Seven Days In May: Why Obama's Military Budget Is Soaring...
From the man who has already alienated his progressive
base on Health Care, now this?
"War spending surges in President Obama’s budget."
politico.com
By DAVID ROGERS | 1/31/10 7:48 PM EST
Read more: politico.com
"In 2011 alone, the revised numbers are triple what the
president included in his spending plan a year ago.
The administration appears to be projecting a deficit of near
$1.6 trillion for the current year and $1.3 trillion in 2011.
That is even more pessimistic than Congressional Budget Office
estimates last week, and it’s only in 2012 that the projections
drop to the range of $800 billion to $700 billion."
---------
A tripling of his war budget for a war against 100 men?
Yeah, you read that right, there are less than 100 Al Qaeda worldwide!
From the Washington Times:
washingtontimes.com
"The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum
estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases,
no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."
-- National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones
--------
From CBS News:
cbsnews.com
"Although the war in Afghanistan began as a response to
al-Qaeda terrorism, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members
of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S.
military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the
condition of anonymity."
--------
From CNN, where Wolf Blitzer can't help but ask the obvious question:
transcripts.cnn.com
BLITZER: "Less than 100 al-Qaeda guys in Afghanistan. And that
the United States needs 100,000 forces. It's still -- I'm not
seeing the rationale for fighting 100 al-Qaeda guys with
100,000 U.S. troops."
---------
By the way, did you know that Obama not only escalated
the War against the wishes of his political base, but
also against the recommendation of his ambassador on
the ground in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry.
Have you read the Eikenberry cables?
truthdig.com
Hmmm?
With Obama's progressive (socialist) base already going
apoplectic over Obama's backroom deal with Big Pharma
on Health Care, and eliminating the Public Option, now
this!?!?
What could cause a President to make such a reversal?
How about a "Seven Days In May" moment?
I know, I know, you're thinking that's irrational, this is
America, C'mon Slider you're going off the deep end here.
Maybe not.
Last year, less than a month into his Presidency there
was already talk of the defense establishment having
strong words with Obama.
"FDR, JFK, and Now Obama's "Seven Days In May Moment"
consortiumnews.com
By Lisa Pease
February 24, 2009
EXCERPT...
The film "Seven Days in May" began as a novel by Fletcher
Knebel, inspired to a great degree by Knebel's conversations
with Gen. Curtis LeMay, President Kennedy's contentious Air
Force Chief of Staff who was furious at Kennedy for not
sending in full military support during the Bay of Pigs
incident.
Additionally, LeMay infamously argued during the Cuban Missile
Crisis for a preemptive nuclear first-strike against the
Soviet Union, a move Kennedy abhorred.
One of Kennedy's friends, Paul Fay, Jr., wrote in his book The
Pleasure of His Company how one summer weekend in 1962, one of
Kennedy's friends bought Knebel's book to his attention, and
Kennedy read the book that night.
The next day, Kennedy discussed the plot with friends, who
wanted to know if Kennedy felt such a scenario was possible.
Bear in mind this was after the Bay of Pigs but before the
Cuban Missile Crisis.
"It's possible," Kennedy acknowledged. "It could happen in
this country, but the conditions would have to be just right.
If, for example, the country had a young President, and he had
a Bay of Pigs, there would be a certain uneasiness.
"Is he too young and inexperienced?"
“Maybe the military would do a little criticizing behind his
back, but this would be written off as the usual military
dissatisfaction with civilian control. Then if there were
another Bay of Pigs, the reaction of the country would be,
'Is he too young and inexperienced?'
“The military would almost feel that it was their patriotic
obligation to stand ready to preserve the integrity of the
nation, and only God knows just what segment of democracy
they would be defending if they overthrew the elected
establishment."
After a moment, Kennedy continued. "Then, if there were a
third Bay of Pigs, it could happen."
"The Limits Of Presidential Authority"
In the wake of the tragically flawed Bay of Pigs operation,
Kennedy learned a valuable lesson that Obama has yet to learn:
the limits of presidential authority.
As Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas recounted later,
"He had experienced the extreme power that these groups had,
these various insidious influences of the CIA and the
Pentagon, on civilian policy, and I think it raised in his own
mind the specter: Can Jack Kennedy, President of the United
States, ever be strong enough to really rule these two
powerful agencies?"
It's a question we could ask of Obama as well. As Parry noted,
Obama has already moved to exert authority over the military
by ordering a plan to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months,
even though top generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno have
expressed their belief that thousands of troops should remain
in Iraq for years to come.
Obama is also ruffling mighty feathers by calling out top
banking officials on their egregious bonuses at a time when so
many Americans are out of work or struggling to get to the
next paycheck.
If he nationalizes the banks to any degree, no matter how
necessary or temporary, he'll place himself square in the
shoes of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who also
challenged the bankers early in his first term.
In FDR's case, the bankers responded by attempting to lure the
widely known and very popular General Smedley Butler into a
coup against Roosevelt. (Some commentators believe this failed
coup also helped shape Knebel's novel.)
Butler was first approached on the issue of the gold standard.
One of FDR's early acts as President was to decouple the
country's money supply from the gold supply. This outraged
the banking establishment, as the resulting inflation devalued
their holdings.
Through a proxy, several prominent Americans approached
General Butler and asked him to lobby the veterans who adored
him for a return to the gold standard, using the argument that
inflation would devalue the veteran's bonuses that had yet to
be paid.
The point man for the conspiracy, Gerald MacGuire, had studied
the fascist coups in Europe and found that they were made
possible only by the cooperation of a strong faction in the
military. MacGuire offered to provide Butler with a speech to
give before the American Legion that would fire up the troops
and rally them behind Butler.
Butler smelled a rat right away. He decided to string MacGuire
along until he could unravel the details of the plot. He
learned the goal was to appoint a special assistant to
President Roosevelt, a sort of "co-president," after which
Roosevelt would be forced to resign using his polio-ravaged
condition as an excuse.
With Butler's help, or so they hoped, the military would
quickly side with the coup plotters should any challenge
arise during the transfer of power.
The men approached Butler because they believed that he, like
many others, would be corruptible. Offers of wealth and
mortgage forgiveness were made.
But instead, Butler brought a reporter into the fold so it
wouldn't be just Butler's word against the conspirators.
When the two of them had gathered enough data, they went
to Congress.
Congress was initially outraged and curious. But when the
investigation soon led to some of the biggest names in the
Establishment, the investigation was prematurely aborted,
and not one person was charged with any crime, despite
solid evidence of perjury, at a minimum.
Obama seeks to pattern himself after Abraham Lincoln, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt and John Kennedy. But two of the three had
their presidencies cut short by assassins, and one was
challenged by a fascist group within the Establishment.
Truly, President Obama will need to be extremely vigilant,
courageous and wily if he seeks to achieve their stature
while avoiding the wrath of similar, and powerful, enemies.
-----------
And here we learn from Gareth Porter that President Obama has
enountered some, eh, resistance from the Pentagon regarding
the Iraqi withdrawal last year.
"Pentagon brass chafes at Obama's Iraq pullout plan."
Gareth Porter
By Inter Press Service
February 3rd, 2009
article.wn.com
WASHINGTON: CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus,
supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince
President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his
campaign pledge to pullout all US combat troops from Iraq
within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting on January 21,
sources have said.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman
Admiral Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and wanted Gates
and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed
16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with
participants in the meeting.
Obama's decision to override Petraeus' recommendation has not
ended the conflict between the president and senior military
officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications
that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon,
including General Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq,
have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his
withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be
preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public
opinion against Obama's decision.
Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office,
according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present
at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying: "Petraeus
made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George
Bush instead of with Barack Obama."
Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan
that they formulated in the final months of the Bush
administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of
the US-Iraqi withdrawal agreement by re-categorizing large
numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge
was formulated by the United States last November while
ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.
--------
And now nearly a year later, we have Congressman Ron Paul
openly stating this...
"There’s been a coup – have you heard? It’s the CIA coup.
The CIA runs everything! They run the military .. and they’re
every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. And yet, think
of the harm they have done since they were established at the
end of World War II. They are a government unto themselves.
They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out
dictators… We need to take out the CIA!"
Video of Congressman Paul's remarks about the CIA here:
youtube.com
Story here:
rawstory.com
By Raw Story
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010 -- 6:10 pm
"US House Rep. Ron Paul says the CIA has in effect carried out
a "coup" against the US government, and the intelligence
agency needs to be "taken out."
-----------
And then there's this...
Obama's "2nd Seven Days In May" warning...
From a former rising star within the globalist, New World
Order. A man who was once groomed to follow in the footsteps
of Henry Kissinger, even given Kissinger's former office,
and access to all his files at the "Center For International
Affairs."
Gates Threatens Obama with US Military Coup
By Francis A. Boyle
January 26th, 2010
afterdowningstreet.org
"According to today’s New York Times, flying home on his way
back from Pakistan, Secretary of “Defense” Gates “relaxed on
the 14-hour trip home by watching ‘Seven Days in May,’ the
cold war-era film about an attempted military coup in the
United States.”
nytimes.com
"His [Gates] final message delivered, he relaxed on the 14-hour
trip home by watching “Seven Days in May,” the cold war-era
film about an attempted military coup in the United States."
Gosh, that’s really relaxing! All of a sudden out of nowhere
Gates resurrects this ancient film and ostentatiously lets the
New York Times and the other media know that he is watching it
on his Pentagon plane home.
Obviously, Gates is sending a threat to Obama and the civilian
“leadership” in America: You risk a military coup if you do
not do exactly what we in the Pentagon tell you to do.
This is no idle threat.
And it can happen here in America.
Just remember the plutocratic sponsored military coup attempt
against President Franklin Roosevelt that was thwarted by
retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler under similar
economic and political conditions.
If it had succeeded that anti-FDR coup would have established
a fascist dictatorship in America. I am not comparing Obama to
FDR by any means. But the historical parallels should be
obvious to everyone.
And remember that Bush’s General Tommy Franks publicly stated
that in the event of another major terrorist attack on America,
the American people would demand that the military shut the
civilian government down. In other words, Gen. Franks too,
publicly threatened a military coup against this Republic’s
democratically elected civilian leadership."
-------
and it's not just Ron Paul, and Francis Boyle, here's
Thomas Ricks from foreignpolicy.com thinking, the unthinkable:
ricks.foreignpolicy.com
"Is Gates that unhappy with Obama?"
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Thursday, January 28, 2010
Why, on his way home from India and Pakistan, would Defense
Secretary Gates watch a 46-year-old black-and-white movie?
Well, it was Seven Days in May, about a military plot against
the U.S. president. Or maybe former intelligence operative
Gates knows something about the generals today that we should
worry about?"
---------
Unthinkable?
JFK & Eisenhower didn't think so.
Were Eisenhower and J.F.K. conspiracy theorists too?
I know the majority of readers have seen these clips, but
if you have never listened to these, it may be a good time
to do so.
Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex:
youtube.com
JFK's warning about "secret societies" and organizations:
youtube.com
In reality, the power held and exercised by the military-
industrial complex reached a point of no return in the 1960's,
when America permanently morphed from a civilian based economy,
to a military-industrial based economy, with the Wall Street
banks both funding, and profiting from the era of "constant
conflict."
Truman’s National Security Council Paper, “NSC-68”, was the
blueprint for that change. It said that America could sustain
its economic growth by applying John Maynard Keynes’ emphasis
on the role of government to the military or “security” sphere.
Some called it "Military Keynesianism."
You can read more about Truman's NSC-68 here:
ied.info
Truman launched his "Military Keynesianism" policies in 1950,
and Wall Street began to heavily invest in, and finance the
military-industrial complex build out, because Truman's
doctrine called for a massive 350% increase in the U.S.
Defense budget.
To see who actually owns and controls the Military-Industrial
complex, start here:
greatreddragon.com
As I said before, we have now arrived at a time and place
where you must begin to think (and prepare for) the unthinkable.
SOTB
PS: If you haven't watched the BBC documentary on the
birth of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Straussian Neo Con's,
called "The POWER OF Nightmares" you may want to
move it up on your "movies to watch list"...
archive.org
PPS: Here's a clip from "Seven Days In May"
dailymotion.com |
