to go to war.

For many years before the CIA supported the Mujahideen by spending the taxpayers’ money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan’s policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan“. Interesting was the earlier mentioned Osama bin Laden, who had a leading role with mutual support from the US. However the war with the Soviets neared its end, with a CIA build up of activity in this area and more CIA demands on the bin Laden network. After he felt likely betrayed and profoundly intimidated, Bin Laden organized  al-Qaeda to carry out jihad, mainly against the United States this time— the country that had helped fund the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Many commentators have described Al-Qaeda attacks as blowback or an unintended consequence of American aid to the Mujahideen. In response, the US Government,the CIA and Pakistani intelligence officials involved in the operation, and at least one journalist (Peter Bergen) have denied this theory. It was said that the aid was given out by the Pakistan government, and that it went to Afghan not foreign Mujahideen, and that there was no contact between the Afghan Arabs and the CIA or other American officials. Perhaps we need to take such statements with a pinch of salt. The BBC, in an article published shortly after the 9/11 attacks, stated that Bin Laden “received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.” In a 2004 BBC article entitled “al-Qaeda’s origins and links”, the BBC wrote: “During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA“. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published in 2006 that: “Bin Laden apparently received training from the CIA, which was backing the Afghan holy warriors – the mujahedeen – who were tying down Soviet forces in Afghanistan”. An article in Der Spiegel, entitled “Arming the Middle East”, Siegesmund von Ilsemann called Bin Laden in 2007″one of the CIA’s best weapons customers”.The CIA and the US Government til so far denied any connections. The UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, from 1997–2001, and Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from 2001-2003, believed the CIA provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.

Let’s face it, the US Government should have never opted to support Bin Laden with his support network against the Soviets at the time. The US and the Soviet Union were just in the process of reaching the most positive developments since decades, and the US Government and CIA supporting Bin Laden and his network against the Soviet Union was part of a policy full of duplicity and undermining activity. The US Government has been responsible for this and the terror from al Qaeda was as such self-inflicted terror. The US should have never been there in the first instance. US Presidents who would have acted with wisdom and restraint should have never allowed to get the CIA with covert operations supporting a foreign policy full of duplicity and deception. The management on those issues under various President’s has been profound repugnant considering all the implications. However it was G.W.Bush’s choice to take Massoud out of the picture and give “the green light” to 9/11. He was aware that this was going to happen and as Rumsfeld reflected in an interview, if America was under attack from terrorists, this would change the perception of the American public. The question could be raised: who were the real terrorists?

The 9/11 Commission was as much a farce as the Warren Commission was at the time of the Kennedy assassination. There has been compelling evidence that controlled demolition brought down buildings 1,2 and 7, based on thorough research and analysis. Bush, Ashcroft, FBI director said that the 9/11 attacks were not preventable, but the reality was that both those attacks and the controlled demolitions were preventable. FBI Director Bob Mueller allowed crucial steel evidence from the World Trade Centre to be destroyed as part of a criminal conspiracy at the Department of Justice to destroy evidence that could expose people behind the “false – flag terrorism of 9/11”. TIME Magazine did raise serious questions about the dealings of Bob Mueller. There are at least 11 remarkable facts about 9/11 in contrast with the outcome from the 9/11 Commission. It would need a full article to reflect on this but “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth did elaborate in detail on this.The mysterious collapse of WTC 7 has never been answered for. It was this building being loaded with Intelligence information going down without any impact of either projectile or plane. 48 % of New Yorker’s support investigation of WTC7. Many many US Military Officers did join a request  apart of millions of other US citizens to reopen thorough,impartial, open and transparent investigations. Those requests have been ignored till so far. Even President Barack Obama does not want to have any controversy about the outcome of the 9/11 Commission, as the base of going to war in Afghanistan would fall flat on its face in the eyes of the world with all those allies and soldiers from different countries being involved already. As due to the Bush Administration a problem was created there, and the Bush doctrine did not do anything else than increasing the risk of terror, with Pakistan even being ready to sell nuclear information elsewhere. It’s a potential minefield which requires a solution, but let’s put it (again!) in this way:  The war in Afghanistan was an ill selected war, based on criminal acts in which the US Government was involved. The way dynamics were both constructed and in part fabricated are a reflection of the worst possible foreign policy of the US as a superpower. Like the Kennedy assassination has never been resolved,  – 10 years after 9/11  it  would seem to be still acceptable what Bush, Cheney and Romsfeld inflicted on the US and other countries. They simply could walk away from it with prolonged government protection. Despite many people at the highest level of military service and it various other levels of society requesting 9/11 to be again investigated, it simply did not happen. The secrets of the real background of the 9/11 drama being the cause for 2 pointless wars, based on various criminal activity are still due to be revealed, perhaps after 50 years. History is repeating itself in different identities because the main problem has not been resolved and this is the US Government, – insufficient controlled by the legislative powers with insufficient law enforcement.

We know about the defining moments of the post 9/11 era. We know about the testimony of Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission leaving compelling questions about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s actions on the day of 9/11 in terms of a “stand down in security.” His testimony was suppressed by the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Chair at least concluded that the attack was preventable. We know as well that apart from many others former FBI Director Louis J.Freeh slammed the 9/11 Commission conclusions as well. But let’s for a moment forget about the 9/11 Commission. 

Major top people of the military intelligence confirm 2009 Bio-WMD Genocide. Bush did admit to illegal concentration camps. Widespread abuses of human rights.  During his Administration under the guise of national security there have been wide-spread dangerous aerosol and electromagnetic operations. Chemtrails and terror in the age of potential nuclear war.


People and Governments can refuse to face the truth as long as they want, but at some stage the truth and justice hopefully will catch up on them. There are enough US citizens unhappy about the undercurrents of their Government, the lack of transparency of wars eg in Afghanistan and the real reasoning for this based on pure historical facts, the last being different from the facts presented by the CIA.

Truman warned for the CIA and the power of the military establishment, so did Eisenhower and so did Kennedy. There is a major US budget deficit at present, largely based on the legacy of an unbelievable foreign policy for various decades. Even politicians tend to look only at short-term solutions, the cut corners strategy, without realising how much impact the self-inflicted past had on the US as a credible nation. What was left, G.W.Bush destroyed it. 

Both the wars in Vietnam  and Iraq and Afghanistan were not required and could have been prevented. It did cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars and did not give real security for the US.

Many Germans during the second world war did not know about the secret concentration camps. “We did not know”, was what you heard after the second world war. The US did work at the right end of the moral spectrum at the time, did act at the right end of the moral spectrum many times. However if you look at the horror inflicted by various Administrations after the JFK assassination there is no easy way to say that the US with an “over established military establishment” seems as much at risk for creating major war’s as some other countries. The problem lies at the Executive Branch and the background powers.

Where airplane crashes get enough investigations, failed and corrupt US Presidents are able to escape with everything they inflicted. This system of US Presidents not being accountable in retrospect is wrong and as long as the US opts not to change it, it is responsible for the implications in the future.

With President Barack Obama being elected US President in November 2008,  there appeared to be a new beginning as he has his roots in the movement for change and social justice, but he will be  perceived by the establishment as a potential danger if he is not in line with the military strategic direction. Both parties are still able to reason and Obama is well positioned for some change. Sometimes it takes 2 terms as US President to turn the tide as due to past failures under earlier Administrations, but the road to justice is slow and full of obstacles. With an economy in recession again and a world full of dangers it is vital to have adequate intelligence from existing Agencies, but besides this a fair degree of common sense and value systems as part of principle centred leadership are important. Even though the economic prospects are not great at present the US is best served with its current leadership at present. We may not always understand why President Obama  is managing certain areas in the way he does, why he awards eg former US President George H.W.Bush with the “Presidential medal of Freedom”, but his position does involve a lot of protocol to avoid enemies and he knows the art of politics. However when it comes to real principles to protect the country from senseless war’s or criminal covert operations he will neither hesitate nor compromise his intentions to keep the bigger picture in mind. His perceptions and expectations on the US Presidency have been perhaps not always realistic, but working with “the circles” in Washington is complex business after people have been able to digest the material discussed in the above in more sustained ways. We did see this with the 35th US President, who had too many enemies at once, who should have selected a different Vice President at an earlier stage. If Kennedy would not have had risky liaisons with various women he could have replaced Hoover, as Kennedy was vulnerable to the blackmail of Hoover. Integrity is a big thing, both at the personal level and the  level of business. Kennedy was a great President but he was not without failures. The difference between Kennedy,Obama and Carter despite their differences is that none of them had criminal intends or criminal backgrounds, whilst this can’t be said about some other US Presidents in the past.

Related image

The sad thing is that the Executive Branch of the US can have at times profound criminal infestation and that legislation is required to protect the US against itself from this point of view, besides legislation to keep the powers of both the Pentagon and the CIA in place by proper law enforcement, with the application of justice systems  for all and not injustice being tolerated for the few who support the establishment. The US Executive Branch as a whole needs to protect both the law and the Constitution, not by means of lip service, but as an ongoing effort of principle centred leadership to bring its own house “the United States of America” in order. There is both too much at stake in America and the world and the unfortunate legacy of the past needs to be a learning curve for the future. It means that the past should not repeat itself, should not allowed to repeat itself, as the operating business of the United States Government in the world as we face it to-day needs to contribute to the survival of human race, stability and economic recovery.

Like Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 saved the world somehow from a nuclear holocaust by ignoring aggressive proposals from his generals, Nixon would have taken those proposals on board and Cuba would have been attacked with nuclear retaliation from the Russian commanders in Cuba who were under instruction to fire nuclear missiles to all major cities in the US if  the US would attack Cuba.

The wrong US President when the dangers are really near and grave can even make a just war an unjust holocaust, and then we don’t speak about some unjust wars from the past. The US until Obama has been really very poorly prepared on a more positive contribution to a world with less violence, as the systems of government despite the glamour did not match the reality of the problems. The problems are far more grave because the US did contribute to those problems in sustained ways.  This epilogue is a summary of lessons from Presidential Administrations and the average score is not high as leadership at this level was neither principle centred nor in particular based on values.  At the point as where to exercise the available freedom of the world’s most powerful democracy in the more positive when this was possible to do so in the positive, a better example of the US  could have been reasonably expected, – as such an example proved not always to be possible in countries with different systems of government. Democracy in the US worked neither perfect nor optimal with even significant media control.

US Administrations “have slept” with dictators, feeding them with military intelligence including nuclear energy. The Clinton appeasement program e.g.for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. The agreement was however flawed and lacked even the most basic means of verification. In 2010 North Korea reportedly was/is using companies to export nuclear and missile technology to Burma, Syria and Iran. China is a significant culprit as well in exporting nuclear technology. More countries are culprits for exporting such technology which will lead to a menace of uncontrolled violence, if the most powerful nations do not get their act together and stop this build up of explosives destroying the world eventually.

A policy of duplicity based on secrecy and the criminal use of  Covert operation‘s will add to the risks of our global community if the aim of any US covert operation is not the prevention of either war or terror.

There is no protection, for any nation on earth against the massacre of a nuclear and biochemical holocaust and preparing for this does not mean a survival of the fittest, but destruction of even the strongest. The wrong US President at the most unfortunate time could contribute to the event of such a holocaust, whilst at the same time such a holocaust could have been prevented by a longstanding and consistent US foreign policy history, inspiring a world-wide principle centred example of “risk reduction”. With some variations it never happened as such, as US foreign policy was largely based on short-term gain and often creating long-term pain at a cost of trillions of dollars, – some trillions not even accounted for.

The vital issue at the Executive branch of the US is that decisions being made are based on sound principles, that foreign policy is based on integrity, and that the US President has the ability to keep the bigger picture in mind, and acts with wisdom and restraint. Only a few US Presidents  have being able to act with both this wisdom, integrity and restraint,  and in the world of today we need this more than ever before.

“Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice” did give an insight in some US President’s  between the 22nd of November 1963 and the 20th of January 2009. The facts are sobering and offer some history on vital Presidential choices which could have been exercised differently at the time.  Those choices do show on the character and integrity of those being in power, they do reflect as well on the rare application of courage to offer resistance against undermining elements in democracies.

Some US leaders did allow or even order assassinations  (both in the US as elsewhere)  to protect their cause of action, not being a noble cause to prevent war, – but a cause to mislead and secure the position of those who desired this to hold on to power. The last not being deserved. Sometimes the only aim was to protect the very own position of the US President himself. Democracy proved not to offer protection against this sort of injustice as the justice systems itself proved to be infiltrated and violated by those supposed to protect them. Media control did help to mislead the public.

Justice should not be “the cut corner strategy” from the past at the cost of millions who died in vain, without compassion and wisdom of their leaders. Leaders who did use the military arm of US powers to infiltrate by night and kill by day, either by war, by terror inflicted, -or covert operations being endured by far too many.

The greatest injustice is the potential of  a collective  Nuclear holocaust being created by various leaders around the globe.Those who do represent us in government are neither entitled nor obligated to use this potential for self-destruction, either by choice, by error or by twisting the facts and provoke as such a self-destructive longstanding Nuclear winter where the prospect on the continuation of life on earth is nearly limited to zero.

As a people who do inhabit this globe, we are created as part of collective energies during a moment in time. We are just an impulse of this universe, during our time and all times, – coming and going, sharing our common humanity. We inhabit this planet with all the creative energies, with all the universal principles, to protect and to preserve.  The last with leadership, – and not the management of further break down and destruction – with an increasing amount of Weapons of mass destruction spreading across the globe, eventually to be used at a large unpredictable scale.

In a larger sense, it is for us the living to be meaningful dedicated to the unfinished task still remaining, to prevent the agony of war and improve the civil rights of others, –  with similar devotion as those who died in vain, for both the wrong purpose and the wrong means being used as part of the decisions of some of those US President’s who could have done differently. Some US Presidents did neither have the courage nor the devotion to lead by principle, – guided by intrinsic justice and compassion in the larger sense as part of our International Relations here on earth. The same can be said about various other countries with different systems of government. The difference however is that the US is a Republic based on democratic principles and a sound Constitution, which raised higher expectations.

Thank you!

Paul Alexander Wolf      

 >   A  strategy  of  peace:  John  Fitzgerald  Kennedy,  the  35th  US  President <


Profiles In US Presidential Violations of Justice – Front page (Part 1 of 11) on July 5, 2011

One response to “Profiles in US Presidential Violations of Justice (Part 11 – Epilogue & Summary)”

  1. Ellen Wright Avatar
    Ellen Wright


    All of this is true-

    but you want the ugly truth?

    The real reason that they didn’t chase these bastards down and castrate the plan before it got-literally-off the ground was that one agency’s computer system didn’t (and in some cases still doesn’t) communicate with the others’.

    Pure and simple. The FBI didn’t know what the CIA knew who didn’t know what State knew…….and everybody guarded their turf. Biggest bunch of BS you ever saw.

    Doesn’t have a doggone thing to do with what went on before. These guys would throw their mothers under the bus if it comes right down to it. No favorites played. Computers.

    Live with it, man.