bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘JOHN F. KENNEDY’

AMERICA’S BRUSH WITH ARMAGEDDON: PART FOUR (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 7, 2026 at 12:17 am

“John and Robert Kennedy knew what they were doing. They waged a vicious war against Fidel Castro—a war someone had to lose.”       

And the loser turned out to be John F. Kennedy. 

So writes investigative reporter Gus Russo in Live By the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK, published in 1998.

In what is almost certainly the definitive account of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Russo reaches some startling—but highly documented—conclusions:

  • Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated Kennedy.
  • He did it alone.
  • Oswald, a former Marine, was a committed Marxist—whose hero was Castro.
  • The CIA’s ongoing campaign to overthrow and/or assassinate Castro was an open secret throughout the Gulf.
  • Oswald visited New Orleans in the spring of 1963.
  • There he learned that Castro was in the crosshairs of the CIA.
  • Oswald told his Russian-born wife, Marina: “Fidel Castro needs defenders. I’m going to join his army of volunteers.”
  • Jack Ruby, a Dallas nightclub owner, murdered Oswald because he was distraught over Kennedy’s death.
  • Ruby was not part of a Mafia conspiracy to silence Oswald.
  • Skeptics of the Warren Commission—which concluded that Oswald had acted alone—asked the wrong question: “Who killed Kennedy?”
  • They should have asked: “Why was he killed?”
  • The answer–according to Russo: “The Kennedys’ relentless pursuit of Castro and Cuba backfired in tragedy on that terrible day in November, 1963.”

Another book well worth reading about America’s Cuban obsession during the early 1960s is American Tabloid, by James Ellroy.

Although a novel, it vividly captures the atmosphere of intrigue, danger and sleaziness that permeated that era in a way that dry, historical documents never can.

“The 50’s are finished,” reads its paperback dust jacket. “Zealous young lawyer Robert Kennedy has a red-hot jones to nail Jimmy Hoffa. JFK has his eyes on the Oval Office.

“J. Edgar Hoover is swooping down on the Red Menace. Howard Hughes is dodging subpoenas and digging up Kennedy dirt. And Castro is mopping up the bloody aftermath of his new Communist nation….

“Mob bosses, politicos, snitches, psychos, fall guys and femmes fatale. They’re mixing up a Molotov cocktail guaranteed to end the country’s innocence with a bang.”

Among the legacies of America’s twisted romance with anti-Castro Cubans:

  • Following the JFK assassination, there was a coverup.
  • Its purposes: To protect the reputation of the United States government—and that of its newly-martyred President.
  • Thus, the CIA and FBI concealed the CIA-Mafia assassination plots from the Warren Commission assigned to investigate Kennedy’s murder.
  • Other government officials participating in the coverup included Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and President Lyndon B. Johnson.
  • Ironically, this secrecy ignited the widespread—and false—belief that the President had died at the hands of a government conspiracy.
  • Robert Kennedy feared that his relentless pursuit of Castro might have led Castro to “take out” JFK first.
  • Fearing his own assassination if he continued Kennedy’s efforts to murder Castro, President Johnson ordered the CIA to halt its campaign to overthrow and/or assassinate the Cuban leader.
  • The huge Cuban community throughout Florida—and especially Miami—continues to exert a blackmailing influence on American politics.
  • Right-wing politicians from Richard Nixon to Donald Trump have reaped electoral rewards by catering to the demands of this hate-obsessed voting block.
  • These Cuban ex-patriots hope that the United States will launch a full-scale military invasion of the island to remove Castro.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the deadliest moment of the Cold War, when the world stood only minutes away from nuclear Armageddon.

That crisis stemmed from America’s twisted obsession with Cuba, an obsession that continues today.

Sixty-three years after that crisis, the world wonders: Could nuclear war erupt over Cuba? 

And, once again, that decision lies in the hands of two men—Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump—out of a world population of more than eight billion. 

The Soviet Union began aiding Cuba in early 1960, shortly after the 1959 revolution, with a formal trade agreement signed in February 1960. This deal involved exchanging Soviet oil for Cuban sugar. The relationship quickly expanded to include extensive economic subsidies and military support that continued through 1990.

On January 29, 2026, President Donald Trump threatened to impose huge tariffs on goods from any country that supplied oil to Cuba. Declaring a national emergency, he aims to cripple the island’s energy supply.

On February 18, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez in Moscow and reaffirmed his support for the island nation. Putin reminded his guest that Russia “will not accept anything of the sort” when discussing the sanctions against the country. 

“I do believe I’ll be having the honor of taking Cuba. That’s a big honor. Taking Cuba in some form,” Trump said on March 16. “Whether I free it, take it, I think I could do anything I want with it, if you want to know the truth. They are a very weakened nation right now.”

Nikita Khrushchev, facing a choice of humiliation or Armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis, chose humiliation—so his country could live another day. 

It remains to be seen if Vladimir Putin is willing to make the same decision.

AMERICA’S BRUSH WITH ARMAGEDDON: PART THREE (OF FOUR)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 6, 2026 at 12:17 am

On October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy announced on nationwide TV the discovery of Russian missiles installed in Cuba—and his blockade of that island.     

He warned that any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation would be regarded as an attack on the United States by the Soviet Union—and would trigger “a full retaliatory response” upon the U.S.S.R.

John F. Kennedy address the nation

And he demanded that the Soviets remove all of their offensive weapons from Cuba: “The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.” 

On October 26,  the United States raised the readiness level of SAC forces to DEFCON 2—the step just short of war. For the only time in U.S. history, B-52 bombers were dispersed to various locations and made ready to take off, fully equipped, on 15 minutes’ notice.

Other measures taken included:

  • One-eighth of America’s 1,436 bombers were on airborne alert.
  • About 145 intercontinental ballistic missiles stood on ready alert.
  • Air Defense Command redeployed 161 nuclear-armed interceptors to 16 dispersal fields within nine hours with one-third maintaining 15-minute alert status.
  • Twenty-three nuclear-armed B-52s were sent to orbit points within striking distance of the Soviet Union.

An invasion date was set for October 29. But the Kennedy Administration—and the American military—didn’t know that the Russian soldiers guarding the missiles had been armed with tactical nuclear weapons.

Had the Marines gone in, those mini-nukes would have been used. And a fullscale nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union would have almost certainly followed.

At the height of the crisis, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy offered a solution.

Khrushchev had sent two teletypes to Kennedy. The first had agreed to remove the missiles, but the second had demanded that the United States remove its own missiles from Turkey, which bordered the Soviet Union.

Robert Kennedy’s solution: The administration should ignore the second message—and announce that it had accepted Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s offer to remove the missiles.

After this announcement was made, President Kennedy said to his advisors: “It can go either way now.”

John F. Kennedy

The crisis ended on October 28. Under enormous pressure, Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba.

Behind his decision lay a secret promise by the Kennedy administration to remove its obsolete nuclear missiles from Turkey.  And a public pledge to not invade Cuba.

On the night the crisis ended, a prophetic exchange occurred between the two Kennedy brothers:

JFK: “Maybe this is the night I should go to the theater”—a reference to Abraham Lincoln’s fatal attendance of Ford’s Theater at the end of the Civil War.

RFK: “If you go, I want to go with you.”

John F. and Robert F. Kennedy

But President Kennedy was not finished with Castro. While continuing the campaign of sabotage throughout Cuba, the Kennedys were preparing something far bigger: A full-scale American invasion of the island.

On October 4, 1963, the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted its latest version of the invasion plan, known as OPLAN 380-63. Its timetable went:

  • January, 1964:  Infiltration into Cuba by Cuban exiles.
  • July 15, 1964:  U.S. conventional forces join the fray.
  • August 3, 1964:  All-out U.S. air strikes on Cuba.
  • October 1, 1964:  Full-scale invasion to install “a government friendly to the U.S.”

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert Kennedy—referring to the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor—had resisted demands for a “sneak attack” on Cuba by saying: “I don’t want my brother to be the Tojo of the 1960s.”

Now the Kennedys planned such an attack on Cuba just one month before the November, 1964 Presidential election.

Then fate—in the unlikely figure of Lee Harvey Oswald—intervened.

On November 22, 1963, while the President rode through Dallas in an open-air automobile, a rifle-wielding assassin opened fire. He scored two hits on Kennedy—in the back of the neck and head. The second wound proved instantly fatal.

The nation and the world were shocked—and plunged into deep mourning.

But for some of those who had waged a secret, lethal war against Fidel Castro for the previous two years, Kennedy’s death—at least in retrospect—didn’t come as a surprise.

Robert Kennedy, in particular, spent the remaining years of his life agonizing over the possibility that his highly personal war against Castro had backfired.

That Castro, fed up with the CIA’s assassination plots against him, had retaliated with one of his own.

Robert Kennedy’s fears and guilt were compounded by the fact that, while waging war on Castro, he had waged an equally ruthless crusade against organized crime.

And some of the mobsters he had done his best to put into prison had played a major role in the CIA’s efforts to “hit” Castro. Had the Mafia—believing itself the victim of a double-cross—put out a “contract” on JFK instead?

“John and Robert Kennedy knew what they were doing. They waged a vicious war against Fidel Castro—a war someone had to lose.”

And the loser turned out to be John F. Kennedy.

So writes investigative reporter Gus Russo in Live By the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK, published in 1998.

AMERICA’S BRUSH WITH ARMAGEDDON: PART TWO (OF FOUR)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 3, 2026 at 12:14 am

In April, 1961, the CIA tried to overthrow the Communist regime of Cuba’s “Maximum Leader,” Fidel Castro, at the Bay of Pigs.     

When that failed, President John F. Kennedy ordered Castro’s removal through a campaign of sabotage and assassination.

These covert operatives became known within the CIA as the Special Group, and were ultimately supervised by Robert F. Kennedy, the President’s brother and Attorney General.

The war against Castro became known within the CIA as Operation Mongoose.

But not everyone in the CIA was enthusiastic about the “get Castro” effort.

“Everyone at CIA was surprised at Kennedy’s obsession with Fidel,” recalled Sam Halpern, who was assigned to the Cuba Project. “They thought it was a waste of time. We all knew [Fidel] couldn’t hurt us. Most of us at CIA initially liked Kennedy, but why go after this little guy?

“One thing is for sure: Kennedy wasn’t doing it out of national security concerns. It was a personal thing. The Kennedy family felt personally burnt by the Bay of Pigs and sought revenge.”

It was all-out war. Among the tactics used:

  • Hiring Cuban gangsters to murder Cuban police officials and Soviet technicians.
  • Sabotaging mines.
  • Paying up to $100,000 per “hit” for the murder or kidnapping of Cuban officials.
  • Using biological and chemical warfare against the Cuban sugar industry.

“Bobby (Kennedy) wanted boom and bang all over the island,” recalled Halpern. “It was stupid. The pressure from the White House was very great.”

Among that “boom and bang” were a series of assassination plots against Castro, in which the Mafia was to be a key player.

Chicago Mobster Johnny Rosselli proposed a simple plan: Through its underworld connections in Cuba, the Mafia would recruit a Cuban in Castro’s entourage, such as a waiter or bodyguard, who would poison him.

The CIA’s Technical Services division produced a botulinus toxin which was then injected into Castro’s favorite brand of cigars. The CIA also produced simpler botulinus toxin pills that could be dissolved in his food or drink.

But the deputized Mafia contacts failed to deliver any of the poisons to Castro.

Rosselli told the CIA that the first poisoner had been discharged from Castro’s employ before he could kill him, and the back-up agent got “cold feet.”

Other proposals or attempts included:

  • Planting colorful seashells rigged to explode at a site where Castro liked to go skindiving.
  • Trying to arrange for his being presented with a wetsuit impregnated with noxious bacteria and mold spores, or with lethal chemical agents.
  • Attempting to infect Castro’s scuba regulator with tuberculous bacilli.
  • Trying to douse his handkerchiefs, tea and coffee with other lethal bacteria.

Americans would rightly label such methods as ”terrorist” if another power used them against the United States today. And that was how the Cuban government saw the situation.

So Castro appealed to Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, for assistance.

Fidel Castro 

Nikita Khrushchev

Khrushchev was quick to comply: “We must not allow the communist infant to be strangled in its crib,” he told members of his inner circle.

By October, 1962, the Soviet Union had sent more than

  • 40,000 soldiers,
  • 1,300 field pieces,
  • 700 anti-aircraft guns,
  • 350 tanks and
  • 150 jets

to Cuba to deter another invasion.

Most importantly, Khrushchev began supplying Castro with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.

Their discovery, on October 15, 1962, ignited the single most dangerous confrontation of the 50-year Cold War.

Suddenly, the United States and the Soviet Union—bristling with nuclear weapons—found themselves on the brink of nuclear war.

At the time, Kennedy officials claimed they couldn’t understand why Khrushchev had placed nuclear missiles in Cuba. “Maybe Khrushchev’s gone mad” was a typical public musing.

None of these officials admitted that JFK had been waging a no-holds-barred campaign to overthrow the Cuban government and assassinate its leader.

On October 16, the next day, President Kennedy was informed of the missile installations.  He immediately convened a group of his 12 most important advisors, which became known as Ex-Comm, for Executive Committee.

Then followed seven days of guarded and intense debate by Kennedy and his advisors.  Some of the participants—such as Air Force General Curtis LeMay—urged an all-out air strike against the missile sites.

Others—such as Adlai Stevenson, the United States delegate to the United Nations—urged a reliance on quiet diplomacy.

It was Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara who suggested a middle course: A naval blockade—a “quarantine” in Kennedy’s softened term—around Cuba. This would hopefully prevent the arrival of more Soviet offensive weapons on the island.

Finally, the President decided to to impose a naval blockade.

On October 22, Kennedy went on nationwide TV to announce the discovery of the missiles and his blockade of Cuba.

He warned that any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation would be regarded as an attack on the United States by the Soviet Union—and would trigger “a full retaliatory response” upon the U.S.S.R. 

John F. Kennedy address the nation

And he demanded that the Soviets remove all of their offensive weapons from Cuba:

“The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are, but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world.”

AMERICA’S BRUSH WITH ARMAGEDDON: PART ONE (OF FOUR)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 2, 2026 at 12:38 am

On January 29, 2026, President Donald Trump threatened to impose huge tariffs on goods from any country that supplied oil to Cuba. Declaring a national emergency, he aims to cripple the island’s energy supply.      

On February 18, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez in Moscow and reaffirmed his support for the island nation. Putin reminded his guest that Russia “will not accept anything of the sort” when discussing the sanctions against the country.

“I do believe I’ll be having the honor of taking Cuba. That’s a big honor. Taking Cuba in some form,” Trump said on March 16. “Whether I free it, take it, I think I could do anything I want with it, if you want to know the truth. They are a very weakened nation right now.”

Sixty-two years ago, similar American aggression toward Cuba almost led to full-scale nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union—and the end of all life on Earth.

On January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro swept triumphantly into Havana after a two-year guerrilla campaign against Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.

Fidel Castro

Almost immediately, hundreds of thousands of Cubans began fleeing to America. The first émigrés were more than 215,000 Batista followers. The exodus escalated, peaking at approximately 78,000 in 1962.

Between 1962 and 1979, hundreds of thousands of Cubans entered the United States under the Attorney General’s parole authority.

By 2008, more than 1.24 million Cubans were living in the United States, mostly in South Florida, where the population of Miami was about one-third Cuban. Their sheer numbers transformed the state’s political, economic and cultural life.  And not entirely for the better.

Many of these Cubans viewed themselves as political exiles, rather than immigrants, hoping to eventually return to Cuba after its Communist regime fell from power.

The large number of Cubans in South Florida, particularly in Miami’s “Little Havana,” allowed them to preserve their culture and customs to a degree rare for immigrant groups.

With so many discontented immigrants concentrated in Florida, they became a potential force for politicians to court.

And the issue guaranteed to sway their votes was unrelenting hostility to Castro. Unsurprisingly, most of their votes went to right-wing Republicans.

John F. Kennedy was the first President to face this dilemma.

During the closing months of the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the CIA had begun training Cuban exiles for an invasion of their former homeland.

The exiles’ goal: To do what Castro had done—seek refuge in the mountains and launch a successful anti-Castro revolution.

But word of the coming invasion quickly leaked: The exiles were terrible secret-keepers. (A joke at the CIA went: “A Cuban thinks a secret is something you tell to only 300 people.”)

Kennedy insisted the invasion must appear to be an entirely Cuban enterprise. He refused to commit U.S. Marines and Air Force bombers.

The invaders landed on April 17, 1961 at the Bay of Pigs—and were quickly overwhelmed, with hundreds of the men taken prisoner.

Kennedy publicly took the blame for its failure: “Victory has a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan.” But privately he seethed, and ordered the CIA to redouble its efforts to remove Castro at all costs.

To make certain his order was carried out, he appointed his brother, Robert—then Attorney General—to oversee the CIA’s “Castro removal” program.

Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy

It’s here that America’s obsession with Cuba entered its darkest and most disgraceful period.

The CIA and the Mafia entered into an unholy alliance to assassinate Castro—each for its own benefit:

The CIA wanted to please Kennedy.

The mob wanted to regain its casino and brothel holdings that had made Cuba their private playground in pre-Castro times. They also hoped to use their pose as patriots to win immunity from future prosecution.

The CIA supplied poisons and explosives to various members of the Mafia. It was then up to the mobsters to assassinate Castro.

The CIA asked Johnny Roselli, a mobster linked to the Chicago syndicate, to go to Florida in 1961 and 1962 to organize assassination teams of Cuban exiles. They were to infiltrate their homeland and assassinate Castro.

Johnny Roselli

Rosselli called upon two other crime figures: Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancana and Santos Trafficante, the Costra Nostra chieftain for Tampa, for assistance.

Sam Giancana

Giancana, using the name “Sam Gold” in his dealings with the CIA, was meanwhile being hounded by the FBI on direct orders of Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

The mobsters were authorized to offer $150,000 to anyone who would kill Castro and were promised any support the Agency could yield.

Giancana was to locate someone who was close enough to Castro to be able to drop pills into his food. Trafficante would serve as courier to Cuba, helping to make arrangements for the murder on the island.

Rosselli was to be the main link between all of the participants in the plot.

Some authorities believe that the Mob made a genuine effort to “whack” Fidel. 

Others are convinced the mobsters simply ran a scam on the government. They would pretend to carry out their “patriotic duty” while in fact making no effort at all to penetrate Castro’s security.

DISASTER IN IRAQ: PROLOGUE TO DISASTER IN IRAN: PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 18, 2026 at 12:40 am

On September 12, 2001, President George W. Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.              

“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.

Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.

Secretary of State Colin Powell then pointed out there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq had had anything to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. And he added: “The American people want us to do something about Al-Qaeda”—not Iraq.

On November 21, 2001, only 10 weeks after 9/11, Bush told Rumsfeld: It’s time to turn to Iraq.

Related image

Condoleeza Rice

Bush and his war-hungry Cabinet officials knew that Americans demanded vengeance on Al Qaeda’s mastermind, Osama bin Laden, and not Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. So they repeatedly fabricated “links” between the two:

  • Saddam had worked hand-in-glove with Bin Laden to plan 9/11.
  • Saddam was harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda throughout Iraq.
  • Saddam, with help from Al-Qaeda, was scheming to build a nuclear bomb.

Yet as early as September 22, 2001, Bush had received a classified President’s Daily Brief intelligence report, which stated that there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11.

The report added that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al-Qaeda.

Even more important: Saddam had tried to monitor Al Qaeda through his intelligence service—because he saw Al-Qaeda and other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime.

Official portrait of Dick Cheney as Vice President of the United States

Dick Cheney

Bush administration officials repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons, in violation of UN resolutions. And they further lied that US intelligence agencies had determined:

  • The precise locations where these weapons were stored;
  • The identities of those involved in their production; and
  • The military orders issued by Saddam Hussein for their use in the event of war.

Among other lies stated as fact by members of the Bush administration:

  • Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, in west Africa.
  • Thousands of aluminum tubes imported by Iraq could be used in centrifuges to create enriched uranium.
  • Iraq had up to 20 long-range Scud missiles, prohibited under UN sanctions.
  • Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, including nerve gas, anthrax and botulinum toxin.
  • Saddam Hussein had issued chemical weapons to front-line troops who would use them when U.S. forces crossed into Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld

Consider the following:

August 26, 2002: Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

September 8, 2002: National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said on CNN: ”There is certainly evidence that Al-Qaeda people have been in Iraq. There is certainly evidence that Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists.”

September 18, 2002: Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”

October 7, 2002: Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

March 16, 2003: Cheney declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We believe [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

Bush never regretted his decision to attack Iraq—on March 19, 2003.

Even as American occupying forces repeatedly failed to turn up any evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs), Bush and his minions claimed the invasion a good thing.

In fact, Bush—who hid out the Vietnam war in the Texas Air National Guard—even joked publicly about the absence of WMDs.

He did so at a White House Correspondents dinner on March 24, 2004—one year after he had started the war.

President Bush Attends White House Correspondents' Association DinnerRelated image

George W. Bush at the 2004 White House Correspondents’ dinner

To Bush, the non-existent WMDs were nothing more than the butt of a joke that night. While an overhead projector displayed photos of a puzzled-looking Bush searching around the Oval Office, Bush recited a comedy routine.

“Those weapons of mass destruction have gotta be somewhere,” Bush laughed, while a photo showed him poking around the corners in the Oval Office.

“Nope—no weapons over there! Maybe they’re under here,” he said, as a photo showed him looking under a desk.

Meanwhile, an assembly of wealthy, pampered men and women—-the elite of America’s media and political classes—laughed heartily during Bush’s performance.

It was a scene worthy of the court of the ancient Caesars, complete with royal flunkies: “Hey! That country we just destroyed wasn’t a threat to us after all!  Isn’t that a gas?”

The results of the war that Bush had deliberately provoked:

  • Cost the lives of 4,484 Americans.
  • Depleted the United States Treasury of at least $2 trillion.
  • Created a Middle East power vacuum.
  • Allowed Iran—Iraq’s arch enemy—to eagerly fill it.
  • Frightened and repelled even America’s closest allies.
  • Killed at least 655,000 Iraqis. 
  • Bush retired from office with a lavish pension and full Secret Service protection.
  • He wrote his memoirs and was paid $7 million for the first 1.5 million copies.
  • Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice retired to private business, wrote their memoirs, and lived in comfort as respected elder statesmen.

DISASTER IN IRAQ: PROLOGUE TO DISASTER IN IRAN: PART TWO (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 17, 2026 at 12:10 am

As President Donald Trump rains bombs and missiles on Iran, it’s vital to remember how American hubris led to a nine-year war in Iraq—from the “shock and awe” bombardment of March 20, 2003, until combat forces were finally withdrawn on December 18, 2011.  

But this should also be a time to remember those Americans who made the 9/11 atrocity—and the disastrous Iraq war that followed—inevitable.

British historian Nigel Hamilton has chronicled their arrogance and indifference in his 2010 biography: American Caesars: Lives of the Presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.

Hamilton noted that Richard Clarke, the national security advisor on terrorism, was certain that Osama bin Laden had arranged the USS Cole bombing in Aden on October 12, 2000.

For months, Clarke tried to convince others in the Bush Administration that Bin Laden was plotting another attack against the United States—either abroad or at home.

But Clarke could not prevail against the know-it-all arrogance of such higher-ranking Bush officials as Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.

Rice initially refused to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject. Then she “insisted the matter be handled only by a more junior Deputy Principals meeting” in April, 2001, writes Hamilton.

Even after Clarke outlined the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, Wolfowitz—the number-two man at the Department of Defense—said: “You give bin Laden too much credit.”

Wolfowitz—whose real target was Saddam Hussein—insisted that bin Laden couldn’t carry out his terrorist acts without the aid of a state sponsor—namely, Iraq.

In fact, Wolfowitz blamed Iraq for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Clarke was stunned, since there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement in this.

“Al-Qaeda plans major acts of terrorism against the United States,” Clarke warned his colleagues. He pointed out that, like Adolf Hitler, bin Laden had actually published his plans for future destruction.

Related image

Osama bin Laden

And he added: “Sometimes, as with Hitler in Mein Kampf, you have to believe that these people will actually do what they say they will do.”

Wolfowitz heatedly traded on his Jewish heritage to bring Clarke’s unwelcome arguments to a halt: “I resent any comparison between the Holocaust and this little terrorist in Afghanistan.”

Writing in outraged fury, Hamilton sums up Clarke’s agonizing frustrations:

  • Bush’s senior advisors treated their colleagues who had served in the Clinton administration with contempt.
  • Bush, Dick Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz seemed content to ignore the danger signals of an impending al-Qaeda attack.
  • This left only Secretary of State Colin Powell, his deputy Richard Armitage, Richard Clarke and a skeptical Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, to wage “a lonely battle to waken a seemingly deranged new administration.”

Richard Clarke

Clarke alerted Federal Intelligence agencies that “Al-Qaeda is planning a major attack on us.” He asked the FBI and CIA to report to his office all they could learn about suspicious persons or activities at home and abroad.

Finally, at a meeting with Rice on September 4, 2001, Clarke challenged her to “picture yourself at a moment when in the very near future Al-Qaeda has killed hundreds of Americans, and imagine asking yourself what you wish then that you had already done.”

Seven days later, Al-Qaeda struck, and 3,000 Americans died horrifically—and needlessly.

Neither Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld nor Wolfowitz ever admitted their negligence. Nor would any of them be brought to account.

SPIEGEL Interview with Dick Cheney: 'I Think There Will Be Further Terror Attacks' - DER SPIEGEL

Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld

Disgustingly, these were the same officials who, afterward, posed as the Nation’s saviors—and branded anyone who disagreed with them as a traitor, practices the Right continues to exploit to this day.

Only Richard Clarke—who had vainly argued for stepped-up security precautions and taking the fight to Al-Qaeda—gave that apology.

On March 24, 2004, Clarke testified at the public 9/11 Commission hearings. Addressing relatives of victims in the audience, he said: “Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you.”

Yet even worse was to come.

On the evening after the September 11 attacks, Bush took Clarke aside during a meeting in the White House Situation Room:

“I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam [Hussein, the dictator of Iraq] did this. See if he’s linked in any way.”

Clarke was stunned: “But, Mr. President, Al-Qaeda did this.”

“I know, I know,” said Bush. “But see if Saddam was involved. I want to know.”

Hussein had not plotted the attack—and there was no evidence proving that he did.

But the attack gave “W” the excuse he wanted to remove the man he blamed for the 1992 defeat of his father, President George H.W. Bush.

Bush believed that his father would have been re-elected if he had “gone all the way” into Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War.

He would finish the job that his father had started but failed to compete.

It was Hamlet Revisited—with missiles.

On September 12, 2001, Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.

“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.

Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.

DISASTER IN IRAQ: PROLOGUE TO DISASTER IN IRAN: PART ONE (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 16, 2026 at 12:55 am

On February 28, 2026, President Donald J. Trump—in collusion with Israel—launched massive airstrikes against Iran. 

Since then, he—and other members of his administration—have issued a series of shifting and contradictory reasons for starting the war. Among them:

  • Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 
  • Destroying Iran’s missile capabilities.
  • Annihilating the Iranian navy.
  • Ensuring that Iran quit arming, funding and/or directing “terrorist armies” outside its borders.
  • Pre-empting an Iranian attack on American military bases in the Middle East.

One reason not given: Driving the Epstein files—which document Trump’s salacious relationship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein—off the airways and Internet.

Equally worrisome has been Trump’s shifting estimates about how long the conflict will rage:

  • March 9: “It’s going to be ended soon.” 
  • March 11: “Any time I want it to end, it will end.”   
  • March 13: “It’ll be as long as it’s necessary.”  
  • March 13: “When I feel it in my bones” when asked “When are you going to know when it’s over?” 

Trump’s comments are eerily similar to those made by President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003.

Standing under a “Mission Accomplished” banner on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush announced: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Only on December 18, 2011, were American forces withdrawn from Iraq.

But Americans, refusing to learn from history or even read it, are now being forced to repeat it.

To begin at the beginning: 

Even as the rubble was being cleared at the Pentagon and World Trade Center from 9/11, President George W. Bush was preparing to use the attack as an excuse to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

World Trade Center on September 11, 2001

Hussein had not plotted 9/11, and there was no evidence that he did. But that didn’t matter to Bush and those planning the invasion and conquest of Iraq.

British historian Nigel Hamilton has dared to lay bare the facts of this disgrace. Hamilton is the author of several acclaimed political biographies, including JFK: Reckless Youth and Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency.

In 2007, he began research on his latest book: American Caesars: The Lives of the Presidents From Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.

Nigel Hamilton in 2008

Nigel Hamilton

Nigel Hamilton, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

The inspiration for this came from a classic work of ancient biography: The Twelve Caesars, by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus—known as Suetonius.

Suetonius, a Roman citizen and historian, had chronicled the lives of the first twelve Caesars of imperial Rome: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.

Hamilton wanted to examine post-World War II United States history as Suetonius had examined that of ancient Rome: Through the lives of the 12 “emperors” who had held the power of life and death over their fellow citizens—and those of other nations.

For Hamilton, the “greatest of American emperors, the Caesar Augustus of his time,” was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led his country through the Great Depression and World War II.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

His “”great successors” were Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy—who, in turn, contained the Soviet Union abroad and presided over sustained economic prosperity at home.

By contrast, “arguably the worst of all the American Caesars” was “George W. Bush, and his deputy, Dick Cheney, who willfully and recklessly destroyed so much of the moral basis of American leadership in the modern world.”

Among the most lethal of Bush’s offenses: The appointing of officials who refused to take seriously the threat posed by Al-Qaeda.

And this arrogance and indifference continued—right up to September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center and Pentagon became targets for destruction.

Among the few administration officials who did take Al-Qaeda seriously was Richard Clarke, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council.

Clarke had been thus appointed in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. He continued in the same role under  President Bush—but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access.

This put him at a severe disadvantage when dealing with other, higher-ranking Bush officials—such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.

These turned out to be the very officials who refused to believe that Al-Qaeda posed a lethal threat to the United States.

“Indeed,” writes Hamilton, “in the entire first eight months of the Bush Presidency, Clarke was not permitted to brief President Bush a single time, despite mounting evidence of plans for a new al-Qaeda outrage.”  [Italics added]

Nor did it help that, during his first eight months in office before September 11, Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, 42% of the time. 

For months, Clarke tried to convince others in the Bush Administration that Bin Laden was plotting another attack against the United States–either abroad or at home.

But Clarke could not prevail against the know-it-all arrogance of such higher-ranking Bush officials as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice.

JFK HAD POWERFUL ENEMIES. SO DOES DJT: PART FOUR (END)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Military, Politics, Social commentary on February 19, 2026 at 12:13 am

Just as President John F. Kennedy was passionately loved and hated, so, too, is Donald J. Trump. And Trump, at 79, has already been the target of two assassination attempts.      

Among the potential consequences of that hatred:

New official portrait of President Trump unveiled by White House

Donald Trump

  • Barons of Columbian/Mexican drug cartels – Trump has often threatened to invade Mexico and/or Columbia to attack the cartels. No international drug kingpin has ever launched an attack on an American President or member of Congress. But this could change if the cartels believe a pre-emptive strike is necessary.
  • Their assassins have wrought substantial carnage on Columbian and Mexican law enforcers and politicians. In 2025, cartels assassinated Miguel Uribe Turbay, a Columbian senator and presidential candidate. Since the 2016 peace accord, at least 1,372 social leaders have been murdered, with 173 killed in 2024 and 67 more in early 2025. These attacks frequently target local officials and advocates for land reform or environmental protection.

  • In Mexico, ahead of the 2024 elections, around 30 local candidates were murdered, and hundreds more abandoned their campaigns due to threats.t least 29 candidates or potential candidates were killed in the lead-up to the 2024 elections. Police chiefs have been targeted, such as the 2020 assassination attempt on Mexico City’s police chief.
  • Wealthy as Big Tech companies, these cartels command the finest assassins and intelligence networks available. Unlike Trump, they strike without warning.
  • Big tech executives and Wall Street executives – Like Renaissance princes, they command empires of wealth and security. They live apart from the masses of people who do not enjoy their privileged status. And their major ambition is to grow ever more wealthy. They use their money to buy members of Congress who then pass legislation favorable to their interests. 
  • Trump’s tariffs have led to enormous sell-offs of tech stocks and the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have continued or intensified antitrust cases launched by the Biden administration against companies like Google and Meta, targeting monopolistic behavior.
  • As a result, tech executives could use their purchased Congressional members to block Trump-sponsored legislation or their billions to defeat Congressional candidates sponsored by Trump.

The New York Stock Exchange

  • Journalists – Reporters are uniquely armed to counterattack their would-be censors. They know how to unearth highly embarrassing information and turn it into spectacle. The unearthing of Watergate-related abuses brought down President Richard Nixon in 1974.
  • And journalists’ willingness to expose the sex trafficking crimes of Jeffrey Epstein has proven a huge liability for Trump. And as he openly moves to abolish or manipulate the 2026 midterm elections, the press can keep the spotlight of public attention tightly focused on him. 
  • The military – In November 2025, six Democratic Senators and Representatives released a video reminding military service members that they can refuse “illegal orders.” Donald Trump called the lawmakers traitors and shared a social media post calling for them to be hanged.   
  • Soldiers, serving and retired, have a huge constituency—which extends to Congress. If soldiers start charging that they have received illegal orders, this will put an unwanted spotlight on the Pentagon—and Trump.
  • So will taking their complaints to the media about Trump’s racist and sexist firings of professional military officers—such as Joint Chiefs Chair General CQ Brown, Navy Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti and Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Linda Fagan. 

 * * * * *

More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman, authored The Discourses on Livy, a work of political history and philosophy. In it, he outlined how citizens of a republic can maintain their freedoms. 

One of the longest chapters—Book Three, Chapter Six—covers “Of Conspiracies.”  In it, those who wish to conspire against a ruler will find highly useful advice.  And so will those who wish to foil such a conspiracy. 

Niccolo Machiavelli

Lorenzo Bartolini, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Above all, he notes how important it is for rulers to make themselves loved—or at least respected—by their fellow citizens: 

“Note how much more praise those Emperors merited who, after Rome became an empire, conformed to her laws like good princes, than those who took the opposite course. 

“Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus and Marcus Auelius did not require the Praetorians nor the multitudinous legions to defend them, because they were protected by their own good conduct, the good will of the people, and by the love of the Senate. 

“On the other hand, neither the Eastern nor the Western armies saved Caligula, Nero, Vitellius and so many other wicked Emperors from the enemies which their bad conduct and evil lives had raised up against them.” 

In his better-known work, The Prince, he warns rulers who—like Donald Trump–are inclined to rule by fear:

“A prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred: for fear and the absence of hatred may well go together.”

By Machiavelli’s standards, Trump has made himself the perfect target for a conspiracy:

“When a prince becomes universally hated, it is likely that he’s harmed some individuals—who thus seek revenge. This desire is increased by seeing that the prince is widely loathed.”

JFK HAD POWERFUL ENEMIES. SO DOES DJT: PART THREE (OF FOUR)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Military, Politics, Social commentary on February 18, 2026 at 12:10 am

Just as President John F. Kennedy was passionately loved and hated, so, too, is Donald J. Trump. And, at 79, Trump has already been the target of two assassination attempts.     

Among the reasons why Trump is so widely hated:  

New official portrait of President Trump unveiled by White House

Donald Trump

  • LawyersTrump has targeted law firms and attorneys that had previously represented clients opposed to him—by limiting the ability of attorneys to obtain access to government buildings, stopping any consideration for future employment with the government, canceling government contracts, and preventing any company that uses such a firm from obtaining federal contracts.
  • Justice Department prosecutors For tarnishing the once-incorruptible reputation of their agency.
  • Trump has fired more than a dozen prosecutors and staff who investigated him for election interference and stealing classified documents.
  • He has ordered the DOJ to indict his critics such as New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.
  • Prosecutors are being told to drop cases for political reasons, pursue weak investigations, and take positions in court they believe have no merit.
  • Federal judges have criticized the DOJ for violating orders in cases related to deportation policies and for a lack of transparency. 

File:Seal of the United States Department of Justice.svg - Wikimedia Commons

Seal of the Justice Department

  • FBI agents For his purging about a half-dozen executive assistant directors at the FBI. These were some of the bureau’s top managers overseeing criminal, national security and cyber investigations. Their “crime”: Investigating Trump’s inciting the January 6, 2021 coup attempt and illegally holding highly sensitive national security documents after leaving office. 
  • Big tech executivesInitially they sought favor through donations and private meetings to secure a “deregulatory paradise.” (Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos infamously lavished $75 million on a “documentary” glorifying Melania Trump.)
  • But now many are furious at facing a harsher business climate, intense regulatory pressure and employee backlash.

Not all of these potential enemies present the same danger to Trump. Some of those dangers are political; others personal.

Among the potential consequences of that hatred:

  • Blacks and Hispanics – Are most likely to express their anger at the polls—or demonstrations. Any public appearance by Trump is certain to be heavily policed by the Secret Service.
  • Muslims could pose a significant political threat. In 2024, Muslims voted for Trump or refused to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. The reason: President Joe Biden refused to force Israel to end its military attacks on Gaza to retrieve hostages seized by Hamas. Muslim voters could throw their voting weight against Republican Congressional candidates sponsored by Trump.
  • They could also pose a serious personal threat. Armed with the belief that dying for Islam will grant them Paradise in Heaven, Muslims have a history of doing exactly that. Suicide bombings are virtually unknown in the United States. But in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, they have taken a deadly toll on civilian and political life. 
  • Justice Department prosecutors could leak plans for illegal and/or embarrassing decisions by Attorney General Pam Bondi and her topmost deputies to the press. Some prosecutors could continue to resign their positions, thus embarrassing Trump and weakening the clout of the agency. 
  • Police officers, FBI agents and Secret Service agents are among the few people allowed to approach Trump armed. Many of them are likely to have friends or family members facing imprisonment and deportation under Trump’s all-out war on immigrants, legal and illegal. And Trump’s wholesale attacks on Medicare and the Affordable Care act could lead to similar casualties among family and friends, which could be cause for desired revenge.
  • Canadians and Greenlanders – It’s highly unlikely that Canada or Greenland would send a hit team to the United States. But individual Canadians or Greenlanders living in the United States could pose a genuine threat to Trump. This could occur during political rallies or if they have access to him through positions in law enforcement or government.
  • He has repeatedly threatened the sovereignty of their homelands—both longtime allies of the United States—and recently seemed on the verge of using military force against both. Had he attacked Greenland, a part of NATO, this would have pitted the United States against its longtime allies in Europe. 
  • Lawyers – Trump’s Justice Department has declared war on his critics. The resulting court losses have proven embarrassing for Trump—and highly profitable for attorneys. A judge dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. A grand jury refused to indict six Democratic lawmakers who had made a video urging troops to refuse illegal orders. Attorneys who successfully oppose Trump gain wealth and stature—and a steady stream of new clients. 
  • Gun rights enthusiasts – For decades, Republicans have conditioned them to expect a Democratic President to seize their guns. But Trump’s recent anti-gun comments (“You can’t have guns, you can’t walk in with guns”) have sent a chill through this community.
  • These people are the epitome of “single issue” voters. Many law enforcement officers—at all levels of government—are fervent members of the NRA, and some almost certainly have access to Trump. 

 

JFK HAD POWERFUL ENEMIES. SO DOES DJT: PART TWO (OF FOUR)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Military, Politics, Social commentary on February 17, 2026 at 12:12 am

Just as President John F. Kennedy was passionately loved and hated, so, too, is Donald J. Trump. And Trump, at 79, has already been the target of two assassination attempts.   

New official portrait of President Trump unveiled by White House

Donald Trump

Among the reasons why Trump is so widely hated:   

  • Gun rights enthusiastsAfter Customs and Border  Patrol  (CBP) agents  shot  intensive care nurse Alex Pretti  on  January  24,  Trump  criticized  Pretti  for carrying  a  licensed, concealed pistol: “You can’t  have  guns, you  can’t  walk in with guns. I don’t like that he had a gun. I don’t like that he had two fully loaded magazines. That’s a lot of bad stuff.”  
  • The National Rifle Association (NRA) called Trump’s comments “dangerous and wrong.” And the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) stated: “Carrying an extra magazine implies nothing. Claiming otherwise sets a dangerous precedent for Second Amendment rights and creates an easy backdoor argument for magazine bans and similar legislation.”

Headshot of a bearded Pretti wearing glasses and smiling against a white background

Alex Pretti

  • The militaryFollowing his anti-DEI executive order, the Department of  Defense  deleted content that included the achievements of nonwhite  servicemen  and  women—such  as Navajo   code  talkers,  black  Tuskegee  Airmen,  Medal  of  Honor  winners  and  women veterans.  High-ranking  militar y leaders  fear  retribution  and  the  politicization  of  the armed forces.   
  • Former high-profile military leaders, including former Chiefs of Staff John Kelly and Mark Milley and former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, have criticized Trump, with some describing him as a ‘fascist to the core” and a threat to democracy.
  • Trump has deployed the National Guard to Democratic cities against the wishes of their states’ governors.
  • In September, 2025, Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aired grievances to a silent, uncomfortable audience of top military leaders.
  • CanadiansTrump has imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian goods, covering major sectors like steel, aluminum, and autos.
  • And he has threatened to impose 100% tariffs due to trade disputes. These have caused significant anxiety regarding the Canadian economy, which relies heavily on trade with the United States.
  • He has also repeatedly threatened to militarily invade Canada and make it the 51st state. Many Canadians feel betrayed by the treatment of a longstanding, peaceful ally, with 59% of Canadians now viewing the United States as their top threat.
  • GreenlandersTrump has grown increasingly bellicose about acquiring Greenland—by purchase or conquest. The official reason given: The dangers of Chinese or Russian conquest of the island, where the United States has an active military base for missile warning, defense and space surveillance.
  • The real reason: To gain total access to Greenland’s rare earth minerals. This despite Greenland’s being a self-governing, autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The united States has recognized Denmark’s ties to Greenland since 1917 and signed a joint defense agreement in 1951.

Greenland: Explore the World's Largest Island | Polar Latitudes Expeditions

Greenland

  • Secret Service agents – There has never been a case of a Secret Service agent assassinating a President. But there are historical precedents for bodyguards turning on those they are supposed to protect.  On January 22, 41 A.D. Cassius Chaerea and several other bodyguards hacked Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula to death with swords before other guards could save him.
  • Caligula had often taunted Chaerea for having a weak voice. Similarly, Trump has forced Secret Service agents to work without pay through two major government shutdowns—for 35 days in 2018-19 and 43 days in 2025. Secret Service agents had to worry about meeting their bills and the needs of their families.
  • Many agents could have friends or family members whose lives have been shattered by Trump’s massive layoffs of government employees and/or his assaults on the American medical establishment.
  • Wall Street executivesFor Trump’s attacks on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and public criticism of the Fed, which threaten the independence of the institution and the stability of the economy.
  • And for suing JP Morgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon for $5 billion, alleging the bank “debanked” him after the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
  • Major investors and CEOs fear that Trump’s tariff policies will ignite a global crash—as happened in April ,2025.
  • IraniansFor his scrapping the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.
  • And for re-imposing “highest-level” economic sanctions on Iran, targeting critical sectors such as oil, finance and shipping.
  • ordering the June 21, 2025, bombing of three key Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. 
  • Barons of Columbian/Mexican drug cartelsFor threatening to invade Columbia and Mexico and directly attack the drug lords who feed America’s demand for cocaine.
  • This scenario forms the plot of the 1994 thriller, “Clear and Present Danger,” starring Harrison Ford. The movie ends with the American force almost wiped out by a drug lord’s army and being forced to evacuate Columbia.

Cali Cartel - Wikipedia

Columbian drug lords 

  • JournalistsFor his repeatedly attacking the nation’s free press as “the enemy of the people” for reporting his growing list of crimes and disasters.
  • And barring the Associated Press from the White House for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico “the Gulf of the United States.”
  • Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, bought the Washington Post—which played a pivotal role in uncovering Watergate—-in 2013 and has turned that once-respected newspaper into a Right-wing cheerleader.
  • And CBS News is now being rigorously censored by Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, a notorious Trump ally.