To follow on from my previous posting. If we are to take these claims of a countercoup seriously, does that mean that the intelligence agencies are taking the side of peace? Every commentator thinks Hillary is the more likely of the two presidential candidates to get into war with Russia. Trump has some supporters who loathe him but who will reluctantly in preference for having a president who will push us into world war 3. Or is it just the corruption issue that bothers the intelligence agencies. Or are there other issues, under the surface.
Back in the sixties, I gather from researching the Kennedy assassination, it was the other way round. The politician was the dove and the intelligence agencies were the warmongers, along with the rest of the military industrial complex Kennedy’s decent predecessor, Eisenhower, a general himself, had warned about in his departing speech. The possibility of nuclear war constantly hovered over the Kennedy administration.
The Cuban Missile crisis was seen as a very provocative move by the American military. The truth was though that Fidel Castro had them placed there for defensive purposes. The American military command thought though, that if the Americans did not preemptively strike Moscow first, the United States would be obliterated by a first strike. There were advanced plans for a nuclear strike on Moscow by the time JFK came into office in January 1961. Kennedy was given a “Doomsday Briefing” in 1963 from which he walked out after saying “And we call ourselves the human race”. Curtis le May, the hardline general on whom the lunatic warmonger in Kubrick’s Doctor Strangelove was modelled, berated Kennedy for carrying out a blockade against further Soviet resupplies of its Cuban bases in the tense autumn of 1962. Le May wanted to hit the Russians with nukes, just as another unstable general, Douglas McArthur had wanted a decade earlier.
Eventually, the crisis was resolved but only, some writers say, because of the secret rapport built up in back channel communications with the Soviet leader. Khrushchev and Kennedy wrote, 21 surprisingly warm letters to each about mutual hopes for world peace that were only declassified by a Freedom of Information request from a Canadian newspaper in 1993. Sadly Kennedy was assassinated before the relationship came to fruition after the Cuba crisis was resolved. If this view of Kennedy is true, then he was a hero. But Clinton is no hero: she is a war hawk and tool of the military industrial complex, the globalists represented by the Economist, the opposite of Kennedy. Even if she wanted to, I don’t think she has the strength of personality to stand against the militarists the way Kennedy did. Why can’t liberals see this?