Change with minimal risk: Trump's Jimmy Carter problem

[Synopsis]

I posted a series of articles (4) that have a somewhat interesting, to me, twist:

• A comparison between 45 and 39.
• 39's criticism of 45's The Deal Of The Century.
• 39's potential endorsement of 45's award of the Nobel Peace Prize for potential North Korea Peace two years ago.
• 39's comments on 43 in May of 2007.

 

Potential posturing for the November 3, 2020 election with 39 being somewhat of a measuring reference and aid in Democratic Presidential Election results?

 

For comparisons between 45 and 39:

• Perceived Lack Of Personal Integrity vs. Perceived Personal High Values
• Burgeoning Economy, Record Unemployment, Low Inflation, Low Interest Rates, Robust Stock Market vs. Double Digit Inflation, High Interest Rates, Joblessness
• Removing ISIS to bring greater stability to the Middle East vs. Removing the Shah of Iran resulting in millions of Middle Easterner's lives lost and tens of thousands of The United States Of America Service Men and Women's lives lost and maimed
• Deal Of The Century Peace Plan vs. Two State Solution Peace Plan

 

It will be interesting to see what contenders The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump will have November 3, 2020. I suspect an effective platform with elements from the above will need to be selected and proposed as a better option. There are two hundred seventy seven (277) more days until the outcome is known.

 

A significant monkey wrench in the Middle East is an eruption due to Israel, Syria, and/or Iran or, on the Korean peninsula, North Korea whereas a significant issue with another country could also give rise to a decline in the advancement of longer term sustainable peace.

 

Could be an eventful time up to and through the November 3, 2020 Presidential Elections with House and Senate seats potentially shifting. Hard to tell if one or more Supreme Court Justice appointment(s) opens up with the need for a proposed replacement with confirmation by the Senate.

 

Change with minimal risk: Trump's Jimmy Carter problem

BY ALBERT HUNT, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/08/20 11:00 AM EST  103

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

 

 

 

© Getty Images

Peter Hart, one of America's premier pollsters for almost half a century, sees a parallel — with a twist — between this presidential election and 1980: Voters want change but don't want to take a big risk.

Forty years ago there was personal respect for President Jimmy Carter, a man of high values, but deep concerns about conditions in the country: double digit inflation, high interest rates and joblessness.

The twist is today voters generally are pleased with how the country is doing but harbor deep concerns about the character and integrity of President Donald Trump.

“Voters clearly want to get rid of him if — a big if — there is a good alternative," the Democratic poll taker says.

Two dramatic numbers in Hart's latest poll for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, a survey he has been conducting for more than three decades, underscore this dramatic divide.

It's not a surprise that the public thinks the economy is doing pretty well, with low unemployment and interest rates, little inflation and a robust stock market.

More telling, the number of Americans who say 2019 was one of the best years is the highest in three decades; for the first time since almost then a majority believe it was one of the best years or at least average.

That is indicative of an overall good feeling about the country.

There are two clear political conclusions: The Democratic presidential candidate next fall won't dare reprise Ronald Reagan's 1980 question: “Are you better off than four years ago?”

With those attitudes and numbers, a Republican President like Mitt Romney or John Kasich would be a prohibitive favorite for reelection.

“2020 should be dominant for the GOP,” ventures Hart, “great economy and no dominant Democratic candidate.”

But the other number Hart cites illustrates why Donald Trump is not.

Almost half of voters, 48 percent, say they're certain to vote against him this fall; only 34 percent say they're certain to vote for him.

That suggests Trump has to win the vast majority of that 18 percent who say it depends on the Democratic nominee. At a glance, that looks like a fairly friendly group to Republicans, but two numbers stand out in the context of him having to win four out of five of these voters: Over a third disapprove of the president, and almost a quarter believe he should be impeached and removed from office.

It's tough to see him getting many of these voters.

2020 thus is a classic character versus conditions contest.

The challenge for Democrats is to neutralize the economy, reassuring folks the good times can continue — that there won't be radical change but leadership of which you can be proud.

The Democrats didn't pass that test in the Los Angeles debate several weeks ago, claiming it's all lousy. Former Vice President Joe Biden insisted voters don't like this economy as "the middle class is getting killed." Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Peter Buttigieg similarly charged "the economy is not working for most of us."

Trump's policies have badly tilted to the rich, and there's a receptivity for higher taxes on the upper income and need for more government action to meet pressing needs on matters like health care, child care and climate change.

I suspect most of what Democratic Congresswoman Cheri Bustos called the "Trump triers" —2016 voters who weren't especially enamored with the Republican candidate but wanted change — won't buy that everything is going to hell or vote for a candidate who'd take away their private health insurance or propose the biggest tax increases since World War II.

Hart contends that Bernie Sanders “would be the equivalent of George McGovern,” who lost 49 states to Richard Nixon in 1972.

For the President, the perils of his persona may be even more daunting. “The animosity towards Trump is like something we've never seen,” says Hart. Trump makes it easy for them, with a stream of insults even directed against dead American heroes like Sen. John McCain or Congressman John Dingell. He's a pathological liar. Multiple fact-checkers find him averaging more than a dozen false statements a day for three years.

Can Trump convince enough of those triers or the “persuadables” that the benefits of the economy are worth putting up with him for another four years?

Albert R. Hunt is the former executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for the Wall Street Journal. For almost a quarter-century he wrote a column on politics for The Wall Street Journal, then the International New York Times and Bloomberg View. 

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/477291-change-with-minimal-risk-trumps-jimmy-carter-problem

 

 

Jimmy Carter says Trump plan dooms two-state solution

Former US president objects to recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, urges the UN to stop Israeli annexation

By AFP31 January 2020, 2:08 am  9

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
• 618shares

Former President Jimmy Carter pictured before a book signing Wednesday, April 11, 2018, in Atlanta. (AP/John Amis)

WASHINGTON — Jimmy Carter said Thursday that US President Donald Trump’s Middle East plan would violate international law and urged the United Nations to stop Israel from annexing Palestinian land.

“The new US plan undercuts prospects for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the former US president said in a statement.

“If implemented, the plan will doom the only viable solution to this long-running conflict, the two-state solution,” said Carter, who brokered the landmark 1978 Camp David Accords that brought peace between Israel and Egypt.

He urged UN member-states “to adhere to UN Security Council resolutions and to reject any unilateral Israeli implementation of the proposal by grabbing more Palestinian land.”

Egypt’s president Anwar Sadat, left, shakes hands with Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, right, as US president Jimmy Carter looks on, in September 1978. (AP)

His office said in a statement that Trump’s plan, unveiled Tuesday, “breaches international law regarding self-determination, the acquisition of land by force, and annexation of occupied territories.”

“By calling Israel ‘the nation-state of the Jewish people,’ the plan also encourages the denial of equal rights to the Palestinian citizens of Israel,” it said.

Trump presented his long-awaited plan Tuesday alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his close ally, who shortly afterward signaled he would seek to annex a large part of the West Bank.

Trump’s plan recognizes Israeli sovereignty over all West Bank settlements and the Jordan Valley, as well as almost all Jerusalem.

 

US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) attend a press conference in the East Room of the White House on January 28, 2020. (Alex Wong/Getty Images/AFP)

The plan also backs a Palestinian state with a capital on the outskirts of Jerusalem but says the Palestinian leadership must recognize Israel as a Jewish homeland and agree to a demilitarized state.

The 95-year-old Carter, the longest-living president in US history, has frequently spoken out since losing re-election in 1980 and has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his humanitarian work.

In his recent years, he has frequently faced criticism from pro-Israel supporters for his views on the conflict, especially his use of the word “apartheid” to describe the Jewish state’s potential future without a peace deal.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jimmy-carter-says-trump-plan-dooms-two-state-solution/

 

From two years ago:

 

Zack Stanton/POLITICO

LYNCHBURG, Va. — Jimmy Carter thinks Donald Trump would be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize if the North Korean negotiations work out.

He says this, even though he believes Trump has already dealt “a damaging blow to peace” in the Middle East by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and has failed to deliver moral leadership in a way that has increased discrimination and diminished human rights, both at home and around the world.

The former president, who has spent the 37 years since he left office promoting humanitarian causes and monitoring free elections around the world, worries about what’s ahead.

“There’s a general feeling, on a global basis, that democracy has reached its peak and is declining,” Carter told me in an interview for the latest episode of POLITICO’s Off Message podcast, when asked about those who see Trump’s presidency as a challenge to democratic ideals. “I hope that that trend will reverse.”

Carter said he’d let others judge whether the current occupant of the Oval Office is a moral leader. But he left no doubt about where he thinks Trump is falling short.

“I think the president ought to tell the truth. I think the president ought to be for peace. I think the president ought to treat everybody equally. So, equality and peace and the truth, and I’d say basic justice are some of the moral values that I think every person should have,” Carter said.

When a president fails to embody the ideals of a moral leader, Carter said, “it makes us much more likely to treat people differently, and to discriminate against either African-Americans or others who are different. … I think it’s probably more difficult to elevate human rights to a top priority, and things like peace and justice.”

Sharper and in better physical shape than most people at 93—especially most people who’ve been through a brain tumor in the past two years—Carter says he doesn’t want to take on Trump.

But that doesn’t mean he won’t.

“We told the truth, we obeyed the law and we kept the peace,” Vice President Walter Mondale famously said of the Carter administration. On that scorecard, Carter said the current administration’s performance is, “Well, so far we’ve remained at peace.”

“I’m not here to criticize, but I think that, you know, telling the truth is one of the basic moral values that’s important,” Carter said. “And obeying the law is an oath that all of us take before we assume public office.”

Carter spent Saturday in a place everyone involved admitted they never would have expected: as the keynote speaker at the commencement ceremonies for Liberty University, the evangelical Christian, heavily Republican school founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and now run by Jerry Falwell Jr. and his family. Last year, the university’s commencement speaker was President Trump—which Carter pointed out in an opening joke, noting that he’d been told the crowd was even bigger than last year’s.

“I don’t know if President Trump will admit that or not,” Carter said.

That got polite laughter, but not the hoot it might have in front of a different crowd.

For years, comparisons to Jimmy Carter have been used as an epithet in politics. “Even Jimmy Carter” would have given the order for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Mitt Romney said in 2012, trying to undercut Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement. Carter has been such a punching bag that there’s a classic episode of “The Simpsons” where the residents of Springfield can’t afford an Abraham Lincoln statue, so they get a Carter one instead.

“Well, I don’t like to be compared unfavorably by anybody, of course,” Carter said. “I’m a human being. But I’m accustomed to it. I know that in politics, you have to be willing to roll with the punches and to take the bad ones and enjoy the good ones.”

In his remarks introducing Carter on Saturday, Falwell Jr. invoked a comparison between Carter and Trump—and meant it as a compliment to both. Falwell was one of the earliest prominent conservative leaders to endorse Trump’s presidential campaign, and has remained among his most eager defenders, despite the stories about porn star payoffs and other indiscretions that would seem to put evangelicals in an uncomfortable spot. Falwell said he’s thought about how both Carter and Trump came in as outsiders fighting an elite establishment—the same entrenched elites Jesus Christ opposed. Both Carter and Trump shook up Washington, he said. And, he added, he hopes there will be more presidents like the two of them.

Looking out at the Liberty University football field, with a new upper deck to prepare for its move into the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision next season, Falwell thought back to when he heard Carter speak at the opening of the Billy Graham Library in 2007, which also featured remarks by Bill Clinton and both Presidents Bush. Falwell recalled that he turned to his wife and said, “of all the four former presidents speaking, [Carter] sounded more like one of us than the rest.”

And Falwell said that when Carter has come up in conversations with Trump over the phone, the president has been thankful for Carter’s friendship, though it’s not clear what that friendship consists of—other than Carter being the first former president to agree to attend Trump’s inauguration, and doing an interview with Maureen Dowd last year in which he said he thought the media were being unfair to Trump.

Carter, who still teaches Sunday school classes at his church in Plains, Georgia, also knocked the media for seeding the impression that evangelicals are naturally Republicans, though polls show that up to 80 percent voted for Trump in 2016.

“The news media has anointed the more conservative Christians as evangelicals. I consider myself an evangelical as well,” Carter said. “So I think that’s kind of an artificial delineation that has arisen.”

He warned against conflating Christians with Republicans. He reads the same Bible—in fact, he and his wife have been reading passages to each other every night for more than 40 years—and draws on many of the same intense beliefs, but he said he’s not the only Christian to come away from the Bible with a different approach to social welfare programs, immigration and other issues.

“About 1,900 churches are more moderate Baptists, and we’re just as evangelical as the more conservative churches. We send missionaries overseas. We try to minister, like myself through my Bible teaching and that sort of thing. So I wouldn’t draw that distinction, except as a choice that everybody makes—every American makes. Christians are not about whether they vote Democratic or Republican,” Carter said.

Last year, Carter said he’d be eager to be Trump’s envoy to North Korea, where he’s spent time and tried to work on a solution to the country’s ongoing isolation and festering nuclear crisis. That was in the months after Trump said that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “best not make any more threats to the United States” or risk “fire and the fury like the world has never seen.”

Carter never got the posting, but he still offered his unsolicited advice to Trump for the summit that’s still supposed happen in Singapore on June 12.

“We’ve done everything we could to destroy the economy of North Korea, and every North Korean knows that. And we’ve done everything, at the same time, that we could to help South Korea have a good, successful economy,” Carter said. “The North Korean people ought to be treated with respect, and I think that the embargo that we’ve enforced on them has basically hurt the people who are already suffering under a brutal dictatorship, and has not hurt the leaders of North Korea very much.”

He said the Pyongyang leadership’s erratic behavior, including threats to cancel the summit, is to be expected.

“If they’re under constant belief that the United States wants to attack them, even using nuclear weapons—which many Democrats and Republican leaders in our country have mentioned as a possibility—and that we are destroying their economy, and they know that they’re starving to death primarily because the United States withholds food aid, for instance, just giving them surplus food that we can’t ever use, then I can understand how they fee."

He added, “I think that the next mediator, next negotiator—maybe President Trump, I hope—will reassure them that we’re willing to give up some of those things—the threat of attack on them and to lift the embargo. That would be a cheap price, in my opinion, to pay for a cessation of their nuclear program.”

And if it works out, Carter said he’d be happy to have Trump join him in the ranks of Nobel laureates.“If President Trump is successful in getting a peace treaty that’s acceptable to both sides with North Korea, I think he certainly ought to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize,” Carter said. “I think it would be a worthy and a momentous accomplishment that no previous president has been able to realize.”On stage at Liberty an hour after our interview, Carter sat next to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, the event’s other main honoree. Though he’s 30 years younger than the former president, Carson spoke for about a tenth of the time, mostly about his strong Christian beliefs, and a little on how that influenced his time in government—“a chance to focus on people, not programs.”The weather was cool and raining—most people wore plastic ponchos—but Falwell spoke at length about his own family and Liberty’s story before turning to introducing the former president. He talked about the “courage of conviction” it took for Carter to sign the Hyde Act, which banned federal money from funding abortion.And he talked about how much it meant to see Carter on the morning before Trump’s inauguration, the only former president who attended the prayer service at St. John’s Episcopal, across Lafayette Park from the White House. Falwell said it was the moment that started him down the path of inviting Carter to Liberty.“I am proud that Christians are uniting here on issues where they agree, rather than where they disagree,” Falwell said.

•  
•  

Carter’s speech was heavily rooted in Christianity, built around a line from an old teacher—“we must accommodate to changing times, but cling to unchanging principles.”

After his opening joke about crowd size, Carter never again mentioned Trump’s name. But he made clear that, even as he said he hoped that “common faith in Jesus Christ is slowly bringing us back together,” his own Christianity led him to a very different place than Falwell’s embrace of the president. “America has abandoned its leadership” on climate change, Carter said at one point. Discrimination against women and girls, he said, is the greatest issue facing the world, though he worries about nuclear war—and rattled off the countries with weapons, including Israel (which has never acknowledged its nuclear program or been recognized by the United States as having one).

Then he turned his eye back toward American history: “We’ve had a hard time adjusting to this concept of equality.”

America, he said, should have unchallenged military strength, but being a superpower means being a champion of peace, human rights, generosity.

“Every one of us decides: ‘This is the kind of person I choose to be.’ We decide whether we tell the truth or benefit from telling lies,” Carter said, setting the challenge for the graduates and the country. “We’re the ones to decide, ‘Do I hate, or am I filled with love?’ We’re the ones who decide, ‘Do I think only about myself or do I care for others?’”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/22/jimmy-carter-podcast-interview-trump-religion-2018-218412

 

 

When Former Presidents Assail the Chief

By Mark Leibovich

• May 22, 2007
• WASHINGTON, May 21 — Nothing rattles Washington quite like a good violation of unwritten rules, especially when the violator and the violated are both presidents (past and present, respectively).

Former President Jimmy Carter was cited for a doozy over the weekend when he called the Bush administration “the worst in history” for its impact around the world. Though Mr. Carter tried to take it back on Monday, saying on the “Today” show that his remarks were “careless or misinterpreted” and that he was “not talking personally about any president,” he has still incited a tsk-tsking tsunami in the capital.

His offense: failing to observe the protocol that former presidents should speak respectfully of their successors, or at least with some measure of restraint.

“His language was much sharper than what you’d normally hear” from an ex-president, said the presidential historian Michael Beschloss. But he and other presidential scholars roll their eyes at the notion that former presidents do not speak ill of current ones.

“I love how because of our short memories, we come up with these eternal rules that don’t really apply,” said the historian Tim Naftali, the director-designate of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.

 

Indeed, there have been several instances of “when ex-presidents attack” over the years. As recently as a few months ago, former President Gerald R. Ford criticized Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, albeit from the grave. In an article in The Washington Post, Bob Woodward quoted from an interview he conducted with Mr. Ford with the understanding that he could only publish Mr. Ford’s remarks after he died.

Eisenhower was critical of John F. Kennedy’s domestic policies, the first President Bush pounded on Bill Clinton, now his pal, for his Haiti policy, and Nixon chided the first President Bush (for comparing himself to Harry Truman in his 1992 re-election campaign).

Theodore Roosevelt was brutal in his assaults on Taft and Woodrow Wilson, said Patricia O’Toole, author of “When Trumpets Call,” a book about Roosevelt in the years after he left office. She pointed out, however, that Roosevelt would run for president again, putting him in something of a different category than Mr. Carter (who by all accounts will not).

 

 

Image

Former President Jimmy Carter talking to reporters Monday on a break from building a Habitat for Humanity house in Violet, La. In the gentlemen’s club of ex-presidents, Mr. Carter has been a bit of an outlaw.Credit...Alex Brandon/Associated Press

Still, Mr. Carter did not call President Bush a “puzzlewit” and a “fathead” as Roosevelt did Taft, according to “When Trumpets Call.”

But “worst in history” was certainly enough to get a rise from the protocol police, to say nothing of the White House. While Mr. Bush shrugged off Mr. Carter’s remarks, his spokesman Tony Fratto on Sunday called the attack “sad” and “reckless” and took it as evidence that Mr. Carter was “increasingly irrelevant.”

Reached Monday, Mr. Carter’s former communications aide, Gerald Rafshoon, declared of his former boss, “I’ve never been prouder of him.”

In the gentlemen’s club of former presidents, Mr. Carter has been something of an outlaw, said Mark K. Updegrove, author of “Second Acts: Presidential Lives and Legacies After the White House.” He recalled a conversation he had with former President Bush last year in which Mr. Bush was particularly exercised over Mr. Carter’s treatment of the current President Bush at the funeral of Coretta Scott King.

“This is really nothing new,” Mr. Updegrove said, citing criticism Mr. Carter levied against the current administration during a trip to Cuba. “It’s funny what Carter has gotten away with in some respects,” he said, speaking of the Cuba trip. “When the Dixie Chicks did something like that, they were burning their CDs.” (O.K., so the Dixie Chicks have never lived in the White House.)

In his “Today” appearance on NBC, Mr. Carter explained that his comments — made in an interview to The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette — had come in response to a question asking him to compare Mr. Bush’s foreign policy with that of Nixon.

Mr. Rafshoon said of Mr. Carter, “I think he felt really badly that his comments were construed as personal against Bush.”

By Monday morning, the presidential slapfight was showing signs of abating, at least for the time being. “I think it just highlights the importance of being careful in choosing your words,” Mr. Fratto said when asked about Mr. Carter’s apparent pullback on the “Today” show.

“I’ll just leave it at that.”

 

Correction: May 25, 2007

An article on Tuesday about former President Jimmy Carter’s recent criticisms of the Bush administration, and his subsequent explanation of his remarks, imprecisely described a question that Mr. Carter was asked during an interview with The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. He was asked: “Which president was worse, George W. Bush or Richard Nixon?” He answered that the Bush administration was “the worst in history” for the adverse impact he said its policies had on the way the United States is viewed around the world. He was not asked, as he later told NBC’s “Today” show, to compare Mr. Bush’s foreign policy with Mr. Nixon’s.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/washington/22carter.html

[coorslite21]

Potentially there is always a great deal that can be learned from studying history.....

 

Interesting ideas and thoughts presented here.......thanks for the thought provoking post....

CL

[md11fr8dawg]

ALRIGHT, let's listen to the "Peanut Man" who is personally responsible for the unrest in the ME since 1979. How many deaths are on his hands? His library contains only a few books. Right turn on red and other driving tips. 55 and alive while waiting in long gas lines. How to buy a house on 12%+ interest rates and How I screwed the Shaw. ALL interesting and riveting reading.

[coorslite21]

9 minutes ago, md11fr8dawg said:

ALRIGHT, let's listen to the "Peanut Man" who is personally responsible for the unrest in the ME since 1979. How many deaths are on his hands? His library contains only a few books. Right turn on red and other driving tips. 55 and alive while waiting in long gas lines. How to buy a house on 12%+ interest rates and How I screwed the Shaw. ALL interesting and riveting reading.

 

Fair points....and I feel the anger......my take on the original post was one of economics and morality.....and really I looked at it from a how Trump might benefit in 2020 by learning from some of the info included in the post.....

 

As to some of the rest.....there has been unrest in the ME for thousands of years.......are you going to blame Carter?.....who tried, and failed, at a peace plan in the region for Bush going after Iraq.....and all that followed?.......Interest rates?.....try 17%......look at the Central Banking system and the Fed for that........gas prices?.........that was supply and demand....and we need to be very happy the US is finally energy independent.......I'll stop there.......CL

[Synopsis]

25 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

Potentially there is always a great deal that can be learned from studying history.....

 

Interesting ideas and thoughts presented here.......thanks for the thought provoking post....

CL

 

Thank You, CoorsLite21.

 

Another thing I have been pondering is the potential effect of the potential passing of 39 and RBG before November 3, 2020. I suspect RBG will bring more "earnest" "concern" AND "rigor" whereas one or both could bring about what I would call "sympathy" "votes" for the way things used to be. Not sure about the GenXers, Millenials, etc. for "sympathy" "votes" whereas the potential for the appointment for the next Supreme Court Justice may be a key voting issue should RBG pass. Not sure how this will pan out mostly for Baby Boomers. Hopefully, issue oriented and well being of the prosperity and perpetuity of THIS Great Nation will prevail as Baby Boomers, and other LEGAL The United States Of America Citizens, cast THEIR votes.

 

I believe our current Presidential Administration is the best and optimum option going forward and look forward to further advancements.

 

My opinion is The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump has engaged in moral turpitude in the past. NOT to be overlooked, of course, whereas admission and change of mind with associated change in behaviors AND restitution where possible is in order for The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump.

 

The current attitude is to skewer The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump on false accusations to hide the corruption and draw attention away from the corrupt AND THEIR actions is entirely unacceptable. @Karsten recently posted an excellent Rudy Giuliani pod cast heralding Thomas Paine's Common Sense (which I, too, have historically noted HERE at DinarVets) exposing the World Wide corruption of the Bidens and Obama with OTHERS likely to be exposed. NO ACTUAL offenses of moral turpitude are noted in ANY current due diligence I am aware of regarding The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump.

[bigwave]

Wasn't Jimmy a tool as he had more "globalist" on his cabinet than any other?

[Synopsis]

I suspect a key item influencing the 2020 Presidential Election is the future and potency of the Deep Do Do State in The United States Of America AND The Whole World via Shadow Diplomacy. Finances, and Underworld are likely key drivers whereas seemingly unrelated issues on the surface with another war raging underneath.

 

Manipulation of the masses (emotionally, philosophically, politically, etc.) has ALWAYS been a key tactic to make the unacceptable embraced and incorporated in the culture and society as a whole promoting controlled destruction. The problem is when the whole culture and society is unsustainable. Well, NO problem REALLY. Just create wars and change out the regime(s) to start over.

 

The United States Of America based on the four (4) Textual Cornerstones is a STAND ALONE in history and can be sustained as long as the four (4) Textual Cornerstones are practiced without either enforcement NOR circumvention by Government Functions.

 

The lowest forms of Government AND it's influences coincides with the highest level of personal AND corporate responsibilities.

 

- Synopsis

 

So, lack of due diligence leaves Government to Govern the lowest and most basic behaviors and benefits.

 

Self Governance is the highest and most necessary form of Governance.

 

- Synopsis

 

In whatever realm of social and moral freedoms is not exercised, the vacuum is filled by Government or Corruption. Many times it is both.

 

- Synopsis

 

The Beauty of Government is the absence thereof.

 

- Synopsis

 

Much of the civil laws are a cheap excuse for immoral behavior and/or the will of the Government to impose it's will on the people.

 

- Synopsis

 

Well, OK, NOT bad for the Village Idiot. eh?

 

      

 

From my originating post:

 

15 hours ago, Synopsis said:

A significant monkey wrench in the Middle East is an eruption due to Israel, Syria, and/or Iran or, on the Korean peninsula, North Korea whereas a significant issue with another country could also give rise to a decline in the advancement of longer term sustainable peace.

 

The Deep Do Do State has tentacles in history AND World Wide.

 

During the lifetime of my biological father AND paterfamilias, I heard him say numerous times, "The thing that got Kennedy (JFK) killed is he was trying to figure out who was pulling the world money strings."

 

JFK signed EO 11110 and the silver backed Silver Certificates The United States Of America Currency via The United States Of America Treasury was issued.

 

From the second article below, JFK also was developing a relationship with Indonesian President Sukarno. The article is, I would say, fascinating due to the Deep Do Do States' strange actions where some appear to be playing both sides. IF JFK had NOT been assassinated, the Vietnam War would NOT have occurred AT LEAST AT THAT TIME. My opinion is the looting by Japan during World War II with the subsequent hiding of the riches played and continues to play a key role in activities in the region. Not only China but other SE Asian countries would benefit for having their stolen fortunes repatriated. For currency backing, China having the gold returned would bolster the Yuan's potency with a gold reserve that could rival or exceed The United States Of America's Gold Reserves. Hence The United States Of America's continued presence in SE Asia.

 

Also to note, Bark Insane Obama's ties to Indonesia.........................................................what kind of Deep Do Do State CRAP is going on with HIM AND HIS "man" "wife"???!!!

 

Prescott Bush is 41's biological father and paterfamilias. Prescott Bush had ties to Nazi Germany and funding during World War II. So, enter the "missing" "years" of 41's career as noted in the third article.

 

So, WHERE, pray tell, WAS 41 from January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 AND WHO, pray tell, WAS The United States Of America President AT THE TIME???!!!

 

YEP!!!

 

39.

 

NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!

 

Enter Iran.

 

On February 11, 1979, the Shah of Iran was deposed. 39 visited Iran December 31, 1977 - January 1, 1978.

 

The growing threat of Radical Islamists could not have gone unnoticed by either 39 or the Shah of Iran with serious implications for Iran's political future. 39 may not have understood it while the Shah, concerned for his own retention of power and life, would have very likely informed diplomatic channels, to include 39, of the necessity to address the situation.

 

39 would have also had knowledge of the Deep Do Do State's activities in the region to include the psy ops underway to over throw the Shah of Iran to install radical Islamists for Terrorism, Corruption, AND Control of the Middle East AND advance the undermining of attempted undermining of Israel.

 

The last video has been posted before and includes key previously known events implicating 39's role in the take over of the radical Islamists in Iran.

 

Fair to say 39 is a Globalist The United States Of America President with Deep Do Do State leaning. Wolves can have sheep's clothing especially if the Deep Do Do State was not called out and exposed at the time if 39 really did care about Iran being, "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world."

 

IF the Shah of Iran really did have cancer, a much more peaceable transition of power could have been implemented so Iran would remain, "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world."

 

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan late December of 1979 and was there until February of 1989. You guessed it, exiting right after 41's inauguration.

 

So, WHY, pray tell, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan???!!! Warm water port OR acquiring the lucrative poppy trade???!!!

 

WHY, pray tell, were The United States Of America Service Men and Women GUARDING the poppy crops AFTER the 2002 invasion???!!!

 

WHERE, pray tell, are the Afghan poppy fields NOW AND "processing" "facilities"???!!!

 

WHAT, pray tell, is the opiate raw material???!!!

 

Ending ENDLESS Wars as stated by The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump.

 

Getting Rid of the Deep Do Do State's Potency WITH Black Ops AND Funding.

 

NO WONDER the rats are running around with THEIR future ABOUT TO END!!!

 

The 2020 Presidential Election REALLY is about the future of the Deep Do Do State's Potency with the fight in the hands of ACTUAL The United States Of America Citizen voters.

 

Swayed by emotion, philosophical, or political leanings OR understanding what Liberty is ALL about and promoting for future generations???!!!

 

The United States Of America Service Men And Women buried in War Memorial graves remind me of my likewise obligation to pay it forward for future generations come way may in whatever way necessary to address.

 

A standing side joke REALLY illustrating the situation is the one who destroyed THIS Great Nation is now building houses for the ones' whose Nation he destroyed who would have had their previous houses if he had NOT destroyed their nation.

 

Built dependency.

 

      

 

Millions of lost lives in the Middle East.

 

Multiple tens of thousands of The United States Of America Service Men And Women's lives lost and maimed.

 

      

 

Well, OK, HONESTLY, I was focusing on the higher level 2020 Presidential Election influences whereas other background notations are helpful to understand the larger and more covert war we are facing for not only our safety and security but that of the Whole World.

 

Possibly easy to see how this all ties into the Belt and Road Initiative, Global Trade, Global Trade Deals, Peace and Prosperity, Liberty, AND our Speculative Bicraqi Iraqi Dinar Investment AND what needs to happen to clear the way with the Deep Do Do State ENTRENCHED activities going back to the 39 years with 41 in the back ground.

 

Good Guy (39) / Bad Guy (41). Two sides of the same coin like a BAD, BAD penny.

 

Noun. bad penny (plural bad pennies) Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see bad,‎ penny: A counterfeit or damaged penny. (idiomatic) A person or thing which is unpleasant, disreputable, or otherwise unwanted, especially one which repeatedly appears at inopportune times.

 

I mean no offense. I ask no permission. I make no apologies. ACTUAL TRUTH is ALL that matters.

 

After all, Benedict Arnold was a True The United States Of America Patriot until................................

 

Carter, Rockefeller And The Shah Of Iran: What 1979 Can Teach Us About The Dangers Of Shadow Diplomacy10:47

January 02, 2020

• Robin Young
• Samantha Raphelson

 

In this Nov. 15, 1977 photo, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran visits Washington. (AP)

The attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad this week is serving as a warning about the dangers of shadow diplomacy.

The Washington Post reported this week that Rudy Giuliani was part of a back-channel effort to ease President Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela. President Trump’s personal lawyer was also involved in an effort to interfere in U.S. policy in Ukraine, the subject of the upcoming impeachment trial against the president.

Shadow diplomatic efforts like those orchestrated by Giuliani and others are “not new,” says former New York Times reporter Terence Smith. Smith reported on this in the late 1970s when David Rockefeller, heir to the Standard Oil fortune and chief executive of Chase Bank, tried to convince a reluctant President Jimmy Carter to bring the Shah of Iran — who was deposed in the 1979 revolution — to the U.S.

Nearly 40 years later, the Times’ David Kirkpatrick used Rockefeller’s private minutes to corroborate much of what Smith wrote in a 1981 piece about those puppet masters.

Carter’s decision to bring Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran to the U.S. prompted angry Iranians, who wanted the shah tried for corruption, to attack the U.S. embassy in Tehran — holding 52 hostages for 444 days.

View of a massive demonstration against the Shah of Iran in downtown Tehran, Iran, Oct. 9, 1978. (Michel Lipchitz/AP)

After he was deposed, Mohammad Reza Shah went on an “odyssey,” Smith says, looking for a country that would accept him, his family and small band of supporters. Carter didn’t want to let the shah into the country for a number of reasons, including the fact that he wanted to establish a relationship with Iran’s new leaders.

Carter reluctantly brought the shah to the U.S. because he was told that Mohammad Reza Shah was very sick, and he could only get the treatment he needed in New York. Smith says when he asked Carter in 1981 why he admitted the shah, his answer revealed he was misinformed about the shah’s health.

“He said, 'Well, I was told that he was close to death and that he ... needed to come to New York for medical treatment and that New York was the only place where he could get this,' ” Smith says.

“I had interviewed Dr. Benjamin Kean, who had examined the Shah and knew firsthand that that was not true,” he adds. “So I said to the president, 'You know that's not correct. That he was not at the point of death, and New York was not the only facility that could save him.’ In fact, the work that needed to be done could have been done anywhere, including in Mexico where he was.”

Smith says Carter “insisted vehemently” that he was told this narrative. “And I don’t doubt him for a minute,” he says.

Kirkpatrick’s latest reporting in the Times shows that Carter was in fact misled. But Carter was perhaps oblivious as to who was pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Picture of exiled Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini overshadows huge anti-Shah demonstration commemorating 25 years of the monarch's rule and symbol of his power, Dec. 10, 1978, in Tehran. (Michel Lipchitz/AP)

Rockefeller, a Republican, and his supporters were working very closely with the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan — Carter’s opponent in the 1980 election — to ensure the hostages weren’t released until after the election. If they had been set free beforehand, Carter might have won reelection.

“David Rockefeller was a great friend and supporter of the Shah of Iran, along with Henry Kissinger and [former shah attorney] John J. McCloy, and so they had ... their own agenda, as you say, their own foreign policy, if you like, which was to persuade President Carter to admit the shah,” Smith says. “And so they mounted quite a campaign to do it.”

Rockefeller was such a staunch supporter of Mohammad Reza Shah because his bank was very profitable with Iran when the shah was in power, Smith says.

“In fact, by 1979, the bank had syndicated more than $1.7 billion in loans for Iranian public projects. And that's the equivalent of maybe $5.8 [billion] to $6 billion today,” he says. “So as they say in Washington, there was real money involved.”

The attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad by an Iran-backed militia is almost a repeat of history, Smith says.

“The outbreak of violence in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in the last couple of days is so haunting because it's almost a carbon copy of what happened in Tehran, actually nine months before the hostages were taken, and then again, when the hostages were taken,” he says.

Smith says the difference between what happened in the ‘70s and the shadow diplomacy of today is that Giuliani's tactics are “much more direct.”

“This is the president's personal lawyer … Rudy Giuliani taking an active role to try to bring about events that would, he hoped, help President Trump in his reelection and damage his presumed opponent, Joe Biden,” Smith says. “So this, I would argue today, is a much more blatant and out front obvious manipulation by, in this case, the president's personal lawyer, than what you had before [which] was positively subtle and gentlemanly by comparison.”

---

Cassady Rosenblum produced and edited this interview for broadcast with Tinku Ray. Samantha Raphelson adapted it for the web. 

This segment aired on January 2, 2020.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/01/02/shah-of-iran-diplomacy

Allen Dulles’ “Indonesian Strategy” and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Home/Reference/Allen Dulles’ “Indonesian Strategy” and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

• View Larger Image

•  
•  

Allen Dulles’ “Indonesian Strategy” and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

 

By Edward Curtin

Review of Greg Poulgrain’s book “The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles”

Would Allen Dulles have resorted to assassinating the President of the United States to ensure the achievement of  his ‘Indonesian strategy’?

This is the central question addressed by Greg Poulgrain in his extraordinarily important book, The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles.

Two days before President John Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, he had accepted an invitation from Indonesian President Sukarno to visit that country the following spring.  The aim of the visit was to end the conflict (Konfrontasi) between Indonesia and Malaysia and to continue Kennedy’s efforts to support post-colonial Indonesia with economic and developmental aid, not military.   It was part of his larger strategy of ending conflict throughout Southeast Asia and assisting the growth of democracy in newly liberated post-colonial countries worldwide.
He had forecast his position in a dramatic speech in 1957 when, as a Massachusetts Senator, he told the Senate that he supported the Algerian liberation movement and opposed colonial imperialism worldwide.  The speech caused an international uproar and Kennedy was harshly attacked by Eisenhower, Nixon, John Foster Dulles, and even liberals such as Adlai Stevenson.  But he was praised throughout the third world.

Of course JFK never went to Indonesia in 1964, and his peaceful strategy to bring Indonesia to America’s side and to ease tensions in the Cold War was never realized, thanks to Allen Dulles.  And Kennedy’s proposed withdrawal from Vietnam, which was premised on success in Indonesia, was quickly reversed by Lyndon Johnson after JFK’s murder.  Soon both countries would experience mass slaughter engineered by Kennedy’s opponents in the CIA and Pentagon. Millions would die. Subsequently, starting in December 1975, American installed Indonesian dictator, Suharto, would slaughter hundreds of thousands East-Timorese with American weapons after meeting with Henry Kissinger and President Ford and receiving their approval.

Dulles’s Secret

What JFK didn’t know was that his plans were threatening a covert long-standing conspiracy engineered by Allen Dulles to effect regime change in Indonesia through bloody means. The primary goal behind this plan was to gain unimpeded access to the vast load of natural resources that Dulles had kept secret from Kennedy, who thought Indonesia was lacking in natural resources.  But Dulles knew that if Kennedy, who was very popular in Indonesia, visited Sukarno, it would deal a death blow to his plan to oust Sukarno, install a CIA replacement (Suharto), exterminate alleged communists, and secure the archipelago for Rockefeller controlled oil and mining interests, for whom he had fronted  since the 1920s.

Dr. Poulgrain, who teaches Indonesian History, Politics and Society at the University of Sunshine Coast in Australia, explores in very great detail historical issues that have critical significance for today.  Based on almost three decades of interviews and research around the world, he has produced a very densely argued book that reads like a detective novel with fascinating sub- plots.

The Importance of Indonesia

Most Americans have little awareness of the strategic and economic importance of Indonesia.  It is the world’s 4^th most populous country, is situated in a vital shipping lane adjacent to the South China Sea, has the world’s largest Muslim population, has vast mineral and oil deposits, and is home to Grasberg, the world’s largest copper and gold mine, owned by Freeport McMoRan of Phoenix, Arizona.  Long a battleground in the Cold War, it remains vitally important in the New Cold War launched by the Obama administration against Russia and China, the same antagonists Allen Dulles strove to defeat through guile and violence.  Just recently the Indonesian government, under pressure from the army that has stymied democratic reforms for 18 years, signed a defense agreement with Russia for the sharing of intelligence, the sale of Russian military equipment, including fighter jets, and the manufacturing of weapons in Indonesia.  While not front page news in the U.S., these facts make Indonesia of great importance today and add to the gravity of Poulgrain’s history.

The Devil in Paradise 

His use of the word “incubus” (an evil spirit that has sexual intercourse with sleeping women) in the title is appropriate since the sinister character that snakes his way through this historical analysis is Allen Dulles, the longest serving Director of the CIA and Kennedy’s arch-enemy.  While contextually different from David Talbot’s portrayal of Dulles in The Devil’s Chessboard, Poulgrain’s portrait of Dulles within the frame of Indonesian history is equally condemnatory and nightmarish.  Both describe an evil genius ready to do anything to advance his agenda.

Reading Poulgrain’s masterful analysis, one can clearly see how much of modern history is a struggle for control of the underworld where lies the fuel that runs the megamachine – oil, minerals, gold, etc.  Manifest ideological conflicts, while garnering headlines, often bury the secret of this subterranean devil’s game.

His story begins with a discovery that is then kept secret for many decades:  “In the alpine region of Netherlands New Guinea (so named under Dutch colonial rule – today, West Papua) in 1936, three Dutchmen discovered a mountainous outcrop of ore with high copper content and very high concentrations of gold.  When later analyzed in the Netherlands, the gold (in gram/ton) proved to be twice that of Witwatersrand in South Africa, then the world’s richest gold mine, but this information was not made public.”

The geologist among the trio, Jean Jacques Dozy, worked for the Netherlands New Guinea Petroleum Company (NNGPM), ostensibly a Dutch-controlled company based in The Hague, but whose controlling interest actually lay in the hands of the Rockefeller family, as did the mining company, Freeport Indonesia (now Freeport McMoRan, one of whose Directors from 1988-95 was Henry Kissinger, Dulles’s and the Rockefeller’s close associate) that began mining operations there in 1966.  It was Allen Dulles, Paris-based lawyer in the employ of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, who in 1935 arranged the controlling interest in NNGPN for the Rockefellers.  And it was Dulles, among a select few others, who, because of various intervening events, including WW II, that made its exploitation impossible, kept the secret of the gold mine for almost three decades, even from President Kennedy. JFK “was never informed of the ‘El Dorado’ he had unwittingly taken out of Dutch hands with the result that (once the remaining political hurdles in Indonesia were overcome) Freeport would have unimpeded access to its mining concession.” Those “political hurdles” – i.e. regime change – would take a while to effect.

The Indonesia-Cuba Connection

But first JFK would have to be eliminated, for he had brokered Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua/West Irian for Sukarno from the Dutch who had ties to Freeport Sulphur.  Freeport was aghast at the potential loss of “El Dorado,” especially since they had recently had their world’s most advanced nickel refinery expropriated by Fidel Castro, who had named Che Guevara its new manager.  Freeport’s losses in Cuba made access to Indonesia even more important. Cuba and Indonesia thus were joined in the deadly game of chess between Dulles and Kennedy, and someone would have to lose.

While much has been written about Cuba, Kennedy, and Dulles, the Indonesian side of the story has been slighted. Poulgrain remedies this with an exhaustive and deeply researched exploration of these matters. He details the deviousness of the covert operation Dulles ran in Indonesia during the 1950s and 1960s.  He makes it clear that Kennedy was shocked by Dulles’ actions, yet never fully grasped the treacherous genius of it all. Dulles was always “working two or three stages ahead of the present.”  Having armed and promoted a rebellion against Sukarno’s central government in 1958, Dulles made sure it would fail (shades of the Bay of Pigs to come).

Yet the end result of CIA interference in Indonesian internal affairs via the 1958 Rebellion was depicted as a failure at the time, and has consistently been depicted as a failure since that time.  This holds true only if the stated goal of the CIA was the same as the actual goal.  Even more than five decades later, media analysis of the goal of The Outer Island rebels is still portrayed as a secession, as covert US support for ‘rebels in the Outer Islands that wished to secede from the central government in Jakarta’.  The actual goal of Allen Dulles had more to do with achieving a centralized army command in such a way as to appear that the CIA backing for the rebels failed.

 The Need for Assassinations

Dulles betrayed the rebels he armed and encouraged, just as he betrayed friend and foe alike during his long career.  The rebellion that he instigated and planned to fail was the first stage of a larger intelligence strategy that would come to fruition in 1965-6 with the ouster of Sukarno (after multiple unsuccessful assassination attempts) and the institution of a reign of terror that followed.  It was also when – 1966 – Freeport McMoRan began their massive mining in West Papua at Grasberg at an elevation of 14,000 feet in the Alpine region.  Dulles was nothing if not patient; he had been at this game since WW I.  Even after Kennedy fired him following the Bay of Pigs, his plans were executed, just as those who got in his way were.  Poulgrain makes a powerful case that these included JFK, U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold (working with Kennedy for a peaceful solution in Indonesia and other places), and Congolese President Patrice Lumumba.

His focus is on why they needed to be assassinated (similar in this regard to James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable), though with the exception of Kennedy (since the how is well-known and obvious), he also presents compelling evidence as to the how.  Hammarskjold, in many ways Kennedy’s spiritual brother, was a particularly powerful obstacle to Dulles’s plans for Indonesia and countries throughout the Third World.  Like JFK, he was committed to independence for indigenous and colonial peoples everywhere, and was trying to implement “his Swedish-style ‘third way’ proposing a form of ‘muscular pacifism’.”

Had the UN Secretary General succeeded in bringing even half these countries to independence, he would have transformed the UN into a significant world power and created a body of nations so large as to be a counter-weight to those embroiled in the Cold War.

Poulgrain draws on documents from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Chairman Archbishop Desmond Tutu to show the connection between South Africa’s “Operation Celest” and Dulles’s involvement in Hammarskjold’s murder in September 1961.  While it was reported at the time as an accidental plane crash, he quotes former President Harry Truman saying, “Dag Hammarskjold was on the point of getting something done when they killed him.  Notice that I said, ‘When they killed him’.”

Dulles sold his overt Indonesian strategy as being necessary to thwart a communist takeover in Indonesian. Cold War rhetoric, like “the war on terrorism” today, served as his cover.  In this he had the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his side; they considered Kennedy soft on communism, in Indonesia and Cuba and everywhere else. Dulles’s covert agenda was to serve the interests of his power elite patrons.

Dulles and George de Mohrenschildt

Poulgrain adds significantly to our understanding of JFK’s assassination and its aftermath by presenting new information about George de Mohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald’s handler in Dallas.  Dulles had a long association with the de Mohrenschildt family, going back to 1920-21 when in Constantinople he negotiated with Baron Sergius Alexander von Mohrenschildt on behalf of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil.  The Baron’s brother and business partner was George’s father.  Dulles’s law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, “was virtually the front desk for Standard Oil.”  These negotiations on behalf of elite capitalist interests, in the shadow of the Russian Revolution, became the template for Dulles’s career: economic exploitation was inseparable from military concerns, the former concealed behind the anti-communist rhetoric of the latter.  An anti-red thread ran through Dulles’s career, except when the red was the blood of all those whom he considered expendable.  And the numbers are legion.

“It was through Standard Oil that a link existed between Dulles [who controlled the Warren Commission] and de Mohrenschildt, and this should have been brought to the attention of the Warren Commission but was not made public when Dulles had so prominent a role.”  Poulgrain argues convincingly that De Mohrenschildt worked in “oil intelligence” before his CIA involvement, and that oil intelligence was not only Dulles’s work when he first met George’s father, Sergius, in Baku, but that that “oil intelligence” is a redundancy. The CIA, after all, is a creation of Wall Street and their interests have always been joined. The Agency was not formed to provide intelligence to US Presidents; that was a convenient myth used to cover its real purpose which was to serve the interests of investment bankers and the power elite.

While working in 1941 for Humble Oil  (Prescott Bush was a major shareholder, Dulles was his lawyer, and Standard Oil had secretly bought Humble Oil sixteen years before), de Mohrenschildt was caught up in a scandal that involved Vichy (pro-Nazi) French intelligence in selling oil to Germany.  This was similar to the Dulles’s brothers and Standard Oil’s notorious business dealings with Germany.

It was an intricate web of the high cabal with Allen Dulles at the center.

In the midst of the scandal, de Mohrenschildt, suspected of being a Vichy French intelligence agent, “disappeared” for a while.  He later told the Warren Commission that he decided to take up oil drilling, without mentioning the name of Humble Oil that employed him again, this time as a roustabout.

“Just when George needed to ‘disappear’, Humble Oil was providing an oil exploration team to be subcontracted to NNGPM – the company Allen Dulles had set up five years earlier to work in Netherlands New Guinea.”  Poulgrain makes a powerful circumstantial evidence case (certain documents are still unavailable) that de Mohrenschildt, in order to avoid appearing in court, went in communicado in Netherlands New Guinea’s in mid-1941 where he made a record oil discovery and received a $10,000 bonus from Humble Oil.

“Avoiding adverse publicity about his role in selling oil to Vichy France was the main priority; for George, a brief drilling adventure in remote Netherlands New Guinea would have been a timely and strategic exit.”  And who best to help him in this escape than Allen Dulles – indirectly, of course; for Dulles’s modus operandi was to maintain his “distance” from his contacts, often over many decades.

In other words, Dulles and de Mohrenschildt were intimately involved for a long time prior to JFK’s assassination. Poulgrain rightly claims that “the entire focus of the Kennedy investigation would have shifted had the [Warren] Commission become aware of the 40-year link between Allen Dulles and de Mohrenschildt.” Their relationship involved oil, spying, Indonesia, Nazi Germany, the Rockefellers, Cuba, Haiti, etc.  It was an international web of intrigue that involved a cast of characters stranger than fiction, a high cabal of the usual and unusual operatives.

Two unusual ones are worth mentioning: Michael Fomenko and Michael Rockefeller.  The eccentric Fomenko – aka “Tarzan” – is the Russian-Australian nephew of de Mohrenschildt’s wife, Jean Fomenko.  His arrest and deportation from Netherlands New Guinea in 1959, where he had travelled from Australia in a canoe, and his subsequent life, are fascinating and sad. It’s the stuff of a bizarre film. It seems he was one of those victims who had to be silenced because he knew a secret about George’s 1941 oil discovery that was not his to share. “In April 1964, at the same time George de Mohrenschildt was facing the Warren Commission – a time when any publicity regarding Sele 40 [George’s record oil discovery] could have changed history – it was decided that electro-convulsive therapy would be used on Michael Fomenko.” He was then imprisoned at the Ipswich Special Mental Hospital.

Equally interesting is the media myth surrounding the disappearance of Michael Rockefeller, Nelson’s son and heir to the Standard Oil fortune, who was allegedly eaten by cannibals in New Guinea in 1961. His tale became front-page news, “a media event closed off to any other explanation and the political implications of his disappearance became an ongoing tragedy for the Papuan people.”  To this very day, the West Papuan people, whose land was described by Standard Oil official Richard Archbold in 1938 as “Shangri-la,” are fighting for their independence.

Poulgrain offers most interesting takes on these two characters and shows how their stories are connected to the larger tale of intrigue.

This is a very important and compelling book.  Difficult and dense at times, more expansive at others, it greatly adds to our understanding of why JFK was murdered.  With its Indonesian focus, it shows us how Allen Dulles’s sinister purview was wide-spread and long-standing; how it included so much more than Cuba, Guatemala, Iran, etc.; specifically, how important far-distant Indonesia was in his thinking, and how that thinking clashed with President Kennedy’s on a crucial issue.  It forces us to consider how different the world would be if JFK had lived.

The Incubus of Intervention sheds new light on Indonesian history and America’s complicity in its tragedy.  It is essential reading today when Barack Obama is executing his pivot to Asia and promoting conflict with China and Russia.  Although not explored in Poulgrain’s book, it’s interesting to note that Obama’s Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetero, left Obama and his mother in Hawaii in that crucial year of 1966 when mass killings were underway to return to Indonesia to map Western New Guinea (West Papua) for the Indonesian government.  After Dulles’s regime change was accomplished and Suharto had replaced Sukarno, he went to work for Unocal, the first oil company to sign a production sharing agreement with Suharto.  Strange coincidences, bitter fruit.

Is Poulgrain correct?  Did Allen Dulles direct the assassination of President Kennedy to ensure his, rather the Kennedy’s, Indonesian strategy would succeed?

We know the CIA coordinated the assassination of President Kennedy.  We know that Allen Dulles was involved.  We know that Indonesia was one reason why.

Was it “the reason”?

Read this wonderful book and decide.

Edward Curtin is a writer who has published widely.  He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts.

Source :  Global Research, June 12, 2016

https://www.tribunal1965.org/en/allen-dulles-indonesian-strategy-and-the-assassination-of-john-f-kennedy/

George H. W. Bush
41st President of the United States
In office January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
Vice President	Dan Quayle
Preceded by	Ronald Reagan
Succeeded by	Bill Clinton
43rd Vice President of the United States
In office January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
President	Ronald Reagan
Preceded by	Walter Mondale
Succeeded by	Dan Quayle
11th Director of Central Intelligence
In office January 30, 1976 – January 20, 1977
President	Gerald Ford
Deputy	Vernon A. Walters E. Henry Knoche
Preceded by	William Colby
Succeeded by	Stansfield Turner
2nd Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China
In office September 26, 1974 – December 7, 1975
President	Gerald Ford
Preceded by	David K. E. Bruce
Succeeded by	Thomas S. Gates Jr.
Chair of the Republican National Committee
In office January 19, 1973 – September 16, 1974
Preceded by	Bob Dole
Succeeded by	Mary Smith
10th United States Ambassador to the United Nations
In office March 1, 1971 – January 18, 1973
President	Richard Nixon
Preceded by	Charles Yost
Succeeded by	John A. Scali
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 7th district
In office January 3, 1967 – January 3, 1971

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

 

Jimmy Carter

Tehran

Official visit; met with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and King Hussein of Jordan.

December 31, 1977–January 1, 1978

https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/travels/president/iran

 

 

 

 

President Jimmy Carter and Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran review an honor guard upon arrival in Tehran on Dec. 31, 1977. | AP Photo

THIS DAY IN POLITICS

Carter lauds shah of Iran, Dec. 31, 1977

 

By ANDREW GLASS

 

12/30/2018 11:59 PM EST

 

Updated 12/31/2018 12:02 AM EST

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Nearing the end of his first year in office, President Jimmy Carter embarked on an extended overseas tour, visiting Poland, Iran, India, France and Belgium. He spent New Year's Eve in Tehran, where, on this evening in 1977, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi threw a bash for Carter.

The president used the occasion of the state dinner given by the shah in his honor to dub Iran, at the time a reliable U.S. ally, “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.” Clicking glasses with his host, Carter attributed the nation’s purported solidity to the shah’s “great leadership,” adding: “This is a great tribute to you, your majesty, and to your leadership and to the respect and the admiration and love which your people give to you.”

Below the surface, however, the “island” remained far from tranquil. Even as the shah increasingly relied on his secret police to quash dissent, opposition to his rule steadily mounted. By October 1978, strikes paralyzed the country. By December, opposition forces, led from Paris by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had taken over the streets of Tehran. On Jan. 16, 1979, less than 13 months after Carter’s visit, the shah fled to Egypt.

When the shah found out that he had been stricken with cancer, he asked Carter for permission to come to the United States for treatment. Carter was aware that it would cause problems, but decided that, out of humanitarian considerations, he would accede to the shah’s request. In October 1979, he extended a public invitation to the shah.

Carter later said: "I was told that the shah was desperately ill, at the point of death. … I was told that New York was the only medical facility that was capable of possibly saving his life and reminded that the Iranian officials had promised to protect our people in Iran. When all the circumstances were described to me, I agreed.”

On Nov. 4, 1979, a mob of young Islamic revolutionaries overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking more than 60 Americans hostage. They were held for 444 days, until they were freed on the day Ronald Reagan took the oath of office as the nation’s 40th president — having denied Carter’s bid for a second term in a landslide Republican victory.

Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council during Carter’s term in office, has observed that “during the eight years before Carter’s election, President Richard Nixon and his foreign policy adviser, Henry Kissinger, had created a unique and unprecedented relationship with the Iranian ruler. As part of what was dubbed the ‘Twin Pillar’ policy, the shah was identified as the primary guardian of U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. (Saudi Arabia was the other pillar.) In return, the shah was permitted to purchase whatever non-nuclear U.S. military technology he wished.”

 

SOURCE: “This Day in Presidential History,” by Paul Brandus (2018)

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/30/this-day-in-politics-december-31-1077103

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

1979

WRITTEN BY: 

• The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

LAST UPDATED: Dec 4, 2019 See Article History

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Afghanistan in late December 1979 by troops from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union intervened in support of the Afghan communist government in its conflict with anti-communist Muslim guerrillas during the Afghan War (1978–92) and remained in Afghanistan until mid-February 1989.

A Soviet armoured vehicle rolling past a group of civilians during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, December 1979.Archive Photos/Getty Images

In April 1978 Afghanistan’s centrist government, headed by Pres. Mohammad Daud Khan, was overthrown by left-wing military officers led by Nur Mohammad Taraki. Power was thereafter shared by two Marxist-Leninist political groups, the People’s (Khalq) Party and the Banner (Parcham) Party—which had earlier emerged from a single organization, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan—and had reunited in an uneasy coalition shortly before the coup. The new government, which had little popular support, forged close ties with the Soviet Union, launched ruthless purges of all domestic opposition, and began extensive land and social reforms that were bitterly resented by the devoutly Muslim and largely anti-communist population. Insurgencies arose against the government among both tribal and urban groups, and all of these—known collectively as the mujahideen (Arabic mujāhidūn, “those who engage in jihad”)—were Islamic in orientation.

These uprisings, along with internal fighting and coups within the government between the People’s and Banner factions, prompted the Soviets to invade the country on the night of December 24, 1979, sending in some 30,000 troops and toppling the short-lived presidency of People’s leader Hafizullah Amin. The aim of the Soviet operation was to prop up their new but faltering client state, now headed by Banner leader Babrak Karmal, but Karmal was unable to attain significant popular support. Backed by the United States, the mujahideen rebellion grew, spreading to all parts of the country. The Soviets initially left the suppression of the rebellion to the Afghan army, but the latter was beset by mass desertions and remained largely ineffective throughout the war.

The Afghan War quickly settled down into a stalemate, with more than 100,000 Soviet troops controlling the cities, larger towns, and major garrisons and the mujahideen moving with relative freedom throughout the countryside. Soviet troops tried to crush the insurgency by various tactics, but the guerrillas generally eluded their attacks. The Soviets then attempted to eliminate the mujahideen’s civilian support by bombing and depopulating the rural areas. These tactics sparked a massive flight from the countryside; by 1982 some 2.8 million Afghans had sought asylum in Pakistan, and another 1.5 million had fled to Iran. The mujahideen were eventually able to neutralize Soviet air power through the use of shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles supplied by the Soviet Union’s Cold War adversary, the United States.

Soviet helicopter and tank operations in the Afghan War, Afghanistan, 1984.U.S. Department of Defense

The mujahideen were fragmented politically into a handful of independent groups, and their military efforts remained uncoordinated throughout the war. The quality of their arms and combat organization gradually improved, however, owing to experience and to the large quantity of arms and other war matériel shipped to the rebels, via Pakistan, by the United States and other countries and by sympathetic Muslims from throughout the world. In addition, an indeterminate number of Muslim volunteers—popularly termed “Afghan-Arabs,” regardless of their ethnicity—traveled from all parts of the world to join the opposition.

The war in Afghanistan became a quagmire for what by the late 1980s was a disintegrating Soviet Union. (The Soviets suffered some 15,000 dead and many more injured.) Despite having failed to implement a sympathetic regime in Afghanistan, in 1988 the Soviet Union signed an accord with the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and agreed to withdraw its troops. The Soviet withdrawal was completed on February 15, 1989, and Afghanistan returned to nonaligned status.

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; Afghan WarA convoy of Soviet armoured vehicles crossing a bridge at the Soviet-Afghan border, February 15, 1989, during the withdrawal of the Red Army from Afghanistan.A. Solomonov/RIA Novosti Archive; image no. 58833 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

https://www.britannica.com/event/Soviet-invasion-of-Afghanistan

 

Going to the following video 27:56 mark through 28:25 states what we ALL knew, know, AND SHOULD know AND this from a KNOWLEDGEABLE Iranian.

 

 

[coorslite21]

53 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

I suspect a key item influencing the 2020 Presidential Election is the future and potency of the Deep Do Do State in The United States Of America AND The Whole World via Shadow Diplomacy. Finances, and Underworld are likely key drivers whereas seemingly unrelated issues on the surface with another war raging underneath.

 

Manipulation of the masses (emotionally, philosophically, politically, etc.) has ALWAYS been a key tactic to make the unacceptable embraced and incorporated in the culture and society as a whole promoting controlled destruction. The problem is when the whole culture and society is unsustainable. Well, NO problem REALLY. Just create wars and change out the regime(s) to start over.

 

The United States Of America based on the four (4) Textual Cornerstones is a STAND ALONE in history and can be sustained as long as the four (4) Textual Cornerstones are practiced without either enforcement NOR circumvention by Government Functions.

 

The lowest forms of Government AND it's influences coincides with the highest level of personal AND corporate responsibilities.

 

- Synopsis

 

So, lack of due diligence leaves Government to Govern the lowest and most basic behaviors and benefits.

 

Self Governance is the highest and most necessary form of Governance.

 

- Synopsis

 

In whatever realm of social and moral freedoms is not exercised, the vacuum is filled by Government or Corruption. Many times it is both.

 

- Synopsis

 

The Beauty of Government is the absence thereof.

 

- Synopsis

 

Much of the civil laws are a cheap excuse for immoral behavior and/or the will of the Government to impose it's will on the people.

 

- Synopsis

 

Well, OK, NOT bad for the Village Idiot. eh?

 

      

 

From my originating post:

 

 

The Deep Do Do State has tentacles in history AND World Wide.

 

During the lifetime of my biological father AND paterfamilias, I heard him say numerous times, "The thing that got Kennedy (JFK) killed is he was trying to figure out who was pulling the world money strings."

 

JFK signed EO 11110 and the silver backed Silver Certificates The United States Of America Currency via The United States Of America Treasury was issued.

 

From the second article below, JFK also was developing a relationship with Indonesian President Sukarno. The article is, I would say, fascinating due to the Deep Do Do States' strange actions where some appear to be playing both sides. IF JFK had NOT been assassinated, the Vietnam War would NOT have occurred AT LEAST AT THAT TIME. My opinion is the looting by Japan during World War II with the subsequent hiding of the riches played and continues to play a key role in activities in the region. Not only China but other SE Asian countries would benefit for having their stolen fortunes repatriated. For currency backing, China having the gold returned would bolster the Yuan's potency with a gold reserve that could rival or exceed The United States Of America's Gold Reserves. Hence The United States Of America's continued presence in SE Asia.

 

Also to note, Bark Insane Obama's ties to Indonesia.........................................................what kind of Deep Do Do State CRAP is going on with HIM AND HIS "man" "wife"???!!!

 

Prescott Bush is 41's biological father and paterfamilias. Prescott Bush had ties to Nazi Germany and funding during World War II. So, enter the "missing" "years" of 41's career as noted in the third article.

 

So, WHERE, pray tell, WAS 41 from January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 AND WHO, pray tell, WAS The United States Of America President AT THE TIME???!!!

 

YEP!!!

 

39.

 

NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!

 

Enter Iran.

 

On February 11, 1979, the Shah of Iran was deposed. 39 visited Iran December 31, 1977 - January 1, 1978.

 

The growing threat of Radical Islamists could not have gone unnoticed by either 39 or the Shah of Iran with serious implications for Iran's political future. 39 may not have understood it while the Shah, concerned for his own retention of power and life, would have very likely informed diplomatic channels, to include 39, of the necessity to address the situation.

 

39 would have also had knowledge of the Deep Do Do State's activities in the region to include the psy ops underway to over throw the Shah of Iran to install radical Islamists for Terrorism, Corruption, AND Control of the Middle East AND advance the undermining of attempted undermining of Israel.

 

The last video has been posted before and includes key previously known events implicating 39's role in the take over of the radical Islamists in Iran.

 

Fair to say 39 is a Globalist The United States Of America President with Deep Do Do State leaning. Wolves can have sheep's clothing especially if the Deep Do Do State was not called out and exposed at the time if 39 really did care about Iran being, "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world."

 

IF the Shah of Iran really did have cancer, a much more peaceable transition of power could have been implemented so Iran would remain, "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world."

 

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan late December of 1979 and was there until February of 1989. You guessed it, exiting right after 41's inauguration.

 

So, WHY, pray tell, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan???!!! Warm water port OR acquiring the lucrative poppy trade???!!!

 

WHY, pray tell, were The United States Of America Service Men and Women GUARDING the poppy crops AFTER the 2002 invasion???!!!

 

WHERE, pray tell, are the Afghan poppy fields NOW AND "processing" "facilities"???!!!

 

WHAT, pray tell, is the opiate raw material???!!!

 

Ending ENDLESS Wars as stated by The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump.

 

Getting Rid of the Deep Do Do State's Potency WITH Black Ops AND Funding.

 

NO WONDER the rats are running around with THEIR future ABOUT TO END!!!

 

The 2020 Presidential Election REALLY is about the future of the Deep Do Do State's Potency with the fight in the hands of ACTUAL The United States Of America Citizen voters.

 

Swayed by emotion, philosophical, or political leanings OR understanding what Liberty is ALL about and promoting for future generations???!!!

 

The United States Of America Service Men And Women buried in War Memorial graves remind me of my likewise obligation to pay it forward for future generations come way may in whatever way necessary to address.

 

A standing side joke REALLY illustrating the situation is the one who destroyed THIS Great Nation is now building houses for the ones' whose Nation he destroyed who would have had their previous houses if he had NOT destroyed their nation.

 

Built dependency.

 

      

 

Millions of lost lives in the Middle East.

 

Multiple tens of thousands of The United States Of America Service Men And Women's lives lost and maimed.

 

      

 

Well, OK, HONESTLY, I was focusing on the higher level 2020 Presidential Election influences whereas other background notations are helpful to understand the larger and more covert war we are facing for not only our safety and security but that of the Whole World.

 

Possibly easy to see how this all ties into the Belt and Road Initiative, Global Trade, Global Trade Deals, Peace and Prosperity, Liberty, AND our Speculative Bicraqi Iraqi Dinar Investment AND what needs to happen to clear the way with the Deep Do Do State ENTRENCHED activities going back to the 39 years with 41 in the back ground.

 

Good Guy (39) / Bad Guy (41). Two sides of the same coin like a BAD, BAD penny.

 

Noun. bad penny (plural bad pennies) Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see bad,‎ penny: A counterfeit or damaged penny. (idiomatic) A person or thing which is unpleasant, disreputable, or otherwise unwanted, especially one which repeatedly appears at inopportune times.

 

I mean no offense. I ask no permission. I make no apologies. ACTUAL TRUTH is ALL that matters.

 

After all, Benedict Arnold was a True The United States Of America Patriot until................................

 

Carter, Rockefeller And The Shah Of Iran: What 1979 Can Teach Us About The Dangers Of Shadow Diplomacy10:47

 

January 02, 2020

• Robin Young
• Samantha Raphelson

 

In this Nov. 15, 1977 photo, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran visits Washington. (AP)

The attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad this week is serving as a warning about the dangers of shadow diplomacy.

The Washington Post reported this week that Rudy Giuliani was part of a back-channel effort to ease President Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela. President Trump’s personal lawyer was also involved in an effort to interfere in U.S. policy in Ukraine, the subject of the upcoming impeachment trial against the president.

Shadow diplomatic efforts like those orchestrated by Giuliani and others are “not new,” says former New York Times reporter Terence Smith. Smith reported on this in the late 1970s when David Rockefeller, heir to the Standard Oil fortune and chief executive of Chase Bank, tried to convince a reluctant President Jimmy Carter to bring the Shah of Iran — who was deposed in the 1979 revolution — to the U.S.

Nearly 40 years later, the Times’ David Kirkpatrick used Rockefeller’s private minutes to corroborate much of what Smith wrote in a 1981 piece about those puppet masters.

Carter’s decision to bring Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran to the U.S. prompted angry Iranians, who wanted the shah tried for corruption, to attack the U.S. embassy in Tehran — holding 52 hostages for 444 days.

View of a massive demonstration against the Shah of Iran in downtown Tehran, Iran, Oct. 9, 1978. (Michel Lipchitz/AP)

After he was deposed, Mohammad Reza Shah went on an “odyssey,” Smith says, looking for a country that would accept him, his family and small band of supporters. Carter didn’t want to let the shah into the country for a number of reasons, including the fact that he wanted to establish a relationship with Iran’s new leaders.

Carter reluctantly brought the shah to the U.S. because he was told that Mohammad Reza Shah was very sick, and he could only get the treatment he needed in New York. Smith says when he asked Carter in 1981 why he admitted the shah, his answer revealed he was misinformed about the shah’s health.

“He said, 'Well, I was told that he was close to death and that he ... needed to come to New York for medical treatment and that New York was the only place where he could get this,' ” Smith says.

“I had interviewed Dr. Benjamin Kean, who had examined the Shah and knew firsthand that that was not true,” he adds. “So I said to the president, 'You know that's not correct. That he was not at the point of death, and New York was not the only facility that could save him.’ In fact, the work that needed to be done could have been done anywhere, including in Mexico where he was.”

Smith says Carter “insisted vehemently” that he was told this narrative. “And I don’t doubt him for a minute,” he says.

Kirkpatrick’s latest reporting in the Times shows that Carter was in fact misled. But Carter was perhaps oblivious as to who was pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Picture of exiled Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini overshadows huge anti-Shah demonstration commemorating 25 years of the monarch's rule and symbol of his power, Dec. 10, 1978, in Tehran. (Michel Lipchitz/AP)

Rockefeller, a Republican, and his supporters were working very closely with the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan — Carter’s opponent in the 1980 election — to ensure the hostages weren’t released until after the election. If they had been set free beforehand, Carter might have won reelection.

“David Rockefeller was a great friend and supporter of the Shah of Iran, along with Henry Kissinger and [former shah attorney] John J. McCloy, and so they had ... their own agenda, as you say, their own foreign policy, if you like, which was to persuade President Carter to admit the shah,” Smith says. “And so they mounted quite a campaign to do it.”

Rockefeller was such a staunch supporter of Mohammad Reza Shah because his bank was very profitable with Iran when the shah was in power, Smith says.

“In fact, by 1979, the bank had syndicated more than $1.7 billion in loans for Iranian public projects. And that's the equivalent of maybe $5.8 [billion] to $6 billion today,” he says. “So as they say in Washington, there was real money involved.”

The attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad by an Iran-backed militia is almost a repeat of history, Smith says.

“The outbreak of violence in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in the last couple of days is so haunting because it's almost a carbon copy of what happened in Tehran, actually nine months before the hostages were taken, and then again, when the hostages were taken,” he says.

Smith says the difference between what happened in the ‘70s and the shadow diplomacy of today is that Giuliani's tactics are “much more direct.”

“This is the president's personal lawyer … Rudy Giuliani taking an active role to try to bring about events that would, he hoped, help President Trump in his reelection and damage his presumed opponent, Joe Biden,” Smith says. “So this, I would argue today, is a much more blatant and out front obvious manipulation by, in this case, the president's personal lawyer, than what you had before [which] was positively subtle and gentlemanly by comparison.”

---

Cassady Rosenblum produced and edited this interview for broadcast with Tinku Ray. Samantha Raphelson adapted it for the web. 

This segment aired on January 2, 2020.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/01/02/shah-of-iran-diplomacy

Allen Dulles’ “Indonesian Strategy” and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Home/Reference/Allen Dulles’ “Indonesian Strategy” and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

• View Larger Image

•  
•  

Allen Dulles’ “Indonesian Strategy” and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

 

By Edward Curtin

Review of Greg Poulgrain’s book “The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles”

Would Allen Dulles have resorted to assassinating the President of the United States to ensure the achievement of  his ‘Indonesian strategy’?

This is the central question addressed by Greg Poulgrain in his extraordinarily important book, The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles.

Two days before President John Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, he had accepted an invitation from Indonesian President Sukarno to visit that country the following spring.  The aim of the visit was to end the conflict (Konfrontasi) between Indonesia and Malaysia and to continue Kennedy’s efforts to support system" rel="">support post-colonial Indonesia with economic and developmental aid, not military.   It was part of his larger strategy of ending conflict throughout Southeast Asia and assisting the growth of democracy in newly liberated post-colonial countries worldwide.
He had forecast his position in a dramatic speech in 1957 when, as a Massachusetts Senator, he told the Senate that he supported the Algerian liberation movement and opposed colonial imperialism worldwide.  The speech caused an international uproar and Kennedy was harshly attacked by Eisenhower, Nixon, John Foster Dulles, and even liberals such as Adlai Stevenson.  But he was praised throughout the third world.

Of course JFK never went to Indonesia in 1964, and his peaceful strategy to bring Indonesia to America’s side and to ease tensions in the Cold War was never realized, thanks to Allen Dulles.  And Kennedy’s proposed withdrawal from Vietnam, which was premised on success in Indonesia, was quickly reversed by Lyndon Johnson after JFK’s murder.  Soon both countries would experience mass slaughter engineered by Kennedy’s opponents in the CIA and Pentagon. Millions would die. Subsequently, starting in December 1975, American installed Indonesian dictator, Suharto, would slaughter hundreds of thousands East-Timorese with American weapons after meeting with Henry Kissinger and President Ford and receiving their approval.

Dulles’s Secret

What JFK didn’t know was that his plans were threatening a covert long-standing conspiracy engineered by Allen Dulles to effect regime change in Indonesia through bloody means. The primary goal behind this plan was to gain unimpeded access to the vast load of natural resources that Dulles had kept secret from Kennedy, who thought Indonesia was lacking in natural resources.  But Dulles knew that if Kennedy, who was very popular in Indonesia, visited Sukarno, it would deal a death blow to his plan to oust Sukarno, install a CIA replacement (Suharto), exterminate alleged communists, and secure the archipelago for Rockefeller controlled oil and mining interests, for whom he had fronted  since the 1920s.

Dr. Poulgrain, who teaches Indonesian History, Politics and Society at the University of Sunshine Coast in Australia, explores in very great detail historical issues that have critical significance for today.  Based on almost three decades of interviews and research around the world, he has produced a very densely argued book that reads like a detective novel with fascinating sub- plots.

The Importance of Indonesia

Most Americans have little awareness of the strategic and economic importance of Indonesia.  It is the world’s 4^th most populous country, is situated in a vital shipping lane adjacent to the South China Sea, has the world’s largest Muslim population, has vast mineral and oil deposits, and is home to Grasberg, the world’s largest copper and gold mine, owned by Freeport McMoRan of Phoenix, Arizona.  Long a battleground in the Cold War, it remains vitally important in the New Cold War launched by the Obama administration against Russia and China, the same antagonists Allen Dulles strove to defeat through guile and violence.  Just recently the Indonesian government, under pressure from the army that has stymied democratic reforms for 18 years, signed a defense agreement with Russia for the sharing of intelligence, the sale of Russian military equipment, including fighter jets, and the manufacturing of weapons in Indonesia.  While not front page news in the U.S., these facts make Indonesia of great importance today and add to the gravity of Poulgrain’s history.

The Devil in Paradise 

His use of the word “incubus” (an evil spirit that has sexual intercourse with sleeping women) in the title is appropriate since the sinister character that snakes his way through this historical analysis is Allen Dulles, the longest serving Director of the CIA and Kennedy’s arch-enemy.  While contextually different from David Talbot’s portrayal of Dulles in The Devil’s Chessboard, Poulgrain’s portrait of Dulles within the frame of Indonesian history is equally condemnatory and nightmarish.  Both describe an evil genius ready to do anything to advance his agenda.

Reading Poulgrain’s masterful analysis, one can clearly see how much of modern history is a struggle for control of the underworld where lies the fuel that runs the megamachine – oil, minerals, gold, etc.  Manifest ideological conflicts, while garnering headlines, often bury the secret of this subterranean devil’s game.

His story begins with a discovery that is then kept secret for many decades:  “In the alpine region of Netherlands New Guinea (so named under Dutch colonial rule – today, West Papua) in 1936, three Dutchmen discovered a mountainous outcrop of ore with high copper content and very high concentrations of gold.  When later analyzed in the Netherlands, the gold (in gram/ton) proved to be twice that of Witwatersrand in South Africa, then the world’s richest gold mine, but this information was not made public.”

The geologist among the trio, Jean Jacques Dozy, worked for the Netherlands New Guinea Petroleum Company (NNGPM), ostensibly a Dutch-controlled company based in The Hague, but whose controlling interest actually lay in the hands of the Rockefeller family, as did the mining company, Freeport Indonesia (now Freeport McMoRan, one of whose Directors from 1988-95 was Henry Kissinger, Dulles’s and the Rockefeller’s close associate) that began mining operations there in 1966.  It was Allen Dulles, Paris-based lawyer in the employ of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, who in 1935 arranged the controlling interest in NNGPN for the Rockefellers.  And it was Dulles, among a select few others, who, because of various intervening events, including WW II, that made its exploitation impossible, kept the secret of the gold mine for almost three decades, even from President Kennedy. JFK “was never informed of the ‘El Dorado’ he had unwittingly taken out of Dutch hands with the result that (once the remaining political hurdles in Indonesia were overcome) Freeport would have unimpeded access to its mining concession.” Those “political hurdles” – i.e. regime change – would take a while to effect.

The Indonesia-Cuba Connection

But first JFK would have to be eliminated, for he had brokered Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua/West Irian for Sukarno from the Dutch who had ties to Freeport Sulphur.  Freeport was aghast at the potential loss of “El Dorado,” especially since they had recently had their world’s most advanced nickel refinery expropriated by Fidel Castro, who had named Che Guevara its new manager.  Freeport’s losses in Cuba made access to Indonesia even more important. Cuba and Indonesia thus were joined in the deadly game of chess between Dulles and Kennedy, and someone would have to lose.

While much has been written about Cuba, Kennedy, and Dulles, the Indonesian side of the story has been slighted. Poulgrain remedies this with an exhaustive and deeply researched exploration of these matters. He details the deviousness of the covert operation Dulles ran in Indonesia during the 1950s and 1960s.  He makes it clear that Kennedy was shocked by Dulles’ actions, yet never fully grasped the treacherous genius of it all. Dulles was always “working two or three stages ahead of the present.”  Having armed and promoted a rebellion against Sukarno’s central government in 1958, Dulles made sure it would fail (shades of the Bay of Pigs to come).

Yet the end result of CIA interference in Indonesian internal affairs via the 1958 Rebellion was depicted as a failure at the time, and has consistently been depicted as a failure since that time.  This holds true only if the stated goal of the CIA was the same as the actual goal.  Even more than five decades later, media analysis of the goal of The Outer Island rebels is still portrayed as a secession, as covert US support system" rel="">support for ‘rebels in the Outer Islands that wished to secede from the central government in Jakarta’.  The actual goal of Allen Dulles had more to do with achieving a centralized army command in such a way as to appear that the CIA backing for the rebels failed.

 The Need for Assassinations

Dulles betrayed the rebels he armed and encouraged, just as he betrayed friend and foe alike during his long career.  The rebellion that he instigated and planned to fail was the first stage of a larger intelligence strategy that would come to fruition in 1965-6 with the ouster of Sukarno (after multiple unsuccessful assassination attempts) and the institution of a reign of terror that followed.  It was also when – 1966 – Freeport McMoRan began their massive mining in West Papua at Grasberg at an elevation of 14,000 feet in the Alpine region.  Dulles was nothing if not patient; he had been at this game since WW I.  Even after Kennedy fired him following the Bay of Pigs, his plans were executed, just as those who got in his way were.  Poulgrain makes a powerful case that these included JFK, U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold (working with Kennedy for a peaceful solution in Indonesia and other places), and Congolese President Patrice Lumumba.

His focus is on why they needed to be assassinated (similar in this regard to James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable), though with the exception of Kennedy (since the how is well-known and obvious), he also presents compelling evidence as to the how.  Hammarskjold, in many ways Kennedy’s spiritual brother, was a particularly powerful obstacle to Dulles’s plans for Indonesia and countries throughout the Third World.  Like JFK, he was committed to independence for indigenous and colonial peoples everywhere, and was trying to implement “his Swedish-style ‘third way’ proposing a form of ‘muscular pacifism’.”

Had the UN Secretary General succeeded in bringing even half these countries to independence, he would have transformed the UN into a significant world power and created a body of nations so large as to be a counter-weight to those embroiled in the Cold War.

Poulgrain draws on documents from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Chairman Archbishop Desmond Tutu to show the connection between South Africa’s “Operation Celest” and Dulles’s involvement in Hammarskjold’s murder in September 1961.  While it was reported at the time as an accidental plane crash, he quotes former President Harry Truman saying, “Dag Hammarskjold was on the point of getting something done when they killed him.  Notice that I said, ‘When they killed him’.”

Dulles sold his overt Indonesian strategy as being necessary to thwart a communist takeover in Indonesian. Cold War rhetoric, like “the war on terrorism” today, served as his cover.  In this he had the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his side; they considered Kennedy soft on communism, in Indonesia and Cuba and everywhere else. Dulles’s covert agenda was to serve the interests of his power elite patrons.

Dulles and George de Mohrenschildt

Poulgrain adds significantly to our understanding of JFK’s assassination and its aftermath by presenting new information about George de Mohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald’s handler in Dallas.  Dulles had a long association with the de Mohrenschildt family, going back to 1920-21 when in Constantinople he negotiated with Baron Sergius Alexander von Mohrenschildt on behalf of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil.  The Baron’s brother and business partner was George’s father.  Dulles’s law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, “was virtually the front desk for Standard Oil.”  These negotiations on behalf of elite capitalist interests, in the shadow of the Russian Revolution, became the template for Dulles’s career: economic exploitation was inseparable from military concerns, the former concealed behind the anti-communist rhetoric of the latter.  An anti-red thread ran through Dulles’s career, except when the red was the blood of all those whom he considered expendable.  And the numbers are legion.

“It was through Standard Oil that a link existed between Dulles [who controlled the Warren Commission] and de Mohrenschildt, and this should have been brought to the attention of the Warren Commission but was not made public when Dulles had so prominent a role.”  Poulgrain argues convincingly that De Mohrenschildt worked in “oil intelligence” before his CIA involvement, and that oil intelligence was not only Dulles’s work when he first met George’s father, Sergius, in Baku, but that that “oil intelligence” is a redundancy. The CIA, after all, is a creation of Wall Street and their interests have always been joined. The Agency was not formed to provide intelligence to US Presidents; that was a convenient myth used to cover its real purpose which was to serve the interests of investment bankers and the power elite.

While working in 1941 for Humble Oil  (Prescott Bush was a major shareholder, Dulles was his lawyer, and Standard Oil had secretly bought Humble Oil sixteen years before), de Mohrenschildt was caught up in a scandal that involved Vichy (pro-Nazi) French intelligence in selling oil to Germany.  This was similar to the Dulles’s brothers and Standard Oil’s notorious business dealings with Germany.

It was an intricate web of the high cabal with Allen Dulles at the center.

In the midst of the scandal, de Mohrenschildt, suspected of being a Vichy French intelligence agent, “disappeared” for a while.  He later told the Warren Commission that he decided to take up oil drilling, without mentioning the name of Humble Oil that employed him again, this time as a roustabout.

“Just when George needed to ‘disappear’, Humble Oil was providing an oil exploration team to be subcontracted to NNGPM – the company Allen Dulles had set up five years earlier to work in Netherlands New Guinea.”  Poulgrain makes a powerful circumstantial evidence case (certain documents are still unavailable) that de Mohrenschildt, in order to avoid appearing in court, went in communicado in Netherlands New Guinea’s in mid-1941 where he made a record oil discovery and received a $10,000 bonus from Humble Oil.

“Avoiding adverse publicity about his role in selling oil to Vichy France was the main priority; for George, a brief drilling adventure in remote Netherlands New Guinea would have been a timely and strategic exit.”  And who best to help him in this escape than Allen Dulles – indirectly, of course; for Dulles’s modus operandi was to maintain his “distance” from his contacts, often over many decades.

In other words, Dulles and de Mohrenschildt were intimately involved for a long time prior to JFK’s assassination. Poulgrain rightly claims that “the entire focus of the Kennedy investigation would have shifted had the [Warren] Commission become aware of the 40-year link between Allen Dulles and de Mohrenschildt.” Their relationship involved oil, spying, Indonesia, Nazi Germany, the Rockefellers, Cuba, Haiti, etc.  It was an international web of intrigue that involved a cast of characters stranger than fiction, a high cabal of the usual and unusual operatives.

Two unusual ones are worth mentioning: Michael Fomenko and Michael Rockefeller.  The eccentric Fomenko – aka “Tarzan” – is the Russian-Australian nephew of de Mohrenschildt’s wife, Jean Fomenko.  His arrest and deportation from Netherlands New Guinea in 1959, where he had travelled from Australia in a canoe, and his subsequent life, are fascinating and sad. It’s the stuff of a bizarre film. It seems he was one of those victims who had to be silenced because he knew a secret about George’s 1941 oil discovery that was not his to share. “In April 1964, at the same time George de Mohrenschildt was facing the Warren Commission – a time when any publicity regarding Sele 40 [George’s record oil discovery] could have changed history – it was decided that electro-convulsive therapy would be used on Michael Fomenko.” He was then imprisoned at the Ipswich Special Mental Hospital.

Equally interesting is the media myth surrounding the disappearance of Michael Rockefeller, Nelson’s son and heir to the Standard Oil fortune, who was allegedly eaten by cannibals in New Guinea in 1961. His tale became front-page news, “a media event closed off to any other explanation and the political implications of his disappearance became an ongoing tragedy for the Papuan people.”  To this very day, the West Papuan people, whose land was described by Standard Oil official Richard Archbold in 1938 as “Shangri-la,” are fighting for their independence.

Poulgrain offers most interesting takes on these two characters and shows how their stories are connected to the larger tale of intrigue.

This is a very important and compelling book.  Difficult and dense at times, more expansive at others, it greatly adds to our understanding of why JFK was murdered.  With its Indonesian focus, it shows us how Allen Dulles’s sinister purview was wide-spread and long-standing; how it included so much more than Cuba, Guatemala, Iran, etc.; specifically, how important far-distant Indonesia was in his thinking, and how that thinking clashed with President Kennedy’s on a crucial issue.  It forces us to consider how different the world would be if JFK had lived.

The Incubus of Intervention sheds new light on Indonesian history and America’s complicity in its tragedy.  It is essential reading today when Barack Obama is executing his pivot to Asia and promoting conflict with China and Russia.  Although not explored in Poulgrain’s book, it’s interesting to note that Obama’s Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetero, left Obama and his mother in Hawaii in that crucial year of 1966 when mass killings were underway to return to Indonesia to map Western New Guinea (West Papua) for the Indonesian government.  After Dulles’s regime change was accomplished and Suharto had replaced Sukarno, he went to work for Unocal, the first oil company to sign a production sharing agreement with Suharto.  Strange coincidences, bitter fruit.

Is Poulgrain correct?  Did Allen Dulles direct the assassination of President Kennedy to ensure his, rather the Kennedy’s, Indonesian strategy would succeed?

We know the CIA coordinated the assassination of President Kennedy.  We know that Allen Dulles was involved.  We know that Indonesia was one reason why.

Was it “the reason”?

Read this wonderful book and decide.

Edward Curtin is a writer who has published widely.  He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts.

Source :  Global Research, June 12, 2016

https://www.tribunal1965.org/en/allen-dulles-indonesian-strategy-and-the-assassination-of-john-f-kennedy/

George H. W. Bush
41st President of the United States
In office January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
Vice President	Dan Quayle
Preceded by	Ronald Reagan
Succeeded by	Bill Clinton
43rd Vice President of the United States
In office January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
President	Ronald Reagan
Preceded by	Walter Mondale
Succeeded by	Dan Quayle
11th Director of Central Intelligence
In office January 30, 1976 – January 20, 1977
President	Gerald Ford
Deputy	Vernon A. Walters E. Henry Knoche
Preceded by	William Colby
Succeeded by	Stansfield Turner
2nd Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China
In office September 26, 1974 – December 7, 1975
President	Gerald Ford
Preceded by	David K. E. Bruce
Succeeded by	Thomas S. Gates Jr.
Chair of the Republican National Committee
In office January 19, 1973 – September 16, 1974
Preceded by	Bob Dole
Succeeded by	Mary Smith
10th United States Ambassador to the United Nations
In office March 1, 1971 – January 18, 1973
President	Richard Nixon
Preceded by	Charles Yost
Succeeded by	John A. Scali
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 7th district
In office January 3, 1967 – January 3, 1971

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

 

Jimmy Carter

Tehran

Official visit; met with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and King Hussein of Jordan.

December 31, 1977–January 1, 1978

https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/travels/president/iran

 

 

 

 

 

President Jimmy Carter and Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran review an honor guard upon arrival in Tehran on Dec. 31, 1977. | AP Photo

THIS DAY IN POLITICS

Carter lauds shah of Iran, Dec. 31, 1977

 

By ANDREW GLASS

 

12/30/2018 11:59 PM EST

 

Updated 12/31/2018 12:02 AM EST

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Nearing the end of his first year in office, President Jimmy Carter embarked on an extended overseas tour, visiting Poland, Iran, India, France and Belgium. He spent New Year's Eve in Tehran, where, on this evening in 1977, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi threw a bash for Carter.

The president used the occasion of the state dinner given by the shah in his honor to dub Iran, at the time a reliable U.S. ally, “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.” Clicking glasses with his host, Carter attributed the nation’s purported solidity to the shah’s “great leadership,” adding: “This is a great tribute to you, your majesty, and to your leadership and to the respect and the admiration and love which your people give to you.”

Below the surface, however, the “island” remained far from tranquil. Even as the shah increasingly relied on his secret police to quash dissent, opposition to his rule steadily mounted. By October 1978, strikes paralyzed the country. By December, opposition forces, led from Paris by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had taken over the streets of Tehran. On Jan. 16, 1979, less than 13 months after Carter’s visit, the shah fled to Egypt.

When the shah found out that he had been stricken with cancer, he asked Carter for permission to come to the United States for treatment. Carter was aware that it would cause problems, but decided that, out of humanitarian considerations, he would accede to the shah’s request. In October 1979, he extended a public invitation to the shah.

Carter later said: "I was told that the shah was desperately ill, at the point of death. … I was told that New York was the only medical facility that was capable of possibly saving his life and reminded that the Iranian officials had promised to protect our people in Iran. When all the circumstances were described to me, I agreed.”

On Nov. 4, 1979, a mob of young Islamic revolutionaries overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking more than 60 Americans hostage. They were held for 444 days, until they were freed on the day Ronald Reagan took the oath of office as the nation’s 40th president — having denied Carter’s bid for a second term in a landslide Republican victory.

Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council during Carter’s term in office, has observed that “during the eight years before Carter’s election, President Richard Nixon and his foreign policy adviser, Henry Kissinger, had created a unique and unprecedented relationship with the Iranian ruler. As part of what was dubbed the ‘Twin Pillar’ policy, the shah was identified as the primary guardian of U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. (Saudi Arabia was the other pillar.) In return, the shah was permitted to purchase whatever non-nuclear U.S. military technology he wished.”

 

SOURCE: “This Day in Presidential History,” by Paul Brandus (2018)

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/30/this-day-in-politics-december-31-1077103

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

1979

WRITTEN BY: 

• The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

LAST UPDATED: Dec 4, 2019 See Article History

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Afghanistan in late December 1979 by troops from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union intervened in support system" rel="">support of the Afghan communist government in its conflict with anti-communist Muslim guerrillas during the Afghan War (1978–92) and remained in Afghanistan until mid-February 1989.

A Soviet armoured vehicle rolling past a group of civilians during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, December 1979.Archive Photos/Getty Images

In April 1978 Afghanistan’s centrist government, headed by Pres. Mohammad Daud Khan, was overthrown by left-wing military officers led by Nur Mohammad Taraki. Power was thereafter shared by two Marxist-Leninist political groups, the People’s (Khalq) Party and the Banner (Parcham) Party—which had earlier emerged from a single organization, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan—and had reunited in an uneasy coalition shortly before the coup. The new government, which had little popular support system" rel="">support, forged close ties with the Soviet Union, launched ruthless purges of all domestic opposition, and began extensive land and social reforms that were bitterly resented by the devoutly Muslim and largely anti-communist population. Insurgencies arose against the government among both tribal and urban groups, and all of these—known collectively as the mujahideen (Arabic mujāhidūn, “those who engage in jihad”)—were Islamic in orientation.

These uprisings, along with internal fighting and coups within the government between the People’s and Banner factions, prompted the Soviets to invade the country on the night of December 24, 1979, sending in some 30,000 troops and toppling the short-lived presidency of People’s leader Hafizullah Amin. The aim of the Soviet operation was to prop up their new but faltering client state, now headed by Banner leader Babrak Karmal, but Karmal was unable to attain significant popular support system" rel="">support. Backed by the United States, the mujahideen rebellion grew, spreading to all parts of the country. The Soviets initially left the suppression of the rebellion to the Afghan army, but the latter was beset by mass desertions and remained largely ineffective throughout the war.

The Afghan War quickly settled down into a stalemate, with more than 100,000 Soviet troops controlling the cities, larger towns, and major garrisons and the mujahideen moving with relative freedom throughout the countryside. Soviet troops tried to crush the insurgency by various tactics, but the guerrillas generally eluded their attacks. The Soviets then attempted to eliminate the mujahideen’s civilian support system" rel="">support by bombing and depopulating the rural areas. These tactics sparked a massive flight from the countryside; by 1982 some 2.8 million Afghans had sought asylum in Pakistan, and another 1.5 million had fled to Iran. The mujahideen were eventually able to neutralize Soviet air power through the use of shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles supplied by the Soviet Union’s Cold War adversary, the United States.

Soviet helicopter and tank operations in the Afghan War, Afghanistan, 1984.U.S. Department of Defense

The mujahideen were fragmented politically into a handful of independent groups, and their military efforts remained uncoordinated throughout the war. The quality of their arms and combat organization gradually improved, however, owing to experience and to the large quantity of arms and other war matériel shipped to the rebels, via Pakistan, by the United States and other countries and by sympathetic Muslims from throughout the world. In addition, an indeterminate number of Muslim volunteers—popularly termed “Afghan-Arabs,” regardless of their ethnicity—traveled from all parts of the world to join the opposition.

The war in Afghanistan became a quagmire for what by the late 1980s was a disintegrating Soviet Union. (The Soviets suffered some 15,000 dead and many more injured.) Despite having failed to implement a sympathetic regime in Afghanistan, in 1988 the Soviet Union signed an accord with the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and agreed to withdraw its troops. The Soviet withdrawal was completed on February 15, 1989, and Afghanistan returned to nonaligned status.

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; Afghan WarA convoy of Soviet armoured vehicles crossing a bridge at the Soviet-Afghan border, February 15, 1989, during the withdrawal of the Red Army from Afghanistan.A. Solomonov/RIA Novosti Archive; image no. 58833 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

https://www.britannica.com/event/Soviet-invasion-of-Afghanistan

 

Going to the following video 27:56 mark through 28:25 states what we ALL knew, know, AND SHOULD know AND this from a KNOWLEDGEABLE Iranian.

 

 

How about a 2 paragraph summary of what you are trying to say.......Thanks

CL

[Synopsis]

Just now, coorslite21 said:

How about a 2 paragraph summary of what you are trying to say.......Thanks

CL

 

Sure.

 

The opening paragraphs are the high level.

 

54 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

I suspect a key item influencing the 2020 Presidential Election is the future and potency of the Deep Do Do State in The United States Of America AND The Whole World via Shadow Diplomacy. Finances, and Underworld are likely key drivers whereas seemingly unrelated issues on the surface with another war raging underneath.

 

Manipulation of the masses (emotionally, philosophically, politically, etc.) has ALWAYS been a key tactic to make the unacceptable embraced and incorporated in the culture and society as a whole promoting controlled destruction. The problem is when the whole culture and society is unsustainable. Well, NO problem REALLY. Just create wars and change out the regime(s) to start over.

 

The United States Of America based on the four (4) Textual Cornerstones is a STAND ALONE in history and can be sustained as long as the four (4) Textual Cornerstones are practiced without either enforcement NOR circumvention by Government Functions.

 

Also to note from the original post.

 

19 hours ago, Synopsis said:

A significant monkey wrench in the Middle East is an eruption due to Israel, Syria, and/or Iran or, on the Korean peninsula, North Korea whereas a significant issue with another country could also give rise to a decline in the advancement of longer term sustainable peace.

 

The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump has been addressing the Deep Do Do State with additional verifiable associated actors that are coming to light in an ever increasing manner as noted in Rudy Giuliani's recent pod cast.

 

Several World Factors could erupt and potentially distract and conflict with a really necessary outcome to have basic liberties maintained with a second term for The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump.

 

The rest is supporting evidence.

[coorslite21]

4 hours ago, Synopsis said:

 

Sure.

 

The opening paragraphs are the high level.

 

 

Also to note from the original post.

 

 

The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump has been addressing the Deep Do Do State with additional verifiable associated actors that are coming to light in an ever increasing manner as noted in Rudy Giuliani's recent pod cast.

 

Several World Factors could erupt and potentially distract and conflict with a really necessary outcome to have basic liberties maintained with a second term for The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump.

 

The rest is supporting evidence.

 

Thank you for the clarification  and summary.........there isn't anything wrong with supporting documentation.....sometimes it is just too much for me......perhaps not for others....

 

We both share a great deal of common ground........you might extend your study back to 1913......this is when the current crisis ahead was started.....wars....depression....all a consequence......

 

Fast forward to more modern day.....Kennedy wanted to eliminate the Fed......he was murdered.........Nixon put us on the FIAT system......he was run out of office by design........Carter had the grandiose concept of world peace......perhaps it might be called globalism......(side note:.......I have been somewhat defensive of Jimmy........he really was the common man's President.....anyone willing to visit Plains Ga in the last 10 or so years could have shared some after dinner ice cream with Jimmy and Roz.......even might have been invited to a southern breakfast the next morning).......

But yes......he was 3 of the founders of the unilateral commission.......Rockefeller has the bad guy in that......Carter hoped to see a a united World....

 

They tried to kill Reagan.....(tear down that wall Mr. Gorbachev's)......

 

Bill Clinton......who takes a blue dress home with seeamooon stains on it......and boxes it......sounds like a set up to me........

 

Both Bushes....Iraq....Afganistan... ...really .....????

 

Obama......you fill in the blanks....

 

Trump......all on war against him.....

 

So......your point is well taken.....     CL

 

[Synopsis]

11 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

We both share a great deal of common ground........you might extend your study back to 1913......this is when the current crisis ahead was started.....wars....depression....all a consequence......

 

Oh, yes, unfortunately.

 

The United States Of America ALWAYS had issues with the banking system due to the Globalists on the rise via the Rothschilds.

 

Zachary Taylor is a hero in this respect:

 

In 1831, Congress rechartered the Bank, but Jackson vetoed the bill.^[1] “It is to be regretted,” Jackson said, “that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. ... [W]hen the law undertakes to ... make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics and laborers ... have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.”

Central bank abolition was a cornerstone of Jackson’s successful 1832 re-election campaign. He confided to Charles Carroll, the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, “No bank and Jackson—or bank and no Jackson.” After his re-election, Jackson attacked bank officers in 1833 for “actively engaging in attempting to influence the elections of the public officers by means of its money ... [in] violation of its charter.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-us-presidents-and-the-money-issue//amp

 

Makes my blood boil that ALL wars are Bankers’ Wars AND ESPECIALLY The United States Of America Service Men And Women’s blood is spilled, are psychologically scarred, AND maimed.

 

LBJ had the most notable burials as a Head of State. LBJ was so crooked, smooth, and evenly contoured that when he was buried, he was just screwed in the ground. One Highly Decorated The United States Of America Marine, of course, is ALL it took.

 

JFK was pulling out of Vietnam. LBJ reversed that as a criminal of the highest order.

 

The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump is pulling us out of endless wars.

 

I believe history will show The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump will be the President of the common man of the highest order with Nationalism in tact and functioning well.

 

Thank You, Coorslite21, for Your much appreciated comments. 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Synopsis