Obama told friends he reneged on progressive promises out of fear of assassination — former CIA analyst

Obama has abandoned progressive principles, such as stopping drone attacks and shutting down Guantanamo, because he is afraid of being assassinated, telling friends, “Don’t you remember what happened to Martin Luther King Jr.?” retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern said today. 

He’s afraid of what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. And I know from a good friend who was there when it happened, that at a small dinner with progressive supporters – after these progressive supporters were banging on Obama before the election, Why don’t you do the things we thought you stood for? Obama turned sharply and said, “Don’t you remember what happened to Martin Luther King Jr.?” That’s a quote, and that’s a very revealing quote.

McGovern spoke on WBAI’s show Law and Disorder this morning. He was talking about his recent article calling Obama “a wuss” and speculated that Obama had also placed John Brennan as head of the CIA out of fear that the CIA might turn on him, as it had on John Kennedy. 

I’m pretty convinced the President of the United States is afraid of the CIA. That’s why he got John Brennan in place. He thinks John Brennan owes more personal loyalty to him than all those other thugs out there who did the torture and so forth. That’s a questionable thing. But Obama thinks that. And that’s why he fought so hard so that Brennan would be in place.

During his CIA career, Ray McGovern prepared daily briefings for the president and chaired the National Intelligence Estimates. He is now a leading antiwar activist. 

The crucial segment of the interview begins at about 48 minutes. Hosts Michael Smith and Michael Ratner, both lawyers with long careers in civil and human rights, ask McGovern about the Obama drones speech. McGovern marveled that the Senate granted to Obama “the power to release 86 prisoners” from Guantanamo. “Why doesn’t he do that?” He could release them “at the snap of his finger.”

Ratner then said, “I represent Guantanamo people. I thought the biggest lie in the speech was—’I have tried to close Guantanamo.’” There are half a dozen ways in which Obama “has actually sabotaged the closing of Guantanamo. Straight lie.”

McGovern responded:

Which leads to the question, why would he do all these things? Why would he be afraid for example, to take the drones away from the CIA? Well, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s afraid. Number one, he’s afraid of what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. And I know from a good friend who was there when it happened, that at a small dinner with progressive supporters – after these progressive supporters were banging on Obama before the election, “Why don’t you do the things we thought you stood for?” Obama turned sharply and said, “Don’t you remember what happened to Martin Luther King Jr.?” That’s a quote, and that’s a very revealing quote.

The other thing is, I’ve always been kind of shocked that when he came into office, not only did he not prosecute the torturers, the kidnapers, the people with the black [unintelligible], even the people who violated our Fourth Amendment rights, but he left them all in place. I suspected at the time, now I’m pretty convinced the president of the United States is afraid of the CIA. That’s why he got John Brennan in place. He thinks John Brennan owes more personal loyalty to him than all those other thugs out there who did the torture and so forth. That’s a questionable thing. But Obama thinks that. And that’s why he fought so hard so that Brennan would be in place.

Now does he have any reason to fear the CIA? Well he sure as heck does. For those of your listeners who have not read James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable, you need to read that, because it’s coming up on 50 years. The mystery has not been solved in the mainstream press. After reading James Douglass, who took advantage of all the previous studies, plus all the more recent information released by Congress, I’m convinced that John Kennedy was assassinated largely by Allan Dulles whom he cashiered as the head of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs, and a coterie of joint chiefs of staff, FBI, even some Secret Service folks who thought that JFK was being soft on Communism by back channel communications with Krushchev, that he was playing games with Fidel Castro…to repair the relationship, and worst of all he was giving Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now is there evidence for this? There sure as heck is. John Kennedy signed two executive orders just a month or so before he was killed. One of them said we’re pulling out 1000 troops out of South Vietnam by the end of the year, the year being 1963. The other said we’re going to  pull out the bulk of the troops by 1965, we’re finished in Vietnam. That’s a matter of record. Was that a unanimous decision? Well if you say the president makes a one person decision, you know it’s unanimous. Everybody else thought he was crazy, especially the joint chiefs of staff.

So you need to read this book, and then you need to reflect on Obama. If he is sort of a wuss or a wimp or a person who just has no real  principles but is rather a politician through and through– and he’s got two small kids and he doesn’t want to get killed. I have to say I never thought I would hear myself saying this, but it is the only logical explanation for why he is so afraid, unless you say the man is a through and through charlatan, that he actually is acting on behalf of these forces of darkness. I don’t believe the latter. I think he’s just afraid and he shouldn’t have run for president if he was going to be this much of a wuss.

Host Michael Smith, who’s read the Douglass book and found it convincing, agreed with McGovern. Ratner demurred somewhat. “I just think Obama is an accommodator. He’s shown that from the very beginning. The guy is just an incredible accommodator.” Smith said he doesn’t see McGovern’s idea and Ratner’s as contradictory.

Smith and Ratner interviewed James Douglass here.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 77 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. kma says:

    wow. that discredits McGovern a bit considering his insider experience.
    all capitulations by Obama since he was born were to the elite class, and his biggest fear was being left out of the 0.1%.

    put this in perspective: the CIA drone strikes human beings without shame, and the US enters into MORE conflicts for the gain of Obama’s club, and we’re supposed to swallow a pity story that he has to cuddle up with the whole bank/weapons/austerity/fascist mess because they might get mad at him if he doesn’t?

    watch out for religious fervor for political parties.

    p.s. Obama is no MLK. did I need to say that??

    • Donald says:

      “wow. that discredits McGovern a bit considering his insider experience.
      all capitulations by Obama since he was born were to the elite class, and his biggest fear was being left out of the 0.1%.”

      Exactly. Obama’s a politician, first and foremost, and a centrist or at most center left on the political spectrum–sometimes, if anything, he’s center-right. There is this utterly childish need to see him as some sort of lefty hero who only behaves like every other politician because the bad guys are gonna kill his children.

      I suppose he supports chained CPI because Peter Peterson will have Michele kneecapped if he doesn’t. He dumped the public option on health care before he even began negotiating because the insurance companies know where he lives. Etc…

    • MRW says:

      McGovern didn’t say this, you are:

      all capitulations by Obama since he was born were to the elite class, and his biggest fear was being left out of the 0.1%.

    • joemowrey says:

      Yes. Sad to see McGovern playing the Obamapologist role. Obama does what he does because he gets paid to do it, or will in the long run. Not to mention the fact that, in my opinion, the guy is a sociopath. I suspect that once people like him get into power, on some level they learn to enjoy the killing, the lying and subterfuge.

    • Citizen says:

      @ kma

      I think you are correct. His fear of being killed like MLK is his rational to himself. He likes to golf, do everything a member of the 1% does. He’s just not the next progressive Messiah. Can you imagine what a character like MLK would have done if he had been elected POTUS? At best, Obama is like Colin Powell. They both get to live nicely, but there’s a price. Everyday high privilege and high comfort goes a long way to bury that price.

      • ToivoS says:

        Obama is basically a conservative person who has spent his entire political life seducing progressives. Of course he will get defensive now and then when his useful idiots start complaining and he will come up with some lame excuse.

        Mc Govern certainly does hurt his reputation here by bringing up these absurd conspiracy theories about JFK’s assassination. It really went down the way it appeared on Nov 23, 1963 — namely agent Harvey Oswald who was in contact with Cuban intelligence did the evil deed.

        • There is evidence that Obama did have radical ideas in his youth. But at quite an early stage he became extremely cautious in his public stances, suggesting he was already thinking of a career in mainstream politics. His behavior is certainly “conservative” (not to mention deceptive, manipulative, hypocritical, cowardly, etc.) but the possibility that he is still a radical deep inside cannot be excluded. I think that this may be why the 1% are so wary of him despite his subservience to them. They sense that he is not wholly predictable or reliable.

          For a more detailed discussion, see my essay “The World Outlook of the Young Obama” at
          link to stephenshenfield.net

      • bilal a says:

        The pimp Jack “Ruby” Rubenstein of the Dallas Mob didnt work for wasp elites when he shot Oswald.

    • Joe Ed says:

      I would tend to believe what McGovern says.

      Obama? Not so much

  2. pabelmont says:

    Amazing story. High time there is at least published speculation — and this sounds like more than mere speculation — of [1] how and why JFK died and [2] how and why current presidents govern as they do.

    From our narrow perspective, does this story suggest that AIPAC is supported by (in effect) death squads, or merely that there are a lot of distinct pressures on a president and CIA and AIPAC are, separately, among them? Can we imagine a president attempting to reduce the CIA budget?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “Can we imagine a president attempting to reduce the CIA budget?”

      The president could, if he wished, fire everyone in the CIA tomorrow. He has no need to fear anyone in the CIA.

      • RudyM says:

        LOL. He could fire them, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do some work on a volunteer basis, not to mention that CIA has its own income streams independent of taxes.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “He could fire them, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do some work on a volunteer basis”

          If they have no power base, what would be the point in trying?

          “not to mention that CIA has its own income streams independent of taxes.”

          None of which these people would be able to tap into if they are no longer the CIA.

        • RudyM says:

          [blockquote]If they have no power base, what would be the point in trying?[/blockquote]

          They would have more of a power base than an isolated president, or possibly even an isolated president with substantial popular support. They would still have the support of whatever corporate/finance/wild card interests call the shots to begin with. If those groups were thwarted from using the government to further their interests, they have enough capital that they could certainly organized ex-CIA operatives to work on special missions. And “firing the CIA” wouldn’t eliminate all the corruption in place in law enforcement, throughtou the government, in the media, and on and on.

          The CIA seems to be a public/private venture of sorts already.

          [blockquote]None of which these people would be able to tap into if they are no longer the CIA.[/blockquote]

          They would still have all their connections in other intelligence agencies, organized crime, and terrorist networks.

      • lysias says:

        JFK fired Allen Dulles.

      • Please explain how you know that.

      • charlesfrith says:

        You might want to check your history books for the death threats Schlesinger received when he culled the CIA.

    • lysias says:

      That JFK was murdered by the national security state, with the CIA being the action agency, has been proved. Read not only James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable, but also John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA (make sure you read the paperback edition) and Douglas Horne’s five-volume Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK. Newman is a retired Army intelligence Major and history professor who knows how to read government documents. Horne is a retired naval officer who was the Chief Analyst for Military Records of the Assassination Records Review Board, an official body established by Act of Congress with subpoena powers.

      I wouldn’t say LBJ’s role in the assassination is exactly proved, but Phillip Nelson’s LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (about to come out in a new paperback edition) makes his central involvement very likely indeed.

      • marc b. says:

        I wouldn’t say LBJ’s role in the assassination is exactly proved

        and that neatly summarizes the state of inquiries. we don’t know exactly who did it, but we know who didn’t do it. as it goes in the board game ‘clue’, it wasn’t Oswald in the library with a mannlicher-carcano.

  3. I have long believed that Obama was being blackmailed. Before he was elected in 2008, he talked about going after Bush W. if he had committed any crimes. After he was elected (and prior to inauguration) there was a meeting of past presidents in the WH. Subsequent to that, all talk of indicting Bush went out the window, and he started talking about “looking forward”. Someone took him to the woodshed and made sure that he was no longer so “uppity”.

    This is another of those so-called conspiracy theories that turns into conspiracy fact. The only thing that I am not certain about is whether it is the CIA or the Mossad that has its finger on the trigger. Perhaps it is a collusion of both, since the CIA has long been infiltrated.

    How do we restore our nation when it is so overcome by the forces of evil?

    • RudyM says:

      I have long believed that Obama was being blackmailed. Before he was elected in 2008, he talked about going after Bush W. if he had committed any crimes. After he was elected (and prior to inauguration) there was a meeting of past presidents in the WH. Subsequent to that, all talk of indicting Bush went out the window, and he started talking about “looking forward”.

      I was following what Obama had to say on that subject pretty closely at the time, and my subjective impression is that he didn’t seem very enthusiastic about it. It seemed more like a grudging nod to progressives. If I recall, it took him a while to even come out and say that there would be prosecutions if there had been crimes.

      Also, the fact that Obama would take on someone like official whitewash specialist Lee Hamilton as an adviser was a tip-off as to where Obama’s loyalties lay.

    • kma says:

      “How do we restore our nation when it is so overcome by the forces of evil?”

      do you define “evil forces” as people who assassinate and kill, or as people who commit evil acts with the excuse that they fear those running around with guns?
      in any case, doesn’t it seem IRONIC to say that you MUST order drone strike assassinations of sixteen-year-old American citizens BECAUSE you are AFRAID of the CIA doing that to you?

      furthermore, if you BELIEVE Obama’s words that “I had to because…”, then you are suggesting that this is the only time he is telling the truth!!!

      • I am the last person on the planet who would apologize for Obama. Most of the things he does, he does because he is Obama. I do wonder about some of the more dramatic about-faces early in his presidency, however, and ascribe them to blackmail. Both the Cairo speech and the choice of his cabinet rank high among those.

  4. Woody Tanaka says:

    “I have to say I never thought I would hear myself saying this, but it is the only logical explanation for why he is so afraid, unless you say the man is a through and through charlatan, that he actually is acting on behalf of these forces of darkness.

    Oh, baloney. Truth is that Obama is a weak tea centrist who ran to the left of Hillary to get the nomination and has been showing his true colors ever since. (“Who you gonna vote for, feminists, blue color types, liberals? Romney? Ha ha ha.”) He’s not afraid of the CIA, he’s a politician who lied to get elected. Nothing more.

  5. Gart Valenc says:

    Come on, give me a break! This is one of the most outrageous attempts to spin Obama’s dismal, and frankly speaking, despicable record. What an insult to our intelligence. Is it not obvious that Obama has no credibility, none whatsoever? To come up with such ludicrous explanation and expect people to swallow it marks a new low, even by Obama’s standards!

    Gart Valenc
    Twitter: @gartvalenc

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      I agree. This is trending to “Oh, if only Comrade Stalin knew about the famines here in the Ukraine, he would come to our aid” level self-delusion.

  6. radii says:

    Obama is a smart man.

    He does more good just riding it all out to the end than in becoming a martyr – he’s learned the lessons of history.

    Being a steady presence perhaps is more meaningful than broad campaigns.

    • Citizen says:

      @ raddi
      Well, at least he knows how well Bill Clinton is doing, so why not do the same to have lots for little, post POTUS? Which one is the 1st black POTUS, which the 1st Jewish POTUS, again? Hard to tell the difference.

  7. ckg says:

    Ray McGovern endorses James W. Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.
    The book also has this blurb:

    “A remarkable book: devastating in its documented indictment of the dark forces that have long deformed the public life of this country, while also illuminating JFK’s final vision of world peace and documenting beyond reasonable doubt the unspeakable assassination of our last partially admirable president. This book should be required reading for every American citizen.”—Richard Falk, Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University

    I’m going to have to read it now.

  8. RudyM says:

    I’ve read the Douglas book and found it pretty impressive, although I think that’s the first book I’ve ever read about the assassination of JFK, so I don’t have a lot of context. (One piece of advice I would give to young people would be to study the history of the time period right before you have any memories, or at leat any memories of political matters. I think it would have sped up my own political understanding if I had actually studied the JFK assassination and the Vietnam War, and so forth.)

    Assuming Obama actually said that about MLK, how would we know this supposedly candid remark is not simply another instance of his telling people what he thinks they want to hear?

    Personally, I think Obama is faking it. I strongly suspect he was groomed precisely to play the role of a progressive. There is a great deal about his past, particularly in relation to his mother, which suggests CIA connections. I don’t consider any of it conclusive, but to me it’s pretty suggestive. See, for instance, Wayne Madsen’s articles (though I wish some claims here were better sourced or documented, and I would say one has to be cautious with Madsen):

    link to t-room.us

    link to t-room.us

    Additionally, Obama has done too many things which strike me as going beyond what would presumably be necessary not to be assassinated. Glenn Greenwald has been pretty good about making a case for that over the past few years. And I think there is a callousness reflected in, for example, his joking around about drone strikes.

    Incidentally, if you’ve never seen this short clip of Bush chuckling over the JFK assassination, while speaking at Ford’s funeral, it’s pretty amazing:

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “although I think that’s the first book I’ve ever read about the assassination of JFK,”

      I’ve read a few. They all seem like people who are desperately, irrationally trying to disprove the reality that sometime momentous things are caused by little bits of nothingness. Yes, a small-time loser can murder to hero of the Baby Boomers. They need to accept it and move on.

      • lysias says:

        If you actually believe in the Warren Commission’s lone nut theory, I’d say you are the one who is being irrational.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “If you actually believe in the Warren Commission’s lone nut theory, I’d say you are the one who is being irrational.”

          LMAO. Oh, I’m sure the Warren Commission got some things wrong. And I’m sure if someone came up with a solid case against someone other than Oswald, I’d be happy to consider it. But in the 50 years since? Nothing but speculation on top of surmise, where the absence of evidence constitutes evidence of conspiracy.

          So, lysias, tell me, which group do you belong to (all of whom, of course, are CERTAIN, that the evidence supports their conclusions). Do you think:

          LBJ did it?
          Castro?
          The Cuban Exiles?
          The CIA?
          The FBI?
          The Mossad?
          The military-industrial complex?
          E. Howard Hunt?
          David Ferrie, Guy Banister, and Clay Shaw?
          The Secret Service (by accident)?
          The Secret Service (on purpose)?
          The Dallas PD?
          The Soviets?
          Sam Giancana?
          The Federal Reserve?
          Hell, maybe the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers?

          Maybe it was some combination of the above? Maybe they all did it? (I’ll bet there were dozens of shooters behind the “grassy knoll.”) LOL.

        • lysias says:

          You don’t have to have a detailed theory of what exactly happened to know that what the Warren Commission told us was a pack of lies.

          But, with the passage of time and the emergence of more and more evidence, we’re gradually getting a better and better idea of what really happened. If you want to know what really happened, you will get a pretty good idea by reading the books I mentioned elsewhere in this thread: James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable, John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA, and Douglas Horne’s five-volume Inside the Assassination Records Bureau. They provide evidence.

          It’s difficult to sum up all of what they say in a form that’s short enough to put in a thread like this. But they all say this: JFK was murdered by the national security state.

        • Citizen says:

          @ lysias
          Was Ruby a lone nut too? He’s the reason nobody could question the killer.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “You don’t have to have a detailed theory of what exactly happened to know that what the Warren Commission told us was a pack of lies.”

          LOL. Actually, yeah, you kinda do. It’s not like this is some type of lock-door mystery, where suddenly JFK was discovered dead. He was riding in a convertible in Texas, for pete’s sakes. The only mystery is how he was able to travel as far as he did in the Land-of-a-Billion-Rifles without being shot earlier.

          “But, with the passage of time and the emergence of more and more evidence, we’re gradually getting a better and better idea of what really happened.”

          Nonsense. We’re getting the same thing we had before: people who cherry pick information in order to support the conclusion they want to reach. Same as it ever was.

          “James Douglass”

          Yea!, A 9/11 Truther. I guess he never met a conspiracy theory that he could ignore…

          “They provide evidence.”

          No, they provide speculation and supposition, which not even all the inmates in the nuthouse agree with.

          “It’s difficult to sum up all of what they say in a form that’s short enough to put in a thread like this.”

          Yes, because if you could, you wouldn’t spend hundreds of dollars for these books and the JFK-assassination-book industry would fold.

          ” But they all say this: JFK was murdered by the national security state.”

          Except for the ones who think it was the Israelis, or the Mafia, or the Cubans, or the Secret Service… Their books are just jammed packed with “evidence” too…

          Besides, “the national security state” isn’t a person. What is the name of the person or persons who pulled the trigger and what objective evidence demonstrates that? After 50 years, if it wasn’t Oswald, you can surely provide that information…

        • lysias says:

          Correction: title of Horne’s five-volume work is Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.

        • lysias says:

          Ruby/Rubenstein was Mob all the way. It seems he was ordered by his Mob superiors to murder Oswald. There’s a strong case that he was involved in organizing the JFK assassination, was supposed — with his Dallas Police connections — to make sure Oswald did not survive his arrest, failed in that task, and therefore had to obey the order to kill Oswald to make up for that failure.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “It seems he was ordered by his Mob superiors to murder Oswald. There’s a strong case that he was involved in organizing the JFK assassination, was supposed — with his Dallas Police connections — to make sure Oswald did not survive his arrest, failed in that task, and therefore had to obey the order to kill Oswald to make up for that failure.”

          And I suppose you have actual evidence of all this stuff. You know, maybe a wire tap of him getting these supposed instructions… Or is it merely a case of “this would make some sense in the context of this vast story I’m spinning so I’ll pretend that my speculation is fact…”

        • lysias says:

          “They provide evidence.”

          No, they provide speculation and supposition, which not even all the inmates in the nuthouse agree with.

          I must assume you have not read Newman and Horne, or you could hardly say that. The books are precisely recitals of tons of documentary and medical evidence.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “I must assume you have not read Newman and Horne, or you could hardly say that. The books are precisely recitals of tons of documentary and medical evidence.”

          I’ve read part of Newman. And the point remains: documentary and medical evidence of what? Linking what to what? Take Newman. His book doesn’t purport to address the assassination directly, but rather, the “connection” between the CIA and Oswald. Okay, great. But even if he succeeds in demonstrating this connection, all he’s done is demonstrate the connection. He would then have to lard onto it tons of speculation and supposition to then link that demonstration to anything relevant to the assassination. Even if you can prove that Oswald was the head of the CIA, you haven’t demonstrated that the CIA had anything to do with the assassination.

          Again, I ask: It’s been 50 years. If the evidence of this conspiracy is so vast and so overwhelming, please name the members of this conspiracy by name and explain what each one did, specifically to kill JFK.

        • lysias says:

          I didn’t say it was proved. I said “it seems” and “there is a strong case”. If you want to see what the case is, read the chapters on Oswald and Ruby in Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination by Richard Belzer and David Wayne. When I read their book, I found their case for this persuasive.

      • RudyM says:

        The evidence of a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination is overwhelming. I wonder about the psychology of people who need to embrace the official account of everything. The question is not some abstract one of what is or isn’t possible in reality (I don’t have a problem with contingency and randomness making big things happen), the question is what the evidence shows in any particular case.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “The evidence of a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination is overwhelming. ”

          Please identify each and every individual who was a part of this so-called conspiracy and identify each act he did in pursuit of this conspiracy, complete with the evidence supporting your conclusions. If the evidence is so overwhelming, as you suggest, then this should be easy.

  9. MRW says:

    By chance this AM I was reading the preface and epilogue of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty’s book: JFK, The CIA, Vietnam, And The Plot To Assassinate John F. Kennedy. The epilogue was left out of the paperback version.

    The preface fleshes out what McGovern says. Prouty died in 2001. Here’s his Pentagon bio [http://www.prouty.org]
    link to prouty.org
    Epilogue
    link to prouty.org

  10. MRW says:

    I knew a black ops operator with a security clearance level just below Cosmic (which I can’t remember) who told me years ago that he was in the Oval Office in the three weeks after Reagan first took office. A man came in and gave Reagan marching orders. He wouldn’t identify the man other than to say he came from Wall Street, and that I would recognize his name, but who knows. He said Reagan yes-sirred, yes-sirred him, and he recognized later that Reagan defied whatever this guy told him. Was that why he was shot? Who knows. Didn’t the shooting happen two or three months in?

    This guy said he was shocked, which was a first for him. He said the same thing happened to Bush Pere, and Clinton. I believed this guy. Don’t necessarily buy the Wall Street thing specifically, but his tone and demeanor when he told me about this and other things he was involved with rang 100% true to me. He told me how I could check out certain of his stories independently and they did.

    Don’t ask me to give any more details about this guy than this. Just treat it as a rumor.

  11. Now does he have any reason to fear the CIA? Well he sure as heck does. For those of your listeners who have not read James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable, you need to read that, because it’s coming up on 50 years. The mystery has not been solved in the mainstream press. After reading James Douglass, who took advantage of all the previous studies, plus all the more recent information released by Congress, I’m convinced that John Kennedy was assassinated largely by Allan Dulles whom he cashiered as the head of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs, and a coterie of joint chiefs of staff, FBI, even some Secret Service folks who thought that JFK was being soft on Communism by back channel communications with Krushchev, that he was playing games with Fidel Castro…to repair the relationship, and worst of all he was giving Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now is there evidence for this? There sure as heck is.

    and, Phil Weiss:

    Host Michael Smith, who’s read the Douglass book and found it convincing, agreed with McGovern.

    I read Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable last summer. I’ve avoided reading JFK assassination conspiracy books in the past, but was told this one is authoritative. It is compelling, though its strident pro-Catholic tone weakens its freedom from bias.

    When I was in high school, soon after the Warren Report came out, some of the guys in my dad’s shooting club held a contest at a shooting range near Renton, Washington. If you could duplicate what Oswald was purported to have done with the same weapon (a 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38, with an 8X scope), you would win $100.00. Several guys tried. None came remotely close, either in speed or in accuracy. Almost all were expert shots, with a stronger shooting background than Oswald. These were very conservative guys, many of whom hated JFK. They almost all came to believe Oswald could not have been the sole gunman.

    The prize remained unclaimed.

    Since then, I’ve believed that the notion of Oswald being the lone assassin is false.

  12. HarryLaw says:

    “Beware the Ides of March” comes with the job, he knew that, why was he so ambitious?

  13. Dan Crowther says:

    I read the Douglass book and it’s brilliant.

    Couple of things though: MLK got killed when he went outside the “liberal” consensus, organizing poor people, blue collar people etc – he was also thinking of running for political office, way to the left of the Dem’s. You can bash away on the Right Wing, but when you disturb the “liberals”, thats when bad things happen to you.
    We won’t even mention the black panthers

    It’s the same with Kennedy (the same Kennedy who wrote to his father before WWII saying “fascism is right for Germany, it’s certainly better than communism”), he wasn’t killed because he was to the left of the nut-so right wing, he got killed because he was upsetting the liberals, it was a collaboration. that’s why there was no finger pointing from the establishment afterwards

    Bill Hicks had a great joke about incoming presidents with “liberal” agendas – “they” take him into a dark smoky room and show him the Kennedy assasination from a never before seen angle…..you get the point

    • lysias says:

      A decent person would react to being shown such a film or photo with indignation, and proceed to do exactly the opposite of what the powers that be are demanding that he do.

  14. Hostage says:

    I’m sorry, but I just don’t think the proposed conspiracy theory makes much sense. It’s more likely that Obama and his cronies simply wanted to get their hands on a share of the proceeds from the billion dollar plus re-election campaign war chest and will use any flimsy excuse for their bad behavior when supporters draw attention to their obvious hypocrisy.

    I don’t think that the CIA has really been “given” any drones, since it isn’t a uniformed militia or branch of the armed forces according to the all important domestic statutes and the laws and customs of war. It isn’t a law enforcement agency either, so it’s lawful role in killing or capturing people is subject to legal objections. See Is the CIA in the Drone Kill Chain? (Answer: Likely.) link to opiniojuris.org

    Past Presidents have been careful to maintain the “Commander-in-Chief” legal fiction by having members of the armed forces perform services and conduct missions on behalf of the CIA, either on a full time basis or while on temporary assignment to the CIA.

    The Obama administration has been very careful to guard the President’s constitutional turf from encroachment by the Congress and the Israel lobby. For example, he refused to move the US embassy to Jerusalem or put “Jerusalem, Israel” on Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky’s passport. link to oyez.org

    At one and the same time, the British Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is holding all of the prisoners at Guantanamo in violation of Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention (and Article 8 of the Rome Statute). So, it’s a bit of a stretch to propose that the Commander-in-Chief is committing serious crimes by keeping Guantanamo open just because he’s following marching orders he received from the Congress or the public. Like every other modern day President, Obama gives the Congress and the voters the middle finger almost everyday in signing statements and executive orders, while doing exactly as he pleases. See:
    * UK Supreme Court bars ‘secret evidence’ in Guantanamo trials link to jurist.org
    * UK Supreme Court Rejects Jack Goldsmith’s Interpretation of GC IV link to opiniojuris.org

  15. American says:

    ‘I’m convinced that John Kennedy was assassinated largely by Allan Dulles whom he cashiered as the head of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs, and a coterie of joint chiefs of staff, FBI, even some Secret Service folks who thought that JFK was being soft on Communism by back channel communications with Krushchev, that he was playing games with Fidel Castro…to repair the relationship, and worst of all he was giving Southeast Asia to the Communists.”

    >>>>I dont doubt Dulles, who thought he was God and ran the world (and a few friends) could have hatched this….but also the FBI, SS and some joint chiefs of staff????…..nope, dont buy that, couldnt have kept that secret among so many people..no way.

    “Now is there evidence for this? There sure as heck is. John Kennedy signed two executive orders just a month or so before he was killed. One of them said we’re pulling out 1000 troops out of South Vietnam by the end of the year, the year being 1963. The other said we’re going to pull out the bulk of the troops by 1965, we’re finished in Vietnam. That’s a matter of record.”

    >>>>If that were the “motive’ it means they would have had to be totally certain Johnson would continue Vietnam. It also means even if Johnson wasn’t in on the assassination, if he had only expressed his disagreement with pulling out of Nam, they had to be certain he would and also wouldnt have any suspicions about the CIA involvements in the assassnatons he might act on after the fact.

    Nope, that is a whole lot of ‘supposing’, a whole lot of people involved that would have to keep their mouths shut forever..
    Had to have been a smaller , more ultra ultra tight cabal than what is described.

    • lysias says:

      A lot of people could have approved the action in general terms, whereas only a tightly compartmentalized group would have been aware of the precise details of the operation.

  16. eljay says:

    I find it hard to believe that a candidate for the office of President of the United States of America wouldn’t have a clue prior to taking office that he might not actually be the most powerful man in the world.

    And I find it hard to believe that upon being told that he would be nothing more than a slick façade for the machinations of greedy / corrupt / evil men, a man of reputedly high legal and moral intentions would simply shrug his shoulders and play along.

    I wonder: What repercussions might he have faced had he used his first nationally-televised address to clearly and succinctly:
    - explain the situation (“I believed that, as president, I would have the power to undertake economic, social and legal reforms to reduce the debt, improve health care, reduce our military and our foreign interventions, et cetera; but men far more powerful than I am have told me in no uncertain words that they will not permit this, et cetera.”); and
    - immediately resign.

    The message it would have sent to Americans would have been powerful.

  17. gingershot says:

    ‘We are all citizens of a Banana Republic now’

    Is it just my imagination or are things just getting more and more bizarre the older I get?

    The hole America has dug for herself just gets deeper and deeper. The list of what needs to be changed – and will only probably be able to be changed – with a 2nd American Revolution just gets longer and longer. I’m not holding my breath

    Mr Obama – I say go ahead and live as if there’s no tomorrow – that’s your damn JOB

    I just can’t wait till I hear Obama or another president say he actually fears for his life because of the ISRAELI LOBBY

  18. One has to love that wing of the national security state that speaks through Mcgovern, Pillar, Giraldi and the others unknown to me but apparent in the pushback against the zionists within the body politic.

    The Rosen and Franklin spying did not go over too well within the red white and blue intel community who must be sick and tired of catching Israeli spies and being forced to let them fly the coop. Remember Dominik Suter and Urban moving systems? They are also known as the Israeli spies that were arrested after the event that put a ring around the nose of the American body politic and drove us headlong into the middle east.

    They say that James Jesus Angleton has a statue honoring him in Israel.
    The movie “The War of the Roses” comes to mind to me, i think the U.S wants a divorce but it could prove too costly.

    link to antiwar.com

    “Middle Eastern-looking men,” as described by witnesses, were Israelis: they were found with box cutters in their van, $4,000 in cash, and multiple passports. Police interrogated them for hours, and transferred them to a maximum security facility, where they were held for months.

    Their van was registered as the property of Urban Moving Systems: A raid on the Urban Moving Systems warehouse yielded computers, documents, and other evidence – of what, we don’t know. Suter, the owner of the company, refused all comment, and soon fled the country – to Israel.

    The inclusion of Suter, an Israeli, and the front man for what even the Forward acknowledges was a Mossad operation, on an official list of terrorist suspects should silence, for good, those who dismiss the Israeli connection to 9/11 as a “myth,” urban or otherwise. As a great patriot once said:

    “I have in my hands a list….”

    Phil Giraldi recently wrote and analysis of the Big O and deduced that he was a buck-passer, which again does not run against the grain of Mcgoverns revelation of why he passes the buck so much.

    I love this revelation and the reverberations it will have within the tweeting intellectuals, both statist types and the not so statist types.

    Let’s see how soon before the tweet-osphere goes a twitter.

    Good catch Phil.

  19. Abdul-Rahman says:

    I immediately thought of this video of Professor Cornel West link to youtube.com

  20. HarryLaw says:

    I have never been a conspiracy theorist, there is so much factual evidence out there to get angry about , no doubt there are many conspiracies being hatched all the time, but to speculate is to be considered some kind of nutcase, I personally stop reading when the twin towers theories come out, this could be one reason the government encourage such speculation.

  21. Phil have you ever heard of Col Prouty? His witness adds some granularity to the narrative of the JFK assassination.

    Col Prouty was Pentagon assigned and was traveling back through New Zealand on the day of the assassination of JFK.
    Fletcher discusses his own experiences in New Zealand the day of the killing.
    link to prouty.org

    The commentary section and the photo section is interesting.
    http://www.prouty.org

    The Col. L Fletcher Prouty Reference Site is a focal point where researchers can locate and retrieve articles, books, videos, and tapes on a variety of subjects which Fletcher has written and participated in.

    Col. Prouty spent 9 of his 23 year military career in the Pentagon (1955-1964): 2 years with the Secretary of Defense, 2 years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 5 years with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. In 1955 he was appointed the first “Focal Point” officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations per National Security Council Directive 5412. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defense (1960-1961), and for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    At times he would be called to meet with Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles at their home on highly classified business. He was assigned to attend MKULTRA meetings. In this capacity Col. Prouty would be at the nerve center of the Military-Industrial Complex at a time unequalled in American History. He has written on these subjects, about the JFK assassination, the Cold War period, and Vietnamese warfare, and the existence of a “Secret Team”. He backs up his his work with seldom seen or mentioned official documents – some never before released.

    • lysias says:

      “X” in Oliver Stone’s JFK was based on Prouty, who advised Stone for the film.

    • AlGhorear says:

      Just what I needed, a distraction to look into the Kennedy assassination which I’ve never really researched before but now it kept me busy reading for the last 8 hours and surely could keep me busy for much longer. Lots of questions & so many theories. Powerful people are capable of such terrible things. Reminds me of Bill Blum’s article “If I were president”. It’s priceless. Link to William Blum I have so much respect for this man.

      “If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America’s global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now — oddly enough — a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year’s military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That’s what I’d do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I’d be assassinated.”

  22. lysias says:

    Obama campaign plane’s emergency is detailed (July 11, 2009):

    WASHINGTON — Airplane control problems last summer could have led to disaster for then-Sen. Barack Obama and his presidential campaign, according to a report released Friday by the National Transportation Safety Board.

    On July 7, 2008, a McDonnell Douglas MD-81 en route to Charlotte, N.C., and carrying Obama and 50 other passengers and crew made an emergency landing in St. Louis. An evacuation slide within the tail cone had inflated shortly after takeoff from Chicago.

    July 7, 2008 was shortly after Obama had clinched the nomination, and just days before Obama cast his vote in the Senate in favor of the FISA “reform” that immunized the telecom companies for the warrantless eavesdropping.

  23. just says:

    I have a lot of respect for Ray McGovern.

    I am also aware of the many threats reportedly made against Mr. Obama and his family– I would venture to say that we are not even made aware of the vast majority of them.

    I don’t think I can dismiss this article and the information it conveys. All one has to do is to read/listen to the racist hatred still so prevalent and nurtured here in the good ole USA.

  24. American says:

    Does it matter if Obama is a wimpy coward or just a corrupt politican? Not really, the results are the same, and cowards and corrupt politicians are one and the same.

  25. Blank State says:

    To discount fear as a motive for cowardice is ridiculous. Of course the man is scared, he’d be an idiot not to be. Jeez, some of these powerful elitist racist sociopaths in DC need no other reason to want him dead other than the fact that Obama is black. (Evidence?? Look at the racially prejudiced actions being taken to rob the blacks of thier vote. Are not those scumballs behind these proposed policies showing thier true colors by pursuing such courses of action???) If you don’t think racism against blacks is rampant on the far right, you ain’t paying attention. But fear is but one aspect of this lying scheming cowardly man’s actions, policies, and broken campaign promises. He is simply a man of no integrity, no substance. He becomes what he needs to become to acquire power. It is what these scumbags become, what they must become, to attain high office in Washington DC.

    The irony behind this cowardly worm’s refusal to hold the Bush Admin criminals to the letter of the law??? The far right will not extend the same “courtesy”. If they can hang him, they will, in a hot flash.

    Does Israel tie into this fear factor, and his kowtowing to the zionist agenda??? Does a bear shit in the woods? Hows the caped crusader Hagel working out for the feckless optimists amongst you??

    Gee, blackmail??? Would Israel resort to such a travesty???? How could you possibly believe such a thing??? Just because they’ll incinerate women and children in white phosphorous doesn’t mean they’ll resort to blackmail, now does it??? I mean, hey, ya gotta draw the line somewhere.

  26. In 2008, Barack Obama promised change.
    In 2009, Barack Obama fulfilled his promise and changed.

    He changed from a liberal Democrat to a neocon neo-Republican.
    He changed from a tough principled negotiator to a weak bipartisan appeaser.
    He changed from an advocate of rule-of-law to an enabler of torture & summary executions.
    He changed from a professor of constitutional law to a sponsor of unconstitutional laws.
    He changed from a defender of government transparency to a persecutor of whistleblowers.
    He changed from a master of equal opportunity to a slave of lobby & corporate interests.
    He changed from a Nobel Peace Laureate to an interventionist War President.
    He changed from a champion of civil rights & democracy to a protector of autocratic regimes.
    He changed from a neutral & honest broker to a pseudo Israeli ambassador.
    He changed from a promising visionary statesman to a myopic reactionary leader.
    He changed from an inspirer of audacious hope to a guardian of conservatism & despair.

    Barack Obama promised change, so he changed.

  27. Nonsense, another man, mcgovern of all(!) trying to apologize for what obama is doing.

  28. I always wondered if JFK’s assassination had anything to do with the fact he was against Israeli development of nuclear weaponry at Dimona. I can’t be the only one wondering: if you google Kennedy and Israel, “nuclear weapons” comes up as a tab automatically… Heck, an Israeli killed Rabin for HIS plans to go forward with peace. Those sacrificial lambs silence those coming after them, as we’ve seen with the totally derailed “peace process” … The previous comment: “Does Israel tie into this fear factor, and his kowtowing to the zionist agenda???” Israel’s current prime minister is notorious, world famous for his fearmongering. Not least in the days leading up to Rabin’s murder (as documented again for those forgetful, in THE GATEKEEPERS).

    • lysias says:

      John Newman makes a powerful circumstantial case in the paperback edition of his Oswald and the CIA that the man who did the detailed planning for the assassination and who was in charge of the running of Oswald as a government agent was none other than James Jesus Angleton, chief of counterintelligence at the CIA and also the CIA’s liaison to Israel. Angleton had close relations to what became Israeli intelligence from as early as his days as OSS station chief in Italy in 1944-5. One of Angleton’s big coups in his career was obtaining and releasing the text of Khrushchev’s secret 1956 speech denouncing Stalin. He was given that text by Israeli intelligence.

      The reactor at Dimona went critical on Dec. 26, 1963.

  29. flyod says:

    kennedy-too many trips with mary pinchot perhaps? beautiful wife of cord meyer. we could ask her but…

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    obama; who the f knows?

    • lysias says:

      Mary Pinchot Meyer was also killed by the CIA, precisely because of what she knew about JFK’s assassination and was threatening to reveal. The case for this — and it is a convincing one — is made by Peter Janney in Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer & Their Vision for World Peace. Peter Janney is the son of one of the CIA officials involved in the conspiracy to murder Mary Meyer.

  30. Since you brought up Mary Pinchot take a look at Mary’s Mosaic by Peter Janney.
    Phenomenal story about the daughter of a prominent Philadelphia family from yesteryear.

    link to amazon.com

    Peter Janney grew up in Washington D.C. during the 1950s and 1960s. His father was a high-ranking CIA official and close friends with Richard Helms, James Angleton, and Mary’s husband, Cord Meyer. His mother and Mary Meyer were classmates at Vassar College.

  31. Tuyzentfloot says:

    Even if Obama really said that he worried about being killed, it would only give an explanation for not going all out on some projects.

    More generally it’s well possible that he’s very aware of being the first black president and feeling responsible for his role and determined not to have it end in disaster. Don’t leave a bad impression.Don’t be radical, don’t upset too many people, don’t get killed, don’t give black presidents a bad name . Pave the way for more black presidents.

    Don’t take risks. Be a weak president…

  32. charlesfrith says:

    There’s no way to understand Obama without appreciating he is both a product from, and at times an enemy of the CIA. It’s a complex world we live in.