Hillary Clinton vs JFK: Why the Case is Relevant today

[Jim DiEugenio]

Jeffrey Sachs almost gets it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sa...27042.html


Here is the whole story:


http://www.ctka.net/2015/HillaryJFKAddendum.html

I don't take credit for bringing this out. I give credit to the people who did the archival work, Robert Rakove and Phil Muehlenbeck. I think I am one of the only people who read their milestone books.

[Lauren Johnson]

Jeffrey Sachs almost gets it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sa...27042.html


Here is the whole story:


http://www.ctka.net/2015/HillaryJFKAddendum.html

I don't take credit for bringing this out. I give credit to the people who did the archival work, Robert Rakove and Phil Muehlenbeck. I think I am one of the only people who read their milestone books.

Wow! I never heard about the Carter "assassination plot." Quite the message.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Yeah, I mean someone as smart as Jimmy Carter could not miss that, especially with McCloy hot on his tail.

He of the Warren Commission with David Rockefeller standing behind him.

[Tracy Riddle]

Read the book Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA by Terry Reed if you want to understand something about the cozy relationship between the Bush and Clinton dynasties, the Clintons' role in the Iran-Contra network, and why the Clintons are part of the neo-liberal/neo-con foreign policy establishment.

[Lauren Johnson]

Read the book Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA by Terry Reed if you want to understand something about the cozy relationship between the Bush and Clinton dynasties, the Clintons' role in the Iran-Contra network, and why the Clintons are part of the neo-liberal/neo-con foreign policy establishment.

I agree.

[Dawn Meredith]

Read the book Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA by Terry Reed if you want to understand something about the cozy relationship between the Bush and Clinton dynasties, the Clintons' role in the Iran-Contra network, and why the Clintons are part of the neo-liberal/neo-con foreign policy establishment.

I agree.

I also agree. I read it back in 1998 and I could not put it down one night at bedtime, stayed up all night reading it. Real page turner and eye opener re the Clintons. (I already knew all about the Bushes).

Dawn

[Jim DiEugenio]

Boys and girls, my piece was not so much about how bad the Clintons were.

It was about how visionary and progressive JFK was--especially in the Middle East-- and how that part of the story has been buried.

For over fifty years. Yet is could not be more topical.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Agreed. This is EXACTLY the type of JFK related article that is needed more than ever today, when extremely lop-sided distribution of truth v bs ratio is obscuring the direct relationship between the Coup of 1963 and what's happening with today's world in which the National Security State is the de facto government.

Take a look at key admission books like political scientist Michael Glennon's Double Government. To some extent it's a significant step because a mainstream academic is finally admitting the steroided mega influence of the National Security State over the "Madisonian" three branches.

But in a very important way it reifies hegemonic views of the Post WWII period. The author's "Trumanite" construct of NSS history creates a very two dimensional view of the NSS in which the Trumanite just suddenly and out of WWII only were not sure how REPLACED the three branches (Madisonian in his term) and voila the replacement is finished. We know better. We know that there was considerable flux and dissention between 1947 and 64. We know that, in a traffic scenario, the NSS car did not suddenly overtake the Madisonian three branches car in 1950 .. Rather the cars were kind of neck and neck , grappling for an edge as in the competing Death of Stalin Speeches, and the crucial CIAs response to U-2 in which they deliberately humiliated their own nominal boss because of his attempts to contain the NSS. We see it most strongly, of course in "the administration" of President 35.

But we also know when the NSS car with false advertisement "Trumanite" overtook the "Madisonian" car for the last time. 11-22-63, the moment that is just too damn educational, and hence must be strobe-spliced& staggered into the mind of America. There's political scientists for that.

Comparative articles like this one are the antidote to this splicing of history.

Why? Because only comparisons like this put the passee duree of the National Security State back into the picture. Fact is it is impossible for ANY president, in 2016.. 53 years after an unacknowledged coup d'etat to reign in the NSS. That reality is institutional not a matter of some four year candidate-show. Yet the powers that be of necessity must maintain the illusion that an elected president must be HYPOTHETICALLY in charge of CIA. How to counter this? By illustrating the enormous gap between the last president and the wall paper of today. See, in spite of how accurately negative that might make a Clinton or an Obama seem, it's ultimately not personal. Fact is it wasn't merely a president that was assassinated in late 1963. It was the presidency.

Until that's recognized, you have every kid in America being taught an outdated model of power, and every election functioning as merely a psy op by the corporate state with the goal of keeping the entire population on this "Madisonian" hamster wheel. Comparison over time is the only way of revealing the third dimension, recent history which is at once State Enemy #1 and the route off the hamster wheel.

[Peter Lemkin]

Read the book Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA by Terry Reed if you want to understand something about the cozy relationship between the Bush and Clinton dynasties, the Clintons' role in the Iran-Contra network, and why the Clintons are part of the neo-liberal/neo-con foreign policy establishment.