--------------------------------------------------------
From: Rich Winkel <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Apocalypse now?
To: •••@••.•••
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:33:19 -0500 (CDT)
> The CIA thwarted the Bay of Pigs... do you think they might be
> able to stop Bush?
This is the first I've heard that the CIA thwarted the bay of pigs.
Could you send a reference?
Thanks,
Rich
----------
Dear Rich,
The official scenario is that the Bay of Pigs failed because
Kennedy decided not to send in air support when the Cubans
failed to respond positively to the invasion's attempt at
"liberation". They say he wanted to avoid civilian
casualties. Or perhaps he didn't want to get into a quagmire.
But I've read more than one report that the air support was
withheld not by Kennedy's direction, but because the CIA
operative in Costa Rica who was suppose to send in air support
failed to do so. In other words, he sabotaged the invasion to
embarrass Kennedy (Or as Bob Dylan put it, "I knew he lost
control when he built a fire on Main Street and filled it full
of holes.") If the sabotage scenario is valid, then I say that
"The CIA thwarted the invasion". (I believe that "rogue
agents" in general are a total fabrication, a version of
"plausible deniability" for despicable acts of covert trouble
making.)
I haven't done enough research to be absolutely sure the
sabotage scenario is valid, but it is consistent with a known
struggle that was going on between JFK and the CIA, which
ultimately contributed to his assassination. I can't recall a
specific reference (sorry) for the Costa Rica story, but
perhaps a reader can help with that.
cheers,
rkm
btw> Rich is the publisher of activ_l, a very high-traffic
list of activist announcements and sentiments. It may be best
to subscribe to the index, and then download articles that
look interesting.
To subscribe to this daily index, send the following message to
•••@••.••• : 'sub imap'
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:32:19 -0400
To: •••@••.•••
From: Paul Wolf <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Apocalypse now?
It's just a spooky story to scare the Iranians for Halloween.
Wayne Madsen's writes a lot of stories like this that rarely
if ever pan out. Hopefully I am not wrong this time.
----
Dear Paul,
I've heard about this spooky story from many other sources
besides Madsen. I was about to write my own posting, which
would have required sifting through those other sources and
picking out citations. I posted Madsen's because it came along
conveniently and saved me the time of doing the culling from
the other sources. FACTS: (1) the Israelis have accepted the
'bunker busters'; (2) the Israelis and the White House have
separately threatened Iran with attack on more than one
occasion; (3) Iran has expressed an intention to preemptively
protect itself. Madsen or no Madsen, an attack on Iran in the
not-too-distant-future is a very likely possibility. It would
be the natural next step after the invasion of Iraq in terms
of the Agenda for the New American Century.
Whether or not it occurs before the election would be purely a
matter of political strategy. Madsen's hypothesis would be
interesting if it were purely theoretical. It moves beyond
being merely interesting if his reports about the JFK battle
group are accurate. Do you have any reason to believe they are
not?
Obviously it would not be an ideal political scenario for Bush
if he simply invaded Iran without immediate cause just before
the election. Here is a much more sensible scenario: The
"missing explosives" we've been reading about are put into a
missile by U.S. intelligence, and fired with damaging effect
at a major Israeli target from inside Iraq, but from close to
the Iranian border. This is immediately interpreted by the
global media as attack by Iran on Israel and Israel then
responds with a major attack on Iranian nuclear installations.
The Iranians then respond with an attack on Israel, and the
U.S. "comes to the rescue" of its ally with all guns blazing.
This is more in keeping with the tradition of how the U.S. has
initiated conflicts over the past two centuries.Bush then
looks like a decisive hero, and gets re-elected.
In this regard it is important to understand that the invasion
of Iraq is proceeding much more smoothly than most reports
indicate. The objectives of the invasion are (1) to build a
number of permanent U.S. military bases as a springboard for
more wider aggression, and (2) to secure Iraqi oil reserves
for the long term. These objectives are being achieved with
great success, and at great profit to the neocons cronies
(Halliburton et al). All the disorder in Iraq, and the 1,000
American troops killed are both of very little concern to the
White House. The troops are just expendable cannon fodder, and
the disorder is of no concern whatever. The more Iraqis killed
the better, regardless of how. The temporary interruptions in
the oil supply are also of little consequence, indeed they
increase the price of oil which helps the oil companies. It is
the long-term exploitation of Iraqi reserves which is of
strategic importance.
Expanding the war to Iran only seems senseless if you believe
the interpretation that the Iraq invasion is going poorly.
That interpretation is based on the myth that the U.S. is
trying to achieve order and democracy in Iraq. Why would
Washington care about that? Does democracy make any sense within
the value matrix of the neocons? I don't think so.
best regards,
rkm
btw> Phil is the publisher of "Iraqi Resistance Reports", with
a traffic of about 4 postings per week. The scope of postings
is actually broader than just the Iraqi resistance, and the
quality is high. If you email him, he'll add you to his list.
--------------------------------------------------------
--
============================================================
If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
(http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email
list by sending a message to:
•••@••.•••
You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website,
provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and
this disclaimer.
Richard Moore (rkm)
Wexford, Ireland
"Global Transformation: Whey We Need It And How We Can Achieve It", current
draft:
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html
_____________________________
"...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
Reichstag fire."
- Srdja Trifkovic
There is not a problem with the system.
The system is the problem.
Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.
_____________________________
"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:
http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/
QuayLargo discussion forum:
http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads
cj list archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj
newslog list archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog
_____________________________
Informative links:
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://www.MiddleEast.org
http://www.rachel.org
http://www.truthout.org
http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/
http://www.zmag.org
http://www.co-intelligence.org
============================================================
