Jeffrey Sachs and Philip Giraldi: the Ukraine War Is Yet Another Neocon War KEVIN MACDONALD

 

Jeffrey Sachs in Tikkun (a liberal-left Jewish publication):

 

The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement. The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons. As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle. If Europe has any insight, it will separate itself from these US foreign policy debacles.

…

The neocon outlook is based on an overriding false premise: that the US military, financial, technological, and economic superiority enables it to dictate terms in all regions of the world. It is a position of both remarkable hubris and remarkable disdain of evidence. Since the 1950s, the US has been stymied or defeated in nearly every regional conflict in which it has participated. Yet in the “battle for Ukraine,” the neocons were ready to provoke a military confrontation with Russia by expanding NATO over Russia’s vehement objections because they fervently believe that Russia will be defeated by US financial sanctions and NATO weaponry.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a neocon think-tank led by Kimberley Allen Kagan (and backed by a who’s who of defense contractors such as General Dynamics and Raytheon), continues to promise a Ukrainian victory. Regarding Russia’s advances, the ISW offered a typical comment: “[R]egardless of which side holds the city [of Sievierodonetsk], the Russian offensive at the operational and strategic levels will probably have culminated, giving Ukraine the chance to restart its operational-level counteroffensives to push Russian forces back.”

 

Notice that Sachs, writing in a Jewish publication, avoids any mention of advancing Israeli interests as the main motive of the neocons. However, Jewish motives and Israeli interests are always front and center for Jewish neocons, but to establish that, one needs to delve into biographical details (e.g., associational patterns, history of pro-Israel activism, family connections). (This 2014 article shows that Victoria Nuland, a central figure in both the 2014 coup and the current war, is enmeshed in a family dedicated to pro-Israel activism.)

These sorts of details are essentially missing on the Ukraine war in both the Sachs article as well as in Philip Giraldi’s article in The Unz Review (“How Jewish Is the War against Russia?”). However, as indicated below, Giraldi notes such details in his treatment of the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Giraldi:

 

Currently, the top three State Department officials (Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland) are all Zionist Jews. The head of the Department of Homeland Security, which is hot on the trail of domestic “terrorist” dissidents, is also Jewish as is the Attorney General and the president’s chief of staff. They and their boss Joe Biden do not seem concerned that their client Ukraine is no democracy. The nation’s current government came into power after the 2014 coup engineered by President Barack Obama’s State Department at an estimated cost of $5 billion. The regime change carried out under Barack Obama was driven by State Department Russophobe Victoria Nuland with a little help from international globalist George Soros. It removed the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych who was, unfortunately for him, a friend of Russia.

Ukraine is reputedly both the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe, witness the Hunter Biden saga. The current President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish and claims to have holocaust victims in his family tree, is a former comedian who won election in 2019. He replaced another Jewish president Petro Poroshenko, after being heavily funded and promoted by yet another fellow Jew and Ukraine’s richest oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is also an Israeli citizen and now lives in Israel.

It all sounds like deja vu all over again, particularly as many of the perpetrators are still around, like Nuland, priming the pump to go to war yet again for no reason. And they are joined by journalists like Bret Stephens at the New York Times, Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper at CNN, and also Max Boot at the Washington Post, all of whom are Jewish and can be counted on to write regular pieces both damning and demonizing Russia and its head of state Vladimir Putin, which means it is not only about the Middle East anymore. It is also about weakening and even bringing about regime change in nuclear armed Russia while also drawing some lines in the sand for likewise nuclear armed China. And I might add that playing power games with Russia is a hell of a lot more dangerous that kicking Iraq around.

To put it bluntly, many US government and media Jews hate Russia and even though they benefited substantially as a group by virtue of their preeminent role in the looting of the former Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin and continue to be among the most prominent Russian oligarchs. Many of the oligarch billionaires, like Boris Berezovsky, self-exiled when Vladimir Putin obtained power and began to crack down on their tax avoidance and other illegal activity. Many moved to Western Europe where some bought up football teams while others went south and obtained Israeli citizenship. Their current grievances somewhat reflect their tribe’s demand for perpetual victimhood and the deference plus forgiveness of all sins that it conveys, with the self-promoted tales of persecution going back to the days of the Tsars, full of allegations about pogroms and Cossacks arriving in the night, stories that rival many of the holocaust fabrications in terms of their lack of credibility.

 

It has long been recognized by many that a particular antipathy directed against Russia permeates the so-called neoconservative world view. The neocons are hugely overrepresented at the top levels of government and, as noted above, a number of them are running the State Department while also holding high level positions elsewhere in the Biden Administration as well as in the foreign policy think tanks, including Richard Haass at the influential Council on Foreign Relations. Likewise, the intensely Russophobic US and Western media, foundations and social networking sites are disproportionately Jewish in their ownership and staffing.

And beyond that, Ukraine is to a certain extent a very Jewish-identified place. The Jewish media in the US and elsewhere has been showering Zelensky with praise, referring to him as a genuine “Jewish hero,” a modern Maccabee resisting oppression, a David versus Goliath. T-shirts bearing his image are being sold that read “Resisting tyrants since Pharaoh” while the largely Orthodox Jewish community in New York City has already been raising millions of dollars for Ukrainian aid.

…

As US-Russian negotiations leading up the current fighting were clearly designed to fail by the Biden Administration, one therefore has to wonder if this war against Russia is largely a product of a long enduring ethno-religious hatred coupled with a belief in the necessity for a strong American military applied as needed to dominate the world and thereby protect Israel. The neocons are most visible, but equally toxic are the Jews who would prefer to describe themselves as neoliberals or liberal interventionists, that is liberals who promote a strong, assertive American leadership role to support the basically phony catchwords “democracy” and “freedom.” Both neocons and neoliberals inevitably support the same policies so they have both ends of the political spectrum covered, particularly concerning the Middle East and against Russia. They currently dominate the foreign policy thinking of both major political parties as well as exercising control over media and entertainment industry coverage of the issues that concern them, largely leaving the American public with only their viewpoint to consider.

Alas, Giraldi presents the issue of Jewish motivation as a question: “One has to wonder….” Nevertheless, he is quite clear on Jewish motivations for the war in Iraq, with some of the same information presented in my “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement.”

 

There was considerable collusion between the Israeli government and the Jews in the Pentagon, White House, National Security Council and State Department in the wake of 9/11. Under President George W. Bush, Israeli Embassy staff uniquely had free access to the Pentagon office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, not being required to sign in or submit any security measures. It was a powerful indication of the special status that Israel enjoyed with top Jews in the Bush Administration. It should also be recalled that Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans was the source of the false WMD information used by the Administration to justify invading Iraq, while that information was also funneled directly to Vice President Dick Cheney without any submission to possibly critical analysts by his chief of Staff “Scooter” Libby. Wolfowitz, Feith and Libby were of course Jewish as were many on their staffs and Feith’s relationship with Israel was so close that he actually partnered in a law firm that had a branch in Jerusalem. Feith also served on the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which is dedicated to nurturing the relationship between the US and Israel.

 

 

 

These issues are always complicated, since many American Jews (reportedly the majority in the lead-up to the war in Iraq) have opposed these wars, and it’s depressingly easy to find non-Jews, particularly mainstream conservatives, who are also strong supporters of these wars. As always, one has to look at where the power and influence lie, and once again, it lies with strongly identified Jews in the Biden administration, the foreign policy establishment (both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists), and the media, as it was during the George W. Bush administration.

Non-Jews have many motives for supporting these ventures, from misguided patriotism to great career opportunities in politics, the media, and even the academic world. The reality is that a great many non-Jews gravitate to the power, money, and career opportunities available for those who do not rock the boat on Jewish influence, and they do so for self-interested reasons. Getting ahead in the mainstream requires an understanding that opposing the centers of the Jewish power results in marginalization at best or instant career death at worst. The rise of a Jewish elite in the U.S. has had far-ranging consequences, including policies on immigration, civil rights, the secularization of American culture, and the pathologization of White identity and collective White interests.

Jewish influence is indeed the 800-lb gorilla in the room. The lack of honest discussion of Jewish power and influence — or any discussion at all — among mainstream figures in the media, academia, and politics speaks volumes.

 

(Republished from The Occidental Observer)

 

 GusNote: Neoliberalism is also a Jewish Movement.(it's the other prong of the Devil's fork)

 

READ MORE:

https://www.unz.com/article/jeffrey-sachs-and-philip-giraldi-the-ukraine-war-is-yet-another-neocon-war/

 

WE KNOW.....

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.................

 

 

By Joe Gill

 

Good old John Bolton. The US diplomatic hawk, a veteran of US interventions from the Iran-Contra fiasco to his global troublemaking as national security adviser to Donald Trump, let the cat out of the bag this week.

CNN reporter Jake Tapper used Bolton’s vanity about his iniquitous record to coax him into talking about the regime change activities he had been part of during his 17 tumultuous months working for Trump. 

6 January has become a defining event that may prove, at least to those who care, the unutterable evil of Trump and his followers

Tapper riled Bolton by saying, “One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.” Bolton took the bait, responding: “As somebody who has helped plan coups d’état, not here, but, you know, other places. It takes a lot of work.” Tapper pressed him to say more about “what you need to do to be able to plan a coup, and you - you cited your expertise having planned coups”.

Bolton said he wouldn’t get into the specifics, before adding, "Well, I wrote about Venezuela in the book, and it turned out not to be successful.” This was the US-backed coup attempt against Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro following his disputed election win in 2018. As Bolton admits, that failed (although US sanctions, for which Bolton was an ardent advocate, are still crippling Venezuela’s economy).

Bolton was being interviewed about the chaotic and violent assault on the US Capitol on 6 January last year, which is currently the focus of hearings in Congress. Like Russiagate (the hearings that were supposed to prove how Trump was a puppet of Vladimir Putin, but ended in failure), the 6 January hearings are scrutinising the former president's role in seeking to overturn Biden's victory in 2020. However, Trump is not quite revealed as a would-be Mussolini; instead of disciplined stormtroopers ready to carry out his master plan, he was surrounded by clueless clowns and chancers.

As for serious coup plotters, Bolton is closer to the real deal, although those who actually carry out coups don’t give tell-all interviews to CNN. (One of them - CIA clandestine services vet John Sipher - even called out Bolton on Twitter, insisting the US doesn’t do coups anymore.)

6 January and other coups

With Biden’s administration in disarray ahead of the mid-term elections, 6 January has become a defining event that may prove, at least to those who care, the unutterable evil of Trump and his followers - and boost the Democrats amid the huge disappointment of Biden’s presidency.

Of course, when it comes to coups outside of the United States, of which there are too many to mention, the Democrats are not shy at all in helping to organise the storming of government buildings around the world, even against elected democratic leaders.

 

Washington insiders were predictably furious with Bolton for breaking the omerta of US officialdom, which spends each working day maintaining the narrative of American values of democracy while working just as hard to undermine governments seen to be a threat to US imperial interests.

Evo Morales, the former president of Bolivia, who was overthrown in 2019 by the military, said the remarks showed that the United States was “the worst enemy of democracy and life”, The Washington Post reported.

“This is no surprise,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said. “The admission simply shows that interfering in other countries’ internal affairs and overthrowing their governments have become the standard practice of the US government… This is very much part of the US rule book.”

Larry Diamond, of the Stanford University-Hoover Institution, berated Bolton’s admission: “It’s damaging to our efforts to advance and support democracy," he said. "We have enough trouble already countering Russian and Chinese propaganda.” Diamond, as it happens, was a significant player in the overthrow of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, and previously advised the US occupation authority in Iraq following George W Bush’s invasion.

Uprising or coup?

One of Diamond’s more successful productions was the “I am a Ukrainian” video that went viral during the 2013-14 crisis. It appeared to represent the spirit of young Ukrainians fighting a corrupt regime, but was created by a production company funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (also known as the National Endowment for Regime Change) and led by none other than US State Department adviser Larry Diamond.

US involvement in coups and regime change strategies in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Europe are not just a Cold War curiosity

The key US player in the February 2014 uprising in Ukraine was President Barack Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State Victoria “Fuck the EU” Nuland. Thanks to leaked tapes (and the billions of dollars the US funnelled into Ukraine) it is clear that events widely portrayed in western media as a popular uprising were manipulated by the US to bring down Yanukovych and install a nationalist pro-US regime. 

In another leaked conversation between EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in March 2014, the latter pointed to ballistic evidence that the snipers in Kyiv who shot and killed more than 80 people from both sides in the critical days of the Maidan clashes were not working for the Yanukovych government, but were part of the far right opposition. The US nevertheless blamed the deposed government, creating a narrative around the events that holds to this day.

 

Ever since the Iran coup of 1953, the US has finessed a model to overthrow governments which uses local client forces, willing agents on the ground, media management and propaganda, and of course dirty tricks and specialist troops. 

Good old John Bolton. The US diplomatic hawk, a veteran of US interventions from the Iran-Contra fiasco to his global troublemaking as national security adviser to Donald Trump, let the cat out of the bag this week.

CNN reporter Jake Tapper used Bolton’s vanity about his iniquitous record to coax him into talking about the regime change activities he had been part of during his 17 tumultuous months working for Trump. 

6 January has become a defining event that may prove, at least to those who care, the unutterable evil of Trump and his followers

Tapper riled Bolton by saying, “One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.” Bolton took the bait, responding: “As somebody who has helped plan coups d’état, not here, but, you know, other places. It takes a lot of work.” Tapper pressed him to say more about “what you need to do to be able to plan a coup, and you - you cited your expertise having planned coups”.

Bolton said he wouldn’t get into the specifics, before adding, "Well, I wrote about Venezuela in the book, and it turned out not to be successful.” This was the US-backed coup attempt against Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro following his disputed election win in 2018. As Bolton admits, that failed (although US sanctions, for which Bolton was an ardent advocate, are still crippling Venezuela’s economy).

Bolton was being interviewed about the chaotic and violent assault on the US Capitol on 6 January last year, which is currently the focus of hearings in Congress. Like Russiagate (the hearings that were supposed to prove how Trump was a puppet of Vladimir Putin, but ended in failure), the 6 January hearings are scrutinising the former president's role in seeking to overturn Biden's victory in 2020. However, Trump is not quite revealed as a would-be Mussolini; instead of disciplined stormtroopers ready to carry out his master plan, he was surrounded by clueless clowns and chancers.

As for serious coup plotters, Bolton is closer to the real deal, although those who actually carry out coups don’t give tell-all interviews to CNN. (One of them - CIA clandestine services vet John Sipher - even called out Bolton on Twitter, insisting the US doesn’t do coups anymore.)

6 January and other coups

With Biden’s administration in disarray ahead of the mid-term elections, 6 January has become a defining event that may prove, at least to those who care, the unutterable evil of Trump and his followers - and boost the Democrats amid the huge disappointment of Biden’s presidency.

Of course, when it comes to coups outside of the United States, of which there are too many to mention, the Democrats are not shy at all in helping to organise the storming of government buildings around the world, even against elected democratic leaders.

 

Washington insiders were predictably furious with Bolton for breaking the omerta of US officialdom, which spends each working day maintaining the narrative of American values of democracy while working just as hard to undermine governments seen to be a threat to US imperial interests.

Evo Morales, the former president of Bolivia, who was overthrown in 2019 by the military, said the remarks showed that the United States was “the worst enemy of democracy and life”, The Washington Post reported.

“This is no surprise,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said. “The admission simply shows that interfering in other countries’ internal affairs and overthrowing their governments have become the standard practice of the US government… This is very much part of the US rule book.”

Larry Diamond, of the Stanford University-Hoover Institution, berated Bolton’s admission: “It’s damaging to our efforts to advance and support democracy," he said. "We have enough trouble already countering Russian and Chinese propaganda.” Diamond, as it happens, was a significant player in the overthrow of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, and previously advised the US occupation authority in Iraq following George W Bush’s invasion.

Uprising or coup?

One of Diamond’s more successful productions was the “I am a Ukrainian” video that went viral during the 2013-14 crisis. It appeared to represent the spirit of young Ukrainians fighting a corrupt regime, but was created by a production company funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (also known as the National Endowment for Regime Change) and led by none other than US State Department adviser Larry Diamond.

US involvement in coups and regime change strategies in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Europe are not just a Cold War curiosity

The key US player in the February 2014 uprising in Ukraine was President Barack Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State Victoria “Fuck the EU” Nuland. Thanks to leaked tapes (and the billions of dollars the US funnelled into Ukraine) it is clear that events widely portrayed in western media as a popular uprising were manipulated by the US to bring down Yanukovych and install a nationalist pro-US regime. 

In another leaked conversation between EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in March 2014, the latter pointed to ballistic evidence that the snipers in Kyiv who shot and killed more than 80 people from both sides in the critical days of the Maidan clashes were not working for the Yanukovych government, but were part of the far right opposition. The US nevertheless blamed the deposed government, creating a narrative around the events that holds to this day.

 

Ever since the Iran coup of 1953, the US has finessed a model to overthrow governments which uses local client forces, willing agents on the ground, media management and propaganda, and of course dirty tricks and specialist troops. 

  Ukraine endgame

Of course, this geopolitical chess game - which was treated as rather amusing by Bolton and his interviewer - had an endgame, and that is the war in Ukraine. Once the new regime in Kyiv, now led by Vlodomyr Zelensky, was installed in 2014, the Donbas region broke away and Russia annexed Crimea. A war broke out in the east, widely blamed on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But the US had unerringly backed those forces in Ukraine who saw a war with Russia as the only way to break free from Moscow and reverse the defeat of Ukrainian pro-Nazi forces in the Second World War. This alliance with far right forces was largely airbrushed once Russia invaded Ukraine in February this year. 

US involvement in coups and regime change strategies in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Europe are not just a Cold War curiosity. Moments of candour such as Bolton’s remind us they haven’t gone away.

The notion that America stands for democracy and freedom across the world still holds within the bubble of US official discourse, but in the week Joe Biden offers total support to the Israeli occupation regime in Tel Aviv and the Saudi dictatorship in Riyadh, it fools no one. 

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

 

 

 

READ MORE:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/john-bolton-please-dont-mention-our-coups

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

SEE ALSO: 

united states terrorism……..

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW %%^&^%$%^&^!!!

 

 

James DiEugenio traces a parallel between the agency’s deletion of text messages from Jan. 6 and the disappearance of six boxes of materials concerning the  assassination of JFK. 

 

 

By James DiEugenio
Special to Consortium News

 

 

The revelation that the U.S. Secret Service deleted text messages from the day of the Jan. 6, 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol is raising potential parallels with the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to the Trump White House chief of staff,  testified on June 26 to the congressional committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 that her boss, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, warned her four days in advance that “Things might get real, real bad on Jan. 6th.” She also testified that President Donald Trump was warned about weapons on hand that day. In spite of that, he still wanted his security to scrap the metal detectors at the site of his White House rally.

The accepted wisdom was that Trump had not planned on going to the Capitol to join the thousands of people he had helped summon there.  But Hutchinson testified that Trump had indeed planned on going to the Capitol to join the demonstrators.

She said under oath that she was told he was so intent on going that he tried to grab the steering wheel, and even lunged at Bobby Engel, one of the Secret Service agents in the SUV, to direct the vehicle to the Capitol. Hutchinson testified that she was told that by Tony Ornato, a Secret Service agent who left to become Trump’s deputy chief of staff, only to return to the service as a senior official.

Hutchinson’s testimony is being disputed, however. Senior Secret Service agents are ready  to testifythat that did not happen, according to The Guardian. The newspaper reported:

“Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post, author of two books on the Trump administration and a history of the Secret Service, Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service, said: ‘Sources tell me agents dispute that Donald Trump assaulted any agent or tried to grab the steering wheel on Jan 6. They agree Trump was furious about not being able to go to Capitol with his supporters. They offer to testify under oath.’”

Salon reported: 

“After her testimony, journalists citing anonymous sources reported that Engel and the driver of Trump’s vehicle were ‘prepared to testify under oath’ to dispute Hutchinson’s account and that Ornato denied telling Hutchinson that Trump ‘grabbed the steering wheel or an agent.'” 

But Salon reported Monday that neither Ornato nor Engel have showed up to testify one month later and both have hired private counsel. 

The Secret Service and Pence

There are also questions about the Secret Service’s intentions after it was revealed to the committee that the service wanted to drive Vice President Mike Pence away from the Capitol that day, where he had been removed to a basement loading dock during the riot upstairs. Pence refused to leave and after the angry mob, some of whom were looking for him, left the Capitol, he returned to the House chamber to oversee Joe Biden’s certification as president-elect, defying pressure from Trump.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has even suggested the Secret Service was in on the plot to remove Pence from the Capitol to stop him from certifying Biden that day.

Deleted Messages

Suspicions about what the Secret Service was up to later deepened as it became known that the service deleted its text messages from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6.  

Worse yet, it was later revealed that the agency had been told in advance not to do so.  In fact, there appears to have been not one, but three separate warnings issued to the Secret Service not to delete the messages. Further, the Department of Homeland Security knew about the deletions but failed to inform Congress.

A Secret Service spokesperson claimed to The Washington Post that the text messages were lost during a “device replacement program” in January and February and that the Homeland Security inspector general only asked for the texts in February after some of the deletions occurred.

The National Archives has asked the Secret Service for more information about “the potential unauthorized deletion” of the text messages. The Secret Service has until Aug. 19 to respond.

The service — entrusted with protecting the president — has fallen under such grave doubt that the Department of Homeland Security has told them to halt their internal inquiry.

This may be the greatest Secret Service failure since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, according to commentators such as MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell. And Leonnig, of The Washington Post, has pointed out that the Secret Service’s disappearance of crucial documents is a pattern extending back to 1963.  It was then repeated in 1995.  And it has potentially happened again surrounding the events of Jan. 6. 

A Barely Noticed Pardon

In April this year, Biden pardoned former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden. This was lightly noted in the media, mainly in the Midwest. The story behind the pardon was all but ignored.

Few people know that before President Kennedy was killed in Dallas, there were at least two prior attempts on his life in that very month of November 1963.

As Oliver Stone notes in his film, JFK Revisited, [for which I wrote the script] one was in Tampa and the other in Chicago. Bolden was involved in the latter. The circumstances surrounding the attempt to kill Kennedy in Chicago were first covered up by the Secret Service in 1963.

The Secret Service was in receipt of two tips about the attempt to kill JFK in Chicago. One was from an informant code named “Lee,” one was from a landlady from a boarding house on the North Side. 

The landlady told the F.B.I. that four men had rented rooms from her. She had seen four rifles with telescopic sights in one of the rooms along with a newspaper sketch of the upcoming motorcade route. As with the more general tip from “Lee,” this information was passed on to the Chicago office of the Secret Service.

Based on this information, plus the efforts of a local policeman, three men were arrested, though no further information was drawn from them.

Kennedy ended up canceling the trip on the day he was to arrive in Chicago. The ostensible reason was the crisis in Saigon involving the overthrow of the Diem government.

As James Douglass notes in his fine book, JFK and the Unspeakable, Secret Service protocol was seriously abridged. The agents were told not to prepare written documents.  Instead, they dictated oral reports. They were then asked to turn over their notebooks. At headquarters, this data was sequestered, thus making it deniable. There is no evidence it was made available in the Secret Service central files.

As many observers have noted, this was a grievous error.  Because the plot to kill Kennedy in Chicago had so many similarities to what happened in Dallas, if the information had been made available, it is highly possible that Kennedy’s assassination could have been prevented.

Bolden was the one agent in Chicago who tried to tell the Warren Commission what had happened.  Two weeks after he told another agent he was going to testify, Bolden was arrested and convicted of taking a bribe in a counterfeiting case he was investigating. He was sentenced to six years in prison. One of the witnesses against him later admitted he had perjured himself in testifying against Bolden, but Bolden was denied a retrial.

The facts about the attempt to kill Kennedy in Chicago were so assiduously covered up that the story did not emerge until 1975 when the illustrious journalist Edwin Black wrote a story about it for Chicago independent, an alternative journal.

But the Secret Service did not stop there. In 1994, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was assigned the task of declassifying and opening all the documents relating to President Kennedy’s assassination.

As with the records of Jan. 6, a similar pattern is discernible. The National Archives in 1994 had briefed the Secret Service on the upcoming requests by the ARRB. Six boxes of Secret Service materials had been set aside and tagged for transfer.

Yet in January 1995, at about the time when the Review Board was ready to inspect those records, two of the boxes were destroyed. This included records of 23 trips Kennedy made in the autumn of 1963.  The destroyed records included three folders about Chicago.

The Secret Service tried to say it was all part of a routine destruction procedure.  Today they are saying the records were lost in a routine transfer procedure. Considering the circumstances both then and now, these explanations are highly questionable.

As ARRB analyst Doug Horne noted in his book Inside the ARRB, the board was furious at this willful destruction of important material. They considered it an act of outright defiance.  They prepared an option of calling an open hearing and inviting the media to attend.  This way they themselves could hear in open colloquy the excuses over what the Secret Service had done.  In the end the board decided not to do so.  That might have been a mistake, considering what has now happened.

The role of the Secret Service in the failure to protect President Kennedy was papered over by the Warren Commission.  From drinking hard liquor until 3 a.m. the night before, to scaling back the motorcycle escort in Dallas, to approving an unconscionable  motorcade route — agents should have been fired and the top level of the hierarchy should have been overhauled. 

That routine should not be allowed this time around. Secret Service Director James Murray should be asked why he did not directly intervene in securing all text messages from Jan. 5 and 6.  His relationship with Ornato should be pored over with a magnifying glass.

Was Hutchinson accurate about the aborted trip from the Ellipse to the Capitol?  Was Ornato under orders not to take Trump there? Did Pence and his staff suspect something was afoot, and was this why they refused to be driven away?

If the National Archives establishes malfeasance in the deletion of the texts, it would be the biggest Secret Service failure since 1963.  And this time around, it should not be concealed.  Once was bad enough.

James DiEugenio is a researcher and writer on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and other mysteries of that era. His most recent book is The JFK Assassination : The Evidence Today.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

 

 

 

 

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/07/29/the-worst-us-secret-service-failure-since-nov-1963/

 

GUS'S (and other serious journalists) GUESS IS THAT THE SECRET SERVICES, THE CIA AND THE FBI — ALL ORGS THAT HATED TRUMP — HAD AGENTS PROVOCATEURS TO STIR THE SHIT ON THE 6TH OF JANUARY 2021 AND THOSE HAVE SINCE BEEN DISAPPEARED AS IS USUALLY THE CASE. Been there done that......

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/35992

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW