Trending Topics:

‘Obama is no JFK,’ neocons say– likening Iran to Cuba

Israel/Palestine
on 27 Comments

jfk-thumbThis is delicious, on a number of levels. Neoconservatives are using the anniversary of the Kennedy assassination to say that Obama is a wimp on Iran because Kennedy stood firm during the Cuban missile crisis. John Bolton and Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America. Empact America looks to be the umbrella, a group concerned with the electromagnetic threat. Press advisory from Sheinkopf agency.

Press Advisory

Obama Is No JFK: Panel Compares Cuban Missile Crisis to Iran’s Quest for Nukes

Distinguished experts met today to criticize President Obama’s passive foreign policy toward Iran

Washington, D.C. (Nov. 18 2013) – In the shadow of 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, a group important scholars, former ambassadors, retired generals and policy experts called on President Barack Obama to immediately cut off negotiations with Iran arguing that loosing sanctions will result in global insecurity and a nuclear-armed Iran by the end of the year.

Drawing contrasts to President Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis, EMPact America will host a panel tomorrow discussing how President Obama should be more forceful in handling the developing nuclear crisis in Iran and the Middle East.

EMPact America is the nation’s leading advocacy organization dedicated to protecting America’s critical infrastructures from all threats.

WHERE: National Press Club, Zenger Room, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, D.C.

WHEN: 1:30 p.m. TOMORROW Tuesday, Nov. 19

WHAT: EMPact America to host panel discussion on how President Obama could better handle the developing nuclear crisis in Iran

WHO: The panel includes:

· John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations

· Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney

· Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy

· Maseh Zarif, Deputy Director for the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project

· Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

27 Responses

  1. James Canning
    James Canning
    November 18, 2013, 2:04 pm

    I think any deal between Iran and EU3+3 will entail an end to enrichment to 20% and closure (or modification) of Arak.

    No chance of imminent “breakout” to build nukes.

  2. James Canning
    James Canning
    November 18, 2013, 2:06 pm

    Cutting off negotiations with Iran would be an act of irresponsibility and stupidity, on epic scale. Small wonder neocon warmongers push such idiocy.

    Did JFK refuse to negotiate with Krushchev, in October 1962?

  3. Mike_Konrad
    Mike_Konrad
    November 18, 2013, 2:11 pm

    JFK was no JFK.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      November 18, 2013, 4:02 pm

      The legend never dies.

      “You’re not Maud Gonne
      But then again neither was she”

    • Walid
      Walid
      November 19, 2013, 2:28 am

      “JFK was no JFK.” (Mike)

      He sure wasn’t all that he was made out to be begining with the Pulitzer he got in 1958 for his book allegedly ghost-written by someone on the payroll of his father that was grooming him for the coming presidential elections. He also wasn’t for having “borrowed” a quotation from someone else that he used in his famously historic inaugural speech or the name of his program “The New Frontier” also borrowed from the same writer, Lebanon’s Gibran Khalil Gibran.

      Here’s a short excerpt from the essay written in 1925 by Gibran Khalil Gibran:

      “… There are today, in the Middle East, two men: one of the past and one of the future. Which one are you? Come close, let me look at you and let me be assured by your appearance and your conduct if you are one of those coming into the light or going into the darkness.

      Come and tell me who and what are you.

      Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; is the second, then you are an oasis in a desert.

      Are you a merchant utilizing the need of society for the necessities of life, for monopoly and exorbitant profit? Or a sincere, hard-working and diligent man facilitating the exchange between the weaver and the farmer? Are you charging a reasonable profit as a middleman between supply and demand? If you are the first, then you are a criminal whether you live in a palace or a prison. If you are the second, then you are a charitable man whether you are thanked or denounced by people.”

      For the full great essay “The New Frontier”:

      http://bwoods.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/the-new-frontier-by-kahlil-gibran/

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        November 19, 2013, 7:26 am

        Greeting Walid,
        Mahaba Salam,
        I read Kahlil Gibran poetry in the Cedars of Lebanon in me 20s.
        He still with me today some 50 yrs later.
        Shucran for reminding me.
        Mash’Salam
        ziusudra

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 19, 2013, 12:45 pm

        Hi ziusudra, those cedars you read Gibran under were a mere 15 minutes away from Gibran’s birthplace and the area he spoke often about in his writings and the gateway to the scared valley of Kadisha.

        Gibran was a close friend of Auguste Rodin. In his writing and in his drawings and paintings, he was strongly influenced by the mysticism of William Blake and to a lesser extent by Coleridge. He was also a fervent Maronite Christian deeply affected by the Bible and during a brief dark period of his life by the troubled Nietzsche. His style was made up of a combination of styles of other writers. His pronouncement at one time “I am a fase alarm” could have been a confession of some sort.

        Getting back to your encounter with the magnificent cedars, are they not the ones where Gilgamesh and Enkidu went to kill Humbaba the horrible, or where Ishtar resided?

  4. Walid
    Walid
    November 18, 2013, 3:27 pm

    Kennedy did not stand firm on Cuba, he stood reckless and almost provoked WW III. Lucky for everyone, Kruschev was the cooler head by backing down.

    We should be grateful Obama is not like Kennedy, because he too would lead us to the brink, but Israel couldn’t care less..

    • JohnAdamTurnbull
      JohnAdamTurnbull
      November 18, 2013, 3:33 pm

      And we should be grateful that Iran bears no similarity in military strength or expertise to the former Soviet Union.

    • David Doppler
      David Doppler
      November 18, 2013, 4:30 pm

      Kennedy and Krushchev found themselves in the front of two hostile crowds eager to do battle against the other, with escalation the almost inevitable path. Kennedy was advised that immediate nuclear war was imperative before the Soviets developed the kind of retaliatory capability that would destroy us. A nuclear war was inevitable, and only winnable if we attacked quickly. Kennedy’s unwillingness to go along, and his refusal to bail out the CIA in the Bay of Pigs, and his loss of trust in the CIA, led Kennedy to open secret back-channel communications with Krushchev in which the two figured out how to step back from the brink. It also led the warmongers of the time to regard Kennedy as either a coward or traitor or both. I think Obama is trying to be like Kennedy, but Kennedy actually fought in a war, an experience Obama is sorely lacking. See Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable for a perspective that is highly relevant both to the Kennedy-Obama comparision, as well as the whole NSA Pandora’s Box.

    • American
      American
      November 18, 2013, 5:07 pm

      ”Kennedy did not stand firm on Cuba, he stood reckless “…Walid

      Not the way I remember it . Kennedy didnt pop off and pre emptively bomb Cuba…or Russia.
      He played the chicken game with Kruschev and Kruschev blinked.
      I am guessing because he assesed and was advised Kruschev wasnt really dumb enough to start a war over putting his missiles in Cuba.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        November 18, 2013, 7:22 pm

        JFK saw possible deal with Krushchev, and he obviously was correct and we must be thankful for that.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      November 18, 2013, 7:15 pm

      Kennedy did not stand firm on Cuba, he stood reckless and almost provoked WW III.

      True enough. If Obama was more like Kennedy he would offer the Iranians a deal that required Israel to give up its nuclear weapons:

      Sorensen’s “Confession”:

      …the president [Kennedy] recognized that, for Chairman Khrushchev to withdraw the missiles from Cuba, it would be undoubtedly helpful to him if he could say at the same time to his colleagues on the Presidium, “And we have been assured that the missiles will be coming out of Turkey.” And so, after the ExComm meeting [on the evening of 27 October 1962], as I’m sure almost all of you know, a small group met in President Kennedy’s office, and he instructed Robert Kennedy—at the suggestion of Secretary of State [Dean] Rusk—to deliver the letter to Ambassador Dobrynin for referral to Chairman Khrushchev, but to add orally what was not in the letter: that the missiles would come out of Turkey.

      Ambassador Dobrynin felt that Robert Kennedy’s book did not adequately express that the “deal” on the Turkish missiles was part of the resolution of the crisis. And here I have a confession to make to my colleagues on the American side, as well as to others who are present. I was the editor of Robert Kennedy’s book. It was, in fact, a diary of those thirteen days. And his diary was very explicit that this was part of the deal; but at that time it was still a secret even on the American side, except for the six of us who had been present at that meeting. So I took it upon myself to edit that out of his diaries, and that is why the Ambassador is somewhat justified in saying that the diaries are not as explicit as his conversation.

      [Sorensen comments, in Bruce J. Allyn, James G. Blight, and David A. Welch, eds., Back to the Brink: Proceedings of the Moscow Conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis, January 27-28, 1989 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992), pp. 92-93]

      http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm

    • ziusudra
      ziusudra
      November 19, 2013, 8:19 am

      Re: Walid,
      Kennedy & all other presidents since Washington have been expantionists first in the Western hemesphere, now the globe.
      Clausewitz once quipped: War is the continuation of politics by other means.
      O’Bloomers has to invert that to (Being busted) Drones & Proxy militia are the new continuation of Clausewitz. We, the imperialists, strive on.
      ziusudra

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        November 20, 2013, 7:12 pm

        Grover Cleveland would disagree.

        Is there not a big difference between annexing a large part of Mexico, and putting a few military bases here and there outside the US?

  5. seafoid
    seafoid
    November 18, 2013, 4:22 pm

    WHO: The panel includes:

    · John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations aka Mr Potato Head, confirmed nutcase

    · Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney

    · Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy

    · Maseh Zarif, Deputy Director for the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project AEI known as nutcase concentration

    · Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America say no more

  6. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    November 18, 2013, 4:39 pm

    These people are blockheads. Anyone with an elementary-school understanding of history knows that the lack of avenues to directly negotiate was one of the biggest problems during the Cuban Missle Crisis and, in fact, was recognized as much by the parties, so much so that they installed the direct communication equipment — the Moscow-Washington hot line — soon after because of it. Further, they understand that the crisis and war was averted because JFK sought any means to solve the crisis, even the point of giving up strategic assets in Europe. These clows sound like the Joint Chiefs, who urged a full-scale invasion of Cuba, which would have led to WWIII.

  7. Bandolero
    Bandolero
    November 18, 2013, 6:37 pm

    I think the main difference between Obama and JFK is that Israel didn’t manage to kill him yet though he tries boxing in the zionist military enterprise as did JFK.

  8. EUR1069
    EUR1069
    November 18, 2013, 9:44 pm

    I knew the JFK anniversary will pop up this way or another. Didn’t expect the Lobby to bring it up though – as it would hit dangerously too close to home turf, lest they truly believe that they are omnipotent, invincible & can get away with anything.

    Funny how amidst the sea of literature on the JFK assassination & dozens of conspiracy theories no one asked the obvious: Cui bono?

    How timely therefore, in the context of the neocon-presented Obama-JFK parallel to take another close look at “JFK, the Lobby & the Bomb.”

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article178401.html

    • Walid
      Walid
      November 19, 2013, 12:46 am

      More about the bomb, from an archived French document released this week, we learned of the French involvement in helping Israel build its bomb and how de Gaulle that wanted to put an end to it was duped by Ben Gurion into going ahead with it but in a way to keep it secret.

      The contract to build the reactor at Dimona was signed in 1956 after the Suez fiasco and the one for the plutonium separation plant (like the one Iran is building at Arak) in 1957. These were signed by France with the condition that Israel wouldn’t build a bomb without first asking France’s permission. de Gaul that came to power in 1958 was not favorable to these contracts and wanted out of them. In 1960, Ben Gurion went to France on June 16, 1960 to ask de Gaulle to proceed with the completion of the reactor and the plant and to deliver the uranium needed for the bomb.

      de Gaulle couldn’t understand why Israel needed the bomb since it had France’s and the US’ assurances that they would protect it. Ben Gurion insisted in wanting the bomb to protect Israel from Egypt that was getting Migs from the USSR that could wipe out Israel’s 4 airports and consequently the rest of the country before the US and France could react in time, causing it to lose its elitist American and European Jews, since most of the rest of the country was made up of Jews from backward countries. de Gaulle did not want to go along with the contract but also did not want France to be be held liable for $8 billion for cancelling the contract. It was then that Shimon Perez found a way to keep everyone happy and hiding what France was doing by signing a contract with it to help Israel build a desalination plant in the desert, which took France off the hook for having helped Israel build the bomb.

      http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/monde/20131117.OBS5777/bombe-israelienne-quand-de-gaulle-a-dit-non-a-ben-gourion.html

      • ToivoS
        ToivoS
        November 19, 2013, 3:05 am

        Walid, just a thanks for you bringing to our attention the French angle to this whole Zionist mess. Somehow it has always been in the back of my mind that France was a part of the problem — the Suez crises in 1956 and their support in building the Dimona reactor — but one does not think of France when we consider Western colonialism of the Palestine. Maybe it is time to refocus our attention — of course the US is the major problem but there does seem to an important French connection.

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 19, 2013, 4:10 am

        Glad you found it interesting, Toivo. I’m sure this item would never be of interest to the American press because of the sensitivity of the subject.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 19, 2013, 9:01 am

        causing it to lose its elitist American and European Jews, since most of the rest of the country was made up of Jews from backward countries.

        Beware tit for that arguments, no matter how easy they are to understand given the Hasbara self-portrayal as “superior and successful” versus “the Arab village”.

        I know of quite a few European Jews from the elite moving there after 1933. So that surely is a simplification. Actually there are more than you think. Let me pick out two of the many I know of: The father of the Israeli scholar Shulamit Volkov left early. She only found his letters from Germany to his mother after he had died. Her parents met, I think, while they both studied in Berlin. He may well have been lucky to have met a “Zionist” at that point. He left pretty early, Buber only left when he was he warned he better did, in 1938 I think. Volkow mentions Gershom Sholem’s book From Berlin to Jerusalem. Remember the elite lost their jobs early. All they had left to rely on were little Jewish enclaves.

        There is of course one undeniable argument concerning the strife between assimilationists on all layers, merchants, scholars the average Jew, concerning the left, the center, and Zionism at the time: At that point no doubt the Zionists proved correct. Paradoxically, or maybe not really, Hitler ultimately helped to create the Jewish state. That is easy to see with a look on the numbers of immigrations in those years.

        But there is also no doubt that the West somewhat “outsourced” it’s “Jewish problem” at the time, Imperialism, Colonialism, as it outsourced it East in earlier centuries.

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 19, 2013, 12:01 pm

        There is of course one undeniable argument concerning the strife between assimilationists on all layers, merchants, scholars the average Jew, concerning the left, the center, and Zionism at the time: At that point no doubt the Zionists proved correct.” (LeaNder)

        LeaNder, assimilation of the Jews of France was one of the first orders of the day after the French Revolution, since Napoleon took it on himself to personally oversee the emancipation (rather than the assimilation) of the Jews and it happened relatively smoothly. In the first debate of the National Constituent Assembly on the Jewish question on Dec. 23, 1789, Clermont-Tonnerre stated that everything had to be denied to the Jews as a nation, but that as individuals, nothing was to be denied to them; they had to become citizens. Their designation was changed from “Jews” that had a negative connotation to “Isralites”. And citizens of the country they became until for some of them, the advent of Zionism and Israel. It’s regrettable that from 1967, some Jews in France and definitely not all went the way of the French Jewish lobby and became Israel-firsters. By its actions, this lobby is giving the Jews of France a bad name.

        As to the Jews of Germany, as you mentioned at just about the time the French were welcoming the Jews as full citizens, those of Germany were being thoroughly persecuted, living in misery, and abusively overtaxed. Napoleon proceeded to likewise emancipate the Jews of Germany and things went well until his fall in 1815. Wicki describes what happened after that:

        “… growing (German) nationalism resulted in increasing repression. From August to October 1819, pogroms that came to be known as the Hep-Hep riots took place throughout Germany. Jewish property was destroyed, and many Jews were killed.

        During this time, many German states stripped Jews of their civil rights. In the Free City of Frankfurt, only twelve Jewish couples were allowed to marry each year, and the 400,000 gulden the city’s Jewish community had paid in 1811 for its emancipation was forfeited. After the Rhineland reverted to Prussian control, Jews lost the rights Napoleon had granted them, were banned from certain professions, and the few who had been appointed to public office before the Napoleonic Wars were dismissed. Throughout numerous German states, Jews had their rights to work, settle and marry restricted. Without special letters of protection, Jews were banned from many different professions, and often had to resort to jobs considered unrespectable, such as peddling or cattle dealing, to survive. A Jewish man who wanted to marry had to purchase a registration certificate, known as a matrikel, proving he was in a “respectable” trade or profession. Matrikels, which could cost up to 1,000 gulden, were usually restricted to firstborn sons. As a result, most Jewish men were unable to legally marry. Throughout Germany, Jews were heavily taxed, and were sometimes discriminated against by gentile craftsmen. As a result, many German Jews began to emigrate.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#The_Jewish_enlightenment_in_Germany

        LeaNder, there I can see that when Zionism later came on the scene , it proved correct but even at that, that correctness had to crystallize in another country, and unlucky for the Palestinians, the country chosen to do it in was Palestine.

  9. RoHa
    RoHa
    November 19, 2013, 12:18 am

    “Funny how amidst the sea of literature on the JFK assassination & dozens of conspiracy theories no one asked the obvious: Cui bono?”

    Actually, quite a few of us* started asking that question pretty much as soon as we heard the news. The first answer that popped up was “LBJ”. Still a lot of support for that idea. Of course, there are lots of links between LBJ and the Lobby.

    http://www.amazon.com/MacBird-Complete-Text-Barbara-Garson/dp/B000J289O8

    *I was 17 at the time.

    • Walid
      Walid
      November 19, 2013, 2:37 am

      I always thought it was the steel industry that the Kennedy brothers were bearing down on.They were also on the mafia’s back. I guess they were on a lot of backs, especially on the back of the one that killed herself.

Leave a Reply