 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 26, 2008 at 02:10:37
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/26/08: by David Swanson Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
3
1
1
New research and newly highlighted information assembled by Baker presents at least the strong possibility that Bush was involved in assassinating President Kennedy, and that Bush was involved in staging the Watergate break-in (and the break-in at Dan Ellsberg's psychiatrist's) with the purpose of having these break-ins exposed and the blame placed on President Nixon. In this account, those in on the get-Nixon plot included John Dean and Bob Woodward. While this retelling of history would make a certain Robert Redford movie look really, really silly, it would -- on the other hand -- make Woodward's performance during Watergate fit more coherently with everything he's known to have done before and since. It would also give new meaning to Dean's recent book title "Conservatives Without a Conscience." I would love to see either of these men's response to Baker's book.
Many readers of this review may now be rushing off to declare Baker either profoundly insane or (probably in fewer cases) indisputably correct in his views regarding the removal of Kennedy and Nixon from the White House, but I would strongly urge reading the book before doing so. It's called "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It In The White House, And What Their Influence Means for America."
Those of us who have pushed for years now to have Bush Jr. impeached or prosecuted have heard all imaginable excuses and then some. One has been this: "Punishing the figurehead puppet president would amount to excusing the real powers behind the throne." And, of course, some of us have never doubted that such powers existed, but considered letting Bush and Cheney walk free as a surer way to protect other guilty parties than punishing them would be. There are guilty parties in Congress too, of course, but how the pervasiveness of guilt justifies letting everyone off the hook has always escaped me. The arrests have to begin somewhere. In any case, I bring up the image of presidents as puppets because Baker provides a new variation on that theme. In his account, Bush Jr. is indeed not the driving force, but a clique centered around his father is.
Baker does not focus on Bush Jr.'s grandfather, Prescott Bush, and does not even mention his role in the plot to overthrow President Roosevelt in 1933 ( http://davidswanson.org/node/1337 ). Baker's focus is on Poppy, although Prescott and his anger toward Kennedy are in the background. It is not a completely new idea to suppose that Kennedy was killed because he angered the CIA and powerful Americans with business interests in Cuba. It is, as far as I know, new to show, as Baker extensively documents and then summarizes, that:
"Poppy Bush was closely tied to key members of the intelligence community including the deposed CIA head with a known grudge against JFK; he was also tied to Texas oligarchs who hated Kennedy's politics and whose wealth was directly threatened by Kennedy; this network was part of the military/intelligence elite with a history of using assassination as an instrument of policy.
"Poppy Bush was in Dallas on November 21 and most likely the morning of November 22. He hid that fact, he lied about knowing where he was, then he created an alibi based on a lead he knew was false. And he never acknowledged the closeness of his relationship with Oswald's handler George de Mohrenschildt.
"Poppy's business partner Thomas Devine met with de Mohrenschildt during that period, on behalf of the CIA.
"Poppy's eventual Texas running mate in the 1964 election, Jack Crichton, was connected to the military intelligence figures who led Kennedy's motorcade.
"Crichton and D. Harold Byrd, owner of the Texas School Book Depository building, were both connected to de Mohrenschildt -- and directly to each other through oil-business dealings.
"Byrd brought in the tenant that hired Oswald shortly before the assassination.
"Oswald got his job in the building through a friend of de Mohrenschildt's with her own intelligence connections -- including family ties to Allen Dulles."
You start to get a taste of the sort of case Baker builds. It's persuasive, but not conclusive. If you buy into the basic outlines of it, you come up against a history of American politics in which our top "elected" officials are not just chosen through a process openly corrupted by money and media and parties, but are also chosen through a process of covert ops. Kennedy was replaced by Johnson because he was more obedient to Texas oilmen. Nixon was replaced by Ford for similar reasons. Bush Sr. made a deal with Iran not to release American hostages until Reagan defeated Carter. (Baker recounts but adds nothing new to this story, already reported elsewhere.) Bush Sr. and Jr. ran election campaigns that employed CIA-like techniques. It's a compelling narrative with probably a great deal of truth to it, and the viciousness of Republican attacks on President Clinton fits into it. So does the reluctance of Carter, Clinton, Obama, and others to stray too far from positions acceptable to those (like Robert Gates) with places in the more permanent power structure. So does the possibility that Michael Connell was murdered last week.
The interesting thing about Baker's claims regarding Kennedy and Nixon is that they would suggest that the CIA actually succeeded at something, that -- in fact -- the CIA or members thereof managed to keep major secrets for decades. Of course, they were morally reprehensible secrets and provide further rationale for eliminating the CIA and all secret government agencies, not any sort of justification for keeping them going.
While Nixon and Kennedy appear in this account almost exclusively in the role of victims, we should remember that their failures to please a certain powerful group do not absolve them of their own sins, even if that group may have done them in. While Kennedy may have courted the wrath of certain powers by refusing to do to Cuba what Dubya later did to Iraq, Nixon's failing was not any deficiency in the area of war criminality. While part of what Nixon was covering up may have been staged to frame him, his most serious offenses -- those involving the mass slaughter of human beings -- have been marginalized in all accounts, old and new, of our attempts to hold him accountable. And Nixon himself secretly derailed a possible peace agreement in order to get himself into the same White House that he was later chased out of in disgrace.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 28 comments |
|
thank you-- don't take airplanes anywhere
stay on the ground-- travel irregularly-- mix trains with cars, etc. Don't reveal plans or keep a schedule. Not just "assassination", but murder of hundreds of thousands is and has been an instrument of policy. Fear is their constant companion and their foremost ally. Infecting the public with fear is their only hope. But against human ingenuity, fear has no future. Their worst fears will come to pass. Sooner or later everybody will know everything. One of their hitmen will survive their attempts to eliminate the evidence. In the end, fear will prove to be a poor strategy. Maybe they should have read SunT'zu, or quit crucifying actual Christians. They are crippled products of an obsolete system. Without murder they would merely be a bad memory. by martinweiss (41 articles, 6 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 503 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:55:28 AM  (0+)
|
|
Poppy (like a flower)
Excellent article Mr. Swanson, As I am sure you are aware, some of this information has surfaced in the works of Webster Tarpley (Unauthorized Bio Of GeoBush). There is even some analysis of Bush Jr. being involved in JFK Jr.s assassination by plane crash as well--as it is pointed out that there were several days when Bush Jr. totaly dropped out of site right in the middle of his campaign for the presidency...coincidentally the JFK Jr. plane crash happened during that period. As all of the evidence and dots are arranged a most bizarre picture developes in opposition to, what I like to refer to as, "Lollipop History". There is a certain small community of deep forensic historians who, in my view, will be the ones who are going to be seen as the vanguard of truth in this era when the loger range perspective is finally sorted out. Thank you for the heads up on this new book. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:05:56 AM (0+)
|
|
E. Howard Hunt
There is a large fly in the ointment here: E. Howard Hunt, the famous (or infamous) Cold War spy and author, made a shocking death bed confession to his son, Saint John Hunt, that he was a low level operative in the assassination, and that Lyndon Johnson was the architect. At best, then, if Hunt is being truthful (why would he lie on his deathbed?) Bush would have just been another roque CIA operative in the conspiracy, which makes sense, because who had tremendous power at that point in time? Johnson, not Bush. Check out the confession, in two parts, as well as the statements of Madeleine Duncan Brown, LBJ's mistress. by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Addendum to Above Comment
Rereading the article, I see that Baker apparently is stating (I will have to get the book) that at the least, Bush was involved in the conspiracy, which can be entirely correct, without him having been in Johnson's upper echelons. He could have been one of those "Texas oligarchs" Johnson was meeting with before the assassination. Bush at that time had a foot in Big Oil and in the CIA. by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:25:10 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hunt as low level opperative;
Well, I can only give my impressions after so many years of covering the case. I don't think Johnson himself initiated the hit. He was certainly enthusiastically involved, but my understanding of the architecture of political power places the presidential seat several steps below from where the actual power lies. It seems that from the very beginning, at the Democratic Convention when Kennedy was chosen, and the deal cut for Johnson as running mate; that Kennedy was considered as holding the job only "on good behaviour" by the oligarchic power structure. My understanding is that Gen. Landsdale was at the top of the "opperational" latter, as he was "The Man" when it came to designing coup d'etat in that era. But, this is a systemic thing...built on networks, and all of those involved before the fact need not know but a small part ["need to know"]--and anyone who understands the dynamics of 'Coup'dEtat', will understand that those who help cover up afterwards aren't necissarily involved in planning but merely understand that once the torch of power passes the rules have changed, and they thus abide by the new boss. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:06:12 PM (0+)
|
|
why be shy?
that G.H.W. Bush was in Dallas Nov. 22nd, 1963 is not in doubt. Oddly, Nixon was there, too. So were Nixon's'plumbers', dressed as vagrants. Comic/tragic opera. Could it be LBJ traded 58,000 lives in Vietnam for the Civil Rights Act? by martinweiss (41 articles, 6 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 503 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The Party Poopers
...And according to Prouty, he is convinced that Landsdale was also in Dallas, in the crowd on Elm Street--as identified in photgraphs. The list of people at the Murcheson 'party' is astounding..and telling. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:12:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Zeitgeist
I'd also recommend "Zeitgeist: The Movie" for more on the Kennedy thing [there are other subjects covered as well]. by Jennifer Hathaway (16 articles, 16 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 761 comments [221 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:35:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ZEITGEIST
I heard so much about this movie that I finally went to youtube to view it. Assuming I viewed the correct movie, the underlying political philosophy is merely Marxism draped with utopian gowns and allowing for a scientific ruling class. That people understand the economic system has outgrown the need for capitalism portends a search for a better idea, and the Zeitgeist film makes a tremendous start. However, people should know that others have struggled to the same end for over a century and a half, and a vast amount of literature exists on their successes and failures from which we can learn. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 3:36:35 AM (0+)
|
|
There is no doubt the Bush legacy
from Prescott on up is as dirty as a pile of cow dung on a Louisiana farm. I would go further to state that there has been some documentation that might lead one to believe Prescott Bush, who indeed did do business with the Nazi's in wartime with Brown, Harriman and Associates may well have been involved in a plot to assassinate FDR along with other spooks like Dulles, but to suggest Bob Woodwood assisted in the assassination of JFK is the most assinine thing I've ever heard. And anything Tarpley has to say should be taken, not with a grain but a pound of salt. Same goes for his protogee and conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, Lyndon "the crap thrower" LaRouche. It reminds me of an old book I once read called, "None Dare Call it Conspiracy," where essentially it says communist Russia with the help of American liberals placed Richard Nixon in power where he only pretended to be a conservative but deep down was a left wing extremist. This new writing seems to have gotten alot of its stuff from this very old libertarian farce. The only people who wish us to believe the liberals are behind all our woes are the neo-liberals, or in other words, the neocons who have been trying and continue to try to rewrite history to blind the present and the future. As far as I'm concerned, the entire Bush family represent power wealth and powerwealth are the real culprits to most of our problems. No Illuminati, no Jewish plot for world domination, just stinking rich bastards who enjoy making the rest of the world miserable. by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:49:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Compelling video of the JFK assassination details:
YouTube - JFK II - Part 1 of 9 - The Bush Connection A nine part series of about 10 minutes each, the plot thickens around parts 5 or 6. This video series is well sourced. And in any conspiracy, the well documented relationships, connections and shared motives among key people are paramount. With the temporary officials that we "elect" to the ceremonial positions in our faux democracy, (the presidency being the most important), "... the world is but a stage - and all the people merely actors..." ~ William Shakespeare The permanent, genuine levers of power are held closely and well guarded by personages that we the commoners will never see or know of. by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 488 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:53:22 PM (0+)
|
|
A good headsup
...on this book, David; thanks. But you, and others in this OEN crowd, need to be aware that 'the left' isn't free from taint in this matter of the corrupt political process in America. Even if one looks no further than the connection between Bill and Poppy Bush in the Mena airport drug-running scam, it will be enough to make it clear that the fix is in at the top; and we must shake ourselves free from the power of both of the major political parties, if we would save the republic. Remember that Bill signaled to the PTB - and anybody else who had ears to hear - his loyalty to their agenda when he lauded his poli sci mentor at G/town Univ, Carroll 'Tragedy and Hope' Quigley, in his inaugural address...we have had plenty of warning not to trust any of this den of thieves, who have hijacked this country in order to serve their ends. It's time - and almost past - for REAL change. by kibitzer2 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:55:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Dancin'
deeper study reveals that the Left Right, Repub-Democrat duoply is just a Punch & Judy show. A Hegelian Synthesizer playing the classic Tyrannical Waltz. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 6:50:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: BAD EXAMPLE
I am sure that there are many left-wing politicians who are tainted by abuse of power, and Bill Clinton was/is a lying scumbag, but Bill Clinton was not and is not a left-wing politician. by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 9:23:55 PM (0+)
|
|
How the get away with it
Swanson wonders: "... how the pervasiveness of guilt justifies letting everyone off the hook has always escaped me." It doesn't justify it, of course. But, these people know what they are doing. Most of Congress willingly became co-criminals by funding the crimes of Bush and Cheney. It is hard to get Congress to impeach when all but a few percent are potential defendents. by Richard Pietrasz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:12:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Racket
"It is hard to get Congress to impeach when all but a few percent are potential defendents. "--***** Sublime understatement! The entire "government" is but a criminal syndicate. the whole thing is a racket. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:29:25 PM (0+)
|
|
yup.....
What, other than “conspiracy” do you call undisclosed collusion? What is more obvious than the collusion between the high echelon of Wall Street, the Central Bank and government with the major media?They are ripping you off, right in front of your faces and you think that they are just bumbling fools—so who are the fools in such a situation? by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 9:10:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: General statement
Not meant at all for the present company. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 9:12:53 PM (0+)
|
|
tragedy in dallas, tragedy in manhattan
While I agree this is good research on George H. W. Bush in connection to JFK's assassination, I doubt the theory presented about Nixon as an outcast from the American Dynasty. It was Prescott Bush who discovered Nixon in 1946 and promoted him to power. Nixon said the only person he would always keep around as loyal was G. H. W. Bush. Nixon when interviewed in New York the day after the assassination claimed to the FBI he could not recall where he was the day before. Nixon in the White House tapes refers to the JFK assassination as "Bay of Pigs". One motive for the Watergate breakin could be a search for photos of Hunt and Stergis from Dallas, said to be politically damaging. by io (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:32:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nice
Very nice digest IO, very concise! by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:30:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Addendum:
I would add however that one must consider Nixon himself as a paranoid personality, who was eventually seen as "out of wack" by the inner circles of the PTB. It wa the Plummers themselves, or at least one, that set up their discovery with the scotch tape on the door. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:33:50 PM (0+)
|
|
What More Bush Skullduggery?
Ah, very interesting point, David. What skullduggery within the past 65 years hasn't involved a BUSH? Very interesting, indeed. by eileen kuch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 151 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 1:30:41 AM (0+)
|
|
David Swanson: Yes!
- I expect the book has ( from HERE) this photo of Pappy.Bush chortling in front of the School Book Depository in Dallas while the smell of gunpowder was still in the air ... by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 4:04:24 AM (0+)
|
|
interesting
coincidentally, the OEN server is down... by martinweiss (41 articles, 6 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 503 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:11:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Great To Be Confirmed In My Convictions
Thank you David Swanson for introducing Russ Baker's book. I have always presumed that no crime is big enough to be put past Bush family considering Prescott's financial assistance to Hitler and the destruction of Germany thereupon, alongside millions dead. I always believed that JFK's opposition to Vientnam war, his determination to undo the Federal Reserve and his his deep resentment for CIA tactics were the sources of his bane I always believed that the rare moment of truth about Watergate parody was Nixon's assertion "I am not a crooked" plea to journalists. It sruck me then that somehow he was innocent : his voice, his facial expression. He was telling the truth, he was only a victim of a larger scheme to oust him through public-fooling accusations. I always took Bod Woodward for a sonofawhore agent of the Establishment planted there to fool us into buying lies and misleading information, a pioneer of the Fox News propaganda machine. I will always believe that Bill Clinton's impeachment process was as phony and dishonest a parody as that of Nixon's. Monika was the Establishment's way of smearing a puppet gone astray. Funny and ironic that the man who hired the prostitute, Emanuel Rahm, is loitering around Obama and the White House. What is going to happen to Obama if he disobeys? If he does not pardon 9/11 perpetrators? If he tries to prosecute Bush/Cheny cabal? We are allowed to speculate on what will certainly happen based on lessons learnt from the past. Here we are, facing a criminal Establishment with an agenda for evilmongering. Why in the hell should we wait 45 years some to finally learn about the Truth after perpetrators are mostly dead? So, let us concentrate on the present : 9/11 crime committed certainly with Bush family members complicity if not totally masterminded by them. Here is a historic opportunity to seize by catching the culprits and by sending them to hell; thereby cleansing America and the world of vice and wickedness. Why wait another 45 years for another Russ Baker to deliver the final version of truth on 9/11 ? Let's get them now and put an end to more assassination of public trust. by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 9:27:29 AM (0+)
|
|
"The Big Event" & LBJ
The night before the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Baines Johnson met with Dallas tycoons, FBI moguls, and organized crime kingpins - emerging from the conference to tell his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown that "after tomorrow those SOB's (Irish Mafia) will never embarass me again, that's no threat, that's a promise". It's a jaw-dropping deposition and it's the biggest JFK smoking gun there is, Click Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y The "Big Event", code words for the JFK hit, is laid at the doorstep of LBJ. 65% of votes cast in this OpEdNews Poll, click here http://www.opednews.com/Poll/LBJ-Was-Behind-the-JFK-Ass-by-Gene-Cappa-081029-430.html indicate that "YES, LBJ was behind the Big Event." by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 348 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:07:38 PM (0+)
|
|
maybe.... but
i'm just at the beginning of Ultimate Sacrifice by Lamar Waldron with Thom Hartmann about JFK's assassination, and the aftermath. The premise there, highly documented and just updated, is that JFK actually had a secret, secret plan in place to create a coup in Cuba by disgruntled Cubans and set to go into effect on December 1, 1963. That, because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he and his brother chopped it into tiny, compartmentalized pieces so that not many would know about the plan, other than a theoretical "what if". The CIA had already made several attempts (some completely secret and unauthorized) on Castro and were enlisted in this as a support staff to the military, which was prepared to go in, if necessary to shore up the coup. According to the introduction, the plan was infiltrated by the Mafia (a number of the CIA 'assets' were Mafia) and that the secrecy which allowed the plan to unfold and then be ultimately be denied (by that administration and later ones) kept the role of the Mafia (and the CIA) quiet and Congress and the public from knowing anything about it. In that case, your statement about JFK being unready to do anything about Cuba is incorrect. He was planning to do something, had it in place and the Mafia used the secrecy in the plan and their ability to infiltrate it to kill him beforehand. Does anyone remember reading that there was an assassination attempt earlier that week in Tampa? It was in a few newspapers at the time, the Kennedys were aware of it. Then, it mysteriously disappeared from the news. The same is true with people riding in the limo behind JFK's in Dallas, who saw shots being fired from the grassy knoll. They too later retracted their statements. Again, I'm just at the beginning of the book but it seems well-worth reading. Especially to get a better sense of why JFK/RFK didn't trust the CIA to handle Cuba. by Joan Brunwasser (206 articles, 3757 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 752 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:43:37 AM (0+)
|
|
Cuban coup on 12/1/63?
This is laughable. JFK had no such plans for the overthrow of Castro. Hartmann and Waldron are deluded. At the time of JFK's death, Jean Daniel, a French journalist acting as JFK's back-channel emissary, was seeking rapprochement with Castro under JFK's direction. Fearful of a nuclear war that would annihilate half the world, JFK was seeking peaceful resolution of our differences with Kruschev and Castro. Waldron and Hartmann were duped by CIA disinformation. If you want the truth, read James Douglass's "JFK And The Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters." Also, re-acquaint yourself with JFK's American University address of June 10, 1963. He was defying his own military advisers and the national security state by actively seeking a way out of the Cold War. Tim Fleming by Tim Fleming (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 37 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:45:06 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Well Said (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Interesting (1) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
