Eisenhower is a salient example. During the very last hour of his presidency, perhaps for having a guilty conscience, he warned against "undo influence of the Military Industrial Complex" which likable 'Ike' had dutifully obeyed for eight years, ordering the bombing of tiny Laos; the overthrow a first democratic president of latifundista impoverished and U.S. exploited Guatemala; the assassination of the popular Patrice Lumumba, first elected president of a Congo freed from the most horrific colonial enslavement by Belgium; blocking the all-Vietnam elections called for in the Geneva Peace Accord after the defeat of the French Colonial Army US ally, thus blocking W.W. II hero communist Ho Chi Minh; ordering and overseeing the preparations to have the CIA invade Cuba with clandestine U.S. air cover and not confronting the establishment military on first use of nuclear weapons.
Since that "financial element" that owns the government also has owned the media as Einstein deplored[5] even before Operation Mockingbird was completed, a US president can be either denigrated arbitrarily for something he has no power over or given credit for something accomplished during his administration that more powerful forces had seen to, as in the case of Nixon given credit for opening trade with China, concluded by David Rockefeller and his Chase Bank with his man Henry Kissinger negotiating the political arrangements. Eisenhower's ordered crimes against humanity and crimes against peace were, and still are, portrayed as permissible heroic deeds against the evil international force of communism.
We are supposed to credit, or criticize, Obama for his agreeing to the transfer of a near trillion dollars over to bankers on Wall Street, and be impressed, or mortified, that he, Obama, saw to the criminal destruction of beautiful and prosperous Libya.
Do the tycoons within that ruling "financial element," not think it quaint that the world thinks mentally challenged President Bush junior was in charge of invading whenever and wherever he wished? Likewise hapless Bill Clinton, about whom media had us all wondering where his penis had been or not been, never mind the truth about important things like starvation in Haiti caused by policies credited to Clinton.
The social scientists and historians of tomorrow will eventually be able to sort out what was happening within that "financial element in the centers of power" while the world was a captive audience watching the wide swings in policy of a president Trump, who to this writer seems to be theatrically walking a tight rope to avoid a unsafe landing in the midst of some frightened confusion about the future of the world and the fall of the American empire.
Post Script
Even if a renegade faction among the monstrous killing machine that is Wall Street be bringing about some change, the cohesion among long time mass murderers is greater than any dissension.
According to CNN, following Trump's surprise victory, Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates and James Baker during conversations with Vice President Pence, played a crucial role in convincing Trump's team to select Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. This speaks to the charade of presidential power that the decision as to who will be secretary of state can remain the same whichever gang occupies the White House. Likewise, was it Obama's choice to reappoint the entire Bush administration war cabinet of Robert Gates, Richard Holbrooke, John Negroponte, keeping Bzrezinski and Kissinger as advisors?
Less than two months into Trump's presidency, CNN reported: Washington (CNN), March, 2017, "President Donald Trump met Friday with an unlikely guest, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the former top administration official under President George W. Bush met Trump in the Oval Office after first sitting down with Vice President Mike Pence. Trump's head-to-head Friday with Rice, their first publicly known meeting, follows Trump's repeated criticism on the campaign trail of the Iraq War and the neoconservative thinking that mired the US in the trillion-dollar war. Rice, who at the time of the invasion was Bush's national security adviser, was a chief architect and proponent of the Iraq War, arguing publicly -- and ultimately erroneously -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Trump had repeatedly slammed Bush and his top officials for pushing the US into the Iraq War, arguing it was based on lies."
They met after Trump won the election, but we imagine genocidal insider Rice was holding all the cards in her hand.
Wonder if tough insider Rice found it necessary to make any offers that Trump couldn't refuse.
End Notes
1.
Emerging vs developed economies Power shift Aug 4th 2011, by The Economist online (charts, graphs) REAL GDP in most rich economies is still below its level at the end of 2007. In contrast, emerging economies' output has jumped by almost 20% over the same period. The rich world's woes have clearly hastened the shift in global economic power towards the emerging markets. But exactly how big are emerging economies compared with the old developed world? This chart looks at a wide range of indicators: " The combined output of the emerging world accounted for 38% of world GDP (at market exchange rates) in 2010, twice its share in 1990. If GDP is instead measured at purchasing-power parity, emerging economies overtook the developed world in 2008 and are likely to reach 54% of world GDP this year. They now account for over half of the global consumption of most commodities, world exports, and inflows of foreign direct investment. Emerging economies also account for 46% of world retail sales, 52% of all purchases of motor vehicles and 82% of mobile phone subscriptions. They still punch well below their weight in commerce and finance, but they are catching up fast. Almost a quarter of the Fortune Global 500 firms come from emerging markets; in 1995 it was only 4%. The chart below shows more detail of how the economic clout of emerging economies has risen over time: NOTE: Our definition of developed economies based on 1990 data: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/emerging-vs-developed-economies
2.
Mockingbird was a secret operation by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts and also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
