John McCarthy on "The Secret Team": Pentagon Opposed Support for Israel

[James H. Fetzer]

John McCarthy on "The Secret Team": Pentagon Opposed Support for Israel

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:27 PM, John McCarthy wrote:

All,

What Arun provides appears to coincide with the numerous Special Forces, SF, missions sent to countries from Norway to Pakistan during 1960-64 before the Vietnam war took up those resources. We had SF teams in all countries except India and Israel. At that time Jordan and Lebanon were some of the higher priorities for SF teams. The mission to Pakistan was the most sensitive which involved the forces of Baluchistan, currently of major interest on the border of Afghanistan. The sensitivity was due to the fact that it was illegal for Pakistani Forces to have SF in their arsenal. I coordinated this mission with Colonel Zia who later became President of Pakistan and later assassinated when a C-130 transport in which he was flying blew up in flight in a manner quite similar to the assassination of Trujillo of Panama which launched Noriega as Panamanian President and $100,000 Agent for the CIA controlled by George HW Bush.

During the same time frame SF recovery teams from Germany were deployed in North Africa and the Middle East in support of Project Mercury of NASA in the event that reentry of the space capsules went off target.

Geographically, we had trained insurgent forces surrounding the soft under belly of the Soviet Union and most of their client States. The Pentagon was unaware of these mission directed by CIA. Training included the use of Field Expedient Devices, currently called IED, Improvised Explosive Devices, which has struck fear and death to the US forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We did our job quite well. Some would call this "blowback". Yet another dirty feather in the cap of the CIA.

At the same time the US Air force/CIA was not only flying U2 missions, they were flying "penetration missions" using B-47 bombers which approached Russian and Chinese airspace. Some of the planes returning to Okinawa had numerous bullet holes in their tails and fuselage. Some did not return. The purpose of these missions was to get a "picture" of the radar capability so that counter measures could be developed for the REAL thing. Remember, these were the years when plans were developed in the Pentagon for false flag operations involving "decoy" aircraft being attacked by "Cuban" aircraft to use the excuse for retaliating against Castro's Cuba in 1962.

The same mentality surfaced when DC-10 Flight 007 was shot down by the Russians after "mistakingly" flying over Kamchatka, the largest Soviet submarine base in the Pacific. The idea at the time was that the US Congressman on board would deter any action by the Russians. Simultaneously, US Electronic listening aircraft of the US were watching the show, recording the conversations of the Russian pilots as they prepared to shoot down the plane. What was not revealed were the radio transmissions of the pilots of the plane who saw tracer bullets being fired from the Russian Migs as a signal for the DC-10 to land immediately. You can imagine how emphatic those pilot's transmissions were! The observing US electronic monitoring aircraft's recordings of the frantic calls from the DC-10 have never been released. "Acceptable casualties/expendable assets was the mentality behind these provocative missions.

How far in advance do the Secret Team PTB's plan for such activity? Fletcher Prouty tells us in the ST that on the day the Japanese Surrender Documents were signed on the Battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay in August 1945, 50% 0f the war material stored on Okinawa for the invasion of Japan, had the atomic bomb fizzled, was sent to Korea and the other 50% was sent to Hanoi. Who knew that five years later war would break out in those two countries? Patriotism for America and the Free World was never in the calculation for these activities and only goes to show that the war making mentality of the US was far and above any and all concerns for "peace and democracy".

I realize that this true history of US Foreign Policy gives a black eye to the past and present leadership of America and her knowing Allies. But how can we who lived through the lies ignore these facts? And this only scratches the surface. The millions of deaths resulting from this Foreign Policy (which should be foreign to the mindset of the new generations before us) is unjustifiable. There are sufficient credible sources of information about these war crimes of the past and present and we must look at these 'EPISODES" as patterns of behavior on the part of the war mongers among us, still, who are supposed to serve at the pleasure of the President.

Contrary to such "blind patriotism" is the U2 incident of 1960. President Eisenhower ordered the CIA NOT TO FLY U2 Missions over the Soviet Union on May 1, 1960, while the Russians celebrated May Day. Eisenhower did not want to jeopardize the upcoming meeting with Kruschev to be held shortly in Paris. The purpose of this meeting was to extend peaceful agendas and temper the cold war which was then heating up. The only person who could command the U2 to fly was the number two man at CIA, Bisell. The resulting "U2 Incident" where pilot Gary Powers crash landed his plane inside Russian territory (Powers was not shot down) spiked the Paris Peace Meeting. Eisenhower may have wanted to diffuse the tensions between the US and USSR but the Secret Team had other ideas. The only reasonable conclusion to this "incident" was treason on the part of the CIA leadership which no doubt was the emphasis for Eisenhower's warning of the Military Industrial Complex during his farewell speech to the Nation in January, 1961. Kennedy inherited the rogue elements of the Secret Team which ultimately resulted in his assassination after he had removed all para military missions from CIA and placed the responsibility into the Pentagon, which formed the Defense Intelligence Agency, as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Additionally the Secret Team/CIA did not take lightly: 1. Kennedy's wish to remove the US Advisors from Vietnam (which would have killed the pending multi billion dollar Pentagon contracts for war material), and 2. Kennedy's desire to abolish the Federal Reserve (which would have wrestled control of the US Monetary System from the Bank of England, Rothchild, et al.)

The current administration is now saddled with Karzai of Afghanistan who now seeks to join with the Taliban who just attempted to blow up the Embassies of our allies in Pakistan. Again, the wrong man was selected, as was Castro. That's right, Castro was the CIA's man contracted to oust Batista. Yet another "blow back".

Yes, President Obama has inherited all this was from eight years of the Bush administration. (Who knew that Bush's substance abuse would be mirrored by Karzai, the former warlord who controlled vast human resources which produced the worlds largest Opium Crop ever?) This situation presents the opportunity to dissolve our preemptive invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. We should never forget that without 911 there would be no Patriot Act, War Powers Act, Military Commissions Act, nor two Preemptive Invasions of countries who did not attack the USA, which equates back exactly to the International War Crimes Trials held immediately after WWII and the subsequent hanging of those who perpetrated those War Crimes.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was appointed by President Truman as Lead Prosecutor at the International War Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany at the conclusion of WWII and his opening remarks to the Jury include the following: "The standards by which we judge these defendants today are the standards by which we shall be judged tomorrow". Then we hanged them.

The same Nazi mentality was proffered by the Bush Administration in the War Crimes they committed in Afghanistan and Iraq and all those secret rendition sites around the world where torture reigned supreme. And for what? After water boarding KSM hundreds of times, the Military Commissions will try him in secret with the mentality of military justice juries: "Bring the guilty bastard in!" After all, if he was innocent, he would not have been tortured! Unfortunately, that is the mindset of those picked for such juries. Can you imagine the interviews with prospective jurors in a Military Tribunal? And yes, those interviews would also be "classified" with strict "need to know" for any access. Remember the arsenal of the International War Crimes Tribunal held at Nuremberg consisted of a US Supreme Court Member and senior Colonels from the Judge Advocate Generals Corpse, JAG.

And you can take it to the bank that those chosen for the jury will have had "military justice" experience in court-martials where convictions are the order of the day. That mentality is cemented by the ingrained attitude of: "If he were innocent, he would not be before us and therefor we have our duty to preform". That is the crux of the matter and the reason NOT to provide civilian courts for prosecuting "terrorists" as they would be forced to see the "classified" evidence (fabricated or not or as the result of torture). Would a civilian jury have "the need to know" of these "classified" matters? They might be terrorist sympathizers as well! And the bogeyman "national security" is the catch all for keeping such "evidence" from those designated as "Jurors", and even Judges as well. Talk about a stacked deck of cards!

When will the day of reckoning arrive? Probably never. The only other species that plans for war are Ants, and they will be here long after the traces of "humanity" are gone.

In the interim, we are asked to put our heads in the sand and swallow the swill dreamed up by the ST. Those interested in the Secret Team and what they have bestowed upon The United States And The World can simply Google: The Secret Team for a free download of a book that had 100,000 copies removed from the bookstore shelves across America, the Land Of The Free.

The CIA can not stand the written word when it comes to exposing these treasonous bastards to the world. Even George HW Bush is quoted as saying "If the American people knew what we were doing (when he was head of the CIA) they would have chased us down and hanged us from the nearest light pole". He should know because the two surface cargo vessels used during the botched Bay Of Pigs Cuban Invasion to transport men and equipment were named "The Barbara" and "The Houston", both operated by Zapata Oil Company, owned by George HW Bush.

The motto etched into the wall at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, reads "And The Truth Shall Set You Free". That may be the biggest "Blow Back" of all.

Bests,

John

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:56 AM, arun wrote:

John,

The tail wags the dog.

I have often surmised that Israel was a creation of the PTBs on the WEST FLANK of the oil producing region, just as PAKISTAN WAS CREATED ON THE EASTERN AND SOUTHERN FLANK.

Churchill understood the strategic importance of oil producing regions back in 1919. And he had no moral compunction in keeping India as a colony in 1945. He said tat he he would not like to see the the jewel of the empire break out! Why?

1. West Asia would produce energy.

2. India would produce food for the colonial army.

See? There is no difference in the strategy even now. Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta etc have taken control of our foods and seeds, just five corporations have taken control of energy resources, just five control food stocking and distibution, and just 5-6 control the pharma industry. The drug trade is controlled by the CIA.

John, we must work to destroy the faith in the US Government which actually works through the ST.

Kind regards

Arun

[url="http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/the-pentagon’s-doubts-about-israel-began-with-its-creation/"]http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/04/03...h-its-creation/[/url]

The Pentagon’s doubts about Israel began with its creation

By Mark Perry | April 1, 2010

In early February of 2006, I submitted a book proposal about the wartime relationship between Generals George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower to a group of New York publishers. I had worked on the proposal for nine months and believed it would garner significant interest. Two weeks after the submission, I received my first response — from a senior editor at a major New York publishing firm. He was uncomfortable with the proposal: “Wasn’t Marshall an anti-Semite?” he asked. I’d heard this claim before, but I was still shocked by the question. For me, George Marshall was an icon: the one officer who, more than any other, was responsible for the American victory in World War Two. He was the most important soldier of his generation — and a man of great moral and physical courage.

That Marshall was an anti-Semite has been retailed regularly since 1948 — when it became known that, by that time as US Secretary of State, he not only opposed the U.S. stance in favor of the partition of Palestine, but vehemently recommended that the U.S. not recognize the State of Israel that emerged. Harry Truman disagreed and Marshall and Truman clashed in a meeting in the Oval Office, on May 12, 1948. Truman relied on president counselor Clark Clifford to make the argument. Clifford faced Marshall: the U.S. had made a moral commitment to the world’s Jews that dated from Britain’s 1919 Balfour Declaration, he argued, and the U.S would be supported by Israel in the Middle East. The Holocaust had made Israel’s creation an imperative and, moreover, Israel would be a democracy. He then added: Jewish-Americans, were an important voting bloc and would favor the decision.

Marshall exploded. “Mr. President,” he said, “I thought this meeting was called to consider an important, complicated problem in foreign policy. I don’t even know why Clifford is here.” Truman attempted to calm Marshall, whom he admired — but Marshall was not satisfied. “I do not think that politics should play any role in our decision,” he said. The meeting ended acrimoniously, though Truman attempted to placate Marshall by noting that he was “inclined” to side with him. That wasn’t true — the U.S. voted to recognize Israel and worked to support its emerging statehood. Marshall remained enraged.

When Marshall returned to the State Department from his meeting with Truman, he memorialized the meeting:

[i]I remarked to the president that, speaking objectively, I could not help but think that suggestions made by Mr. Clifford were wrong. I thought that to adopt these suggestions would have precisely the opposite effect from that intended by him. The transparent dodge to win a few votes would not, in fact, achieve this purpose. The great dignity of the office of the president would be seriously damaged. The counsel offered by Mr. Clifford’s advice was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem confronting us was international. I stated bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice, and if I were to vote in the next election, I would vote against the president.[/i]

Put more simply, Marshall believed that Truman was sacrificing American security for American votes.

The Truman-Marshall argument over Israel has entered American lore – and been a subject of widespread historical controversy. Was Marshall’s opposition to recognition of Israel a reflection of his, and the American establishment’s, latent anti-Semitism? Or was it a credible reflection of U.S. military worries that the creation of Israel would engage America in a defense of the small country that would drain American resources and lives? In the years since, a gaggle of historians and politicians have weighed in with their own opinions, the most recent being Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Writing in the Washington Post on May 7, 2008, Holbrooke noted that “beneath the surface” of the Truman-Marshall controversy “lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple – oil, numbers and history.”

But that’s only a part of the story. In the period between the end of World War Two and Marshall’s meeting with Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had issued no less than sixteen (by my count) papers on the Palestine issue. The most important of these was issued on March 31, 1948 and entitled “Force Requirements for Palestine.” In that paper, the JCS predicted that “the Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the United States] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.” The JCS speculated that these objectives included: initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine, acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration, the extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine and the expansion of “Eretz Israel” into Transjordan and into portions of Lebanon and Syria. This was not the only time the JCS expressed this worry. In late 1947, the JCS had written that “A decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interests in the Near and Middle East” to the point that “United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force.” That is to say, the concern of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not with the security of Israel — but with the security of American lives.

In the wake of my March 13 article in these pages (“The Petraeus Briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story”) a storm of outrage greeted my claim that Israeli intransigence on the peace process could be costing American lives. One week after that article appeared, I called General Joe Hoar, a former CENTCOM commander and a friend. We talked about the article. “I don’t get it,” he said. “What’s the news here? Hasn’t this been said before?” If history is any guide, the answer is simple: it was said sixty years ago by one of America’s greatest soldiers. George Marshall wasn’t an anti-Semite. But he was prescient.

Mark Perry’s most recent book is Talking To Terrorists (Basic Books, 2010). He is also the author of Partners In Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace (2007) and Four Stars, The Inside Story of the Battle between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and America’s Civilian Leaders (1989).

[Thoth II]

"The motto etched into the wall at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, reads "And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

Which is why the CIA infiltrated the media, so the public would never have any truth and remain forever enslaved, I think whoever put that motto up at CIA HQ meant it as a subtle reminder of this for any citizen who walks in.