Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Have the Democrats lost their minds on drugs or are they making a stealth case for euthanasia?
HELP IS ON THE WAY:
 |
| CAN WE MAKE IT THEIR LAST ELECTION? |
Monday, October 29, 2012
Camille Paglia on Obama: The creation of this culture of surveillance, from these bureaucracies, which is also carried over into Obama's endorsement of drones on the military level as well as for police control of the population. I mean, I don't understand how any... veteran of the 1960s who's a Democrat could not see the dangers here, that Obama is a statist. It's exactly what Bob Dylan was warning about in "Subterranean Homesick Blues," okay?
And in case you forgot:
Obama’ s actions speak volumes about his character, his inflated self-image, and his lack of qualifications for another four years in the White House.
Obama’s amateur governance
By EDWARD KLEIN
Last Updated: 11:00 PM, October 27, 2012
Posted: 10:15 PM, October 27, 2012
It’s hard to remember now, but only a month ago most political pundits were predicting that Barack Obama was going to win the presidential election in a cakewalk.
On the eve of the first debate in early October, Democrats were euphoric, Republicans were demoralized and depressed, and the political world was dismissing Romney as an amateur who was out of his league.
But then, as we all know, the campaign took a dramatic U-turn. Romney kayoed Obama in that first debate, and the same carping critics who had declared Romney’s candidacy dead in the water anointed the Republican challenger as the momentum candidate.
Suddenly, it was Barack Obama who looked like the amateur.
As president, Obama has shown himself to be inept in the arts of management and governance. He has failed to learn from his mistakes and therefore repeats policies, both at home and abroad, that don’t work. He invariably blames his problems on those he disagrees with and is so thin-skinned that he constantly complains about what people say and write about him. He is a strange kind of politician who derives no joy from the cut and thrust of politics, but who clings to the narcissistic life of the presidency.
The qualities that define him — his arrogance, his sense of superiority, and his air of haughtiness — have been on full display as Obama has sought a second term. In the debates and during the final weeks of the campaign, Obama has been prickly and defensive. His cheap shots at Romney (for instance, he mocked Romney for using the phrase “binders full of women”) and his use of the derisive word “Romnesia” have made Obama appear unpresidential, small and unserious.
Obama has always had scorn for anyone who disagrees with him. That was particularly obvious in the first debate.
“In debates, I watch body language more than content,” Stuart Spencer, the famous political consultant who ran Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns, told me. “That’s where it’s at in debates. And Obama came across as arrogant and preachy. He has a personality that hates to be questioned. He has to be right and have answers all the time. Even in his facial expressions, he was looking at Romney as ‘you fool.’ That was not a winning debate strategy.”
By all accounts, Obama doesn’t find joy in being president. Like Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, he is an introvert who prefers his own company to that of others.
I interviewed a former State Department official who told me: “While I was in the room, he’d get phone calls from heads of state, and more than once I heard him say, ‘I can’t believe that I’ve got to meet with all these congressmen from Podunk city to get my bills passed.’ ”
I heard the same complaint from people who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama during the last election. I interviewed a major Jewish-American fund-raiser who praised Obama to the sky while I had my reporter’s book open and I was taking notes. But as soon as I closed my book and put away my pen, he confided in me:
“My friends in the Jewish community who raised tons of money for Obama complain to me that they never hear from him. He never answers their phone calls. He’s not like Bill Clinton, who used to call them and ask about their wives and grandchildren and businesses. And you know what? I don’t hear from him either.”
What does all of this say about a president who hates the day-to-day, give-and-take of politics? Who doesn’t have respect for members of Congress? Who doesn’t show loyalty to those who supported him with their money, time and organizational skills?
What does this say about a president who doesn’t show any gratitude? Who has frozen Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy out of the White House after those two famous women helped make him president?
What does this say about a president who has ignored his African-American base to the point where every single African-American leader and businessman I interviewed for my book told me that they were disappointed and disillusioned with this country’s first black president?
I think it speaks volumes about his character, his inflated self-image, and his lack of qualifications for another four years in the White House.
Edward Klein is the author of the bestseller “The Amateur” (Regnery Publishing)
Iceland: Democracy in action, arrest the bankers, throw out the politicians and tell the IMF to piss off
An important Icelandic referendum and the media remains silent
25.10.2012
by Mauro Santayana Pravda - English language edition
The citizens of Iceland voted in a referendum, on Saturday (20th), with about 70% of the voters. The basic text of its new constitution, drafted by 25 delegates, almost all ordinary men, chosen by direct vote of the people, included the nationalization of its natural resources. Iceland is one of those enigmas of history. Situated in an area warmed by the Gulf Stream, which winds in the North Atlantic, the island of 103,000 km2, is inhabited only along its coast.
The interior of high hills, with 200 active volcanoes, is entirely hostile - but this is one of the oldest democracies in the world, with its parliament (Althingi) running for over a thousand years. Even under the sovereignty of Norway and Denmark, until the late 19th century, Icelanders have always kept comfortable autonomy in their internal affairs.
In 2003, under pressure from neoliberals, Iceland privatized its banking system, up to that time state-owned. As they pleased major U.S. and British banks, already operating in the derivative market, in the spiral of subprimes, Reykjavik turned into a great international financial center and one of the biggest victims of neoliberalism. With only 320.000 inhabitants, the island became a comfortable fiscal paradise for the great banks.
Institutions like Lehman Brothers used the country's international credit in order to attract European investments, particularly British. That money was applied to the financial casino, commanded by U.S. banks. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers exposed that Iceland therefore has taken debt exceeding ten times its gross domestic product. The government was forced to re-nationalize its three banks, whose executives were prosecuted and sentenced to prison.
In order to tackle the huge debt, the government decided that each of the Icelanders - of all ages - would pay 130 euros monthly for 15 years. The people demanded a referendum and, with 93% of the vote, decided not to pay that debt as it was the responsibility of the international financial system from Wall Street and the City of London.
The country's external debt, built by the irresponsibility of banks associated with the largest global financial institutions, led the nation to insolvency and Icelanders to despair. The crisis has become political, with the decision of its people to change everything. A popular assembly spontaneously gathered and decided to elect a constituent body of 25 citizens, who didn't have any partisan activity in order to draft the Constitutional Charter of the country.
To apply to the legislative body, the selecttion of 30 people was enough. There were 500 applicants. The chosen heard the adult population, who spoke via internet, with suggestions for the text. The government took over the initiative and formalized the committee to submit the document to the referendum held yesterday.
Upon being approved yesterday by more than two-thirds of the population, the constitution must be ratified by Parliament.
While Iceland is a small nation, away from Europe and America, and with an economy reliant on foreign markets (exports of fish, mainly cod), their example may serve other people, overwhelmed by the irrationality of the financial dictatorship.
During these few years, in which the Icelanders resisted against the harassment of large international banks, the international media have been conveniently silent about what is happening in Reykjavik. It is an eloquent sign that Icelanders may be paving the way to a peaceful world revolution of the people.
Translated from the Portuguese version by:
Lisa Karpova
Pravda.Ru
The citizens of Iceland voted in a referendum, on Saturday (20th), with about 70% of the voters. The basic text of its new constitution, drafted by 25 delegates, almost all ordinary men, chosen by direct vote of the people, included the nationalization of its natural resources. Iceland is one of those enigmas of history. Situated in an area warmed by the Gulf Stream, which winds in the North Atlantic, the island of 103,000 km2, is inhabited only along its coast.
The interior of high hills, with 200 active volcanoes, is entirely hostile - but this is one of the oldest democracies in the world, with its parliament (Althingi) running for over a thousand years. Even under the sovereignty of Norway and Denmark, until the late 19th century, Icelanders have always kept comfortable autonomy in their internal affairs.
In 2003, under pressure from neoliberals, Iceland privatized its banking system, up to that time state-owned. As they pleased major U.S. and British banks, already operating in the derivative market, in the spiral of subprimes, Reykjavik turned into a great international financial center and one of the biggest victims of neoliberalism. With only 320.000 inhabitants, the island became a comfortable fiscal paradise for the great banks.
Institutions like Lehman Brothers used the country's international credit in order to attract European investments, particularly British. That money was applied to the financial casino, commanded by U.S. banks. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers exposed that Iceland therefore has taken debt exceeding ten times its gross domestic product. The government was forced to re-nationalize its three banks, whose executives were prosecuted and sentenced to prison.
In order to tackle the huge debt, the government decided that each of the Icelanders - of all ages - would pay 130 euros monthly for 15 years. The people demanded a referendum and, with 93% of the vote, decided not to pay that debt as it was the responsibility of the international financial system from Wall Street and the City of London.
The country's external debt, built by the irresponsibility of banks associated with the largest global financial institutions, led the nation to insolvency and Icelanders to despair. The crisis has become political, with the decision of its people to change everything. A popular assembly spontaneously gathered and decided to elect a constituent body of 25 citizens, who didn't have any partisan activity in order to draft the Constitutional Charter of the country.
To apply to the legislative body, the selecttion of 30 people was enough. There were 500 applicants. The chosen heard the adult population, who spoke via internet, with suggestions for the text. The government took over the initiative and formalized the committee to submit the document to the referendum held yesterday.
Upon being approved yesterday by more than two-thirds of the population, the constitution must be ratified by Parliament.
While Iceland is a small nation, away from Europe and America, and with an economy reliant on foreign markets (exports of fish, mainly cod), their example may serve other people, overwhelmed by the irrationality of the financial dictatorship.
During these few years, in which the Icelanders resisted against the harassment of large international banks, the international media have been conveniently silent about what is happening in Reykjavik. It is an eloquent sign that Icelanders may be paving the way to a peaceful world revolution of the people.
Translated from the Portuguese version by:
Lisa Karpova
Pravda.Ru
Sunday, October 28, 2012
“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said. “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”
Report: Obama Watched Libya Attack Live
Lt. Col. (ret.) Tony Shaffer on Fox News: sources say president watched assault from White House.
By Gil Ronen Israelnationalnews.com
First Publish: 10/28/2012, 5:41 PM
Reuters
Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday on Fox News that sources told him President Barack Obama was in the White House Situation Room watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya as it unfolded.
Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate, recording and transmitting the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said. “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”
Shaffer served as a senior operations officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan in 2003 and wrote a book critical of the policies there, which the U.S. government prevented from being distributed because it allegedly contained information that compromised security.
Shaffer said the question now is what precisely Obama did or didn’t do in the moments he saw the attack unfolding. The CIA reportedly made three urgent requests for military backup that were each denied.
“He, only he, could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something. That’s the only place it could be done,” Shaffer said.
Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst, said the military could have had jets in the air within 20 minutes and forces on the ground within two hours.
“The issue is always political with the White House, but the secretary of defense gives the order, has to be approved by the White House, they wouldn’t pull the trigger, and it’s disgraceful,” Hunt said. “We’ve got guys dead.”
51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey.
AP poll: A slight majority of Americans are now expressing negative view of blacks
WASHINGTON POST — Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.
Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some people’s more favorable views of blacks.
Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 whether those feelings were measured using questions that explicitly asked respondents about racist attitudes, or through an experimental test that measured implicit views toward race without asking questions about that topic directly.
In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
“As much as we’d hope the impact of race would decline over time ... it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago,” said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey.
Most Americans expressed anti-Hispanic sentiments, too. In an AP survey done in 2011, 52 percent of non-Hispanic whites expressed anti-Hispanic attitudes. That figure rose to 57 percent in the implicit test. The survey on Hispanics had no past data for comparison.
The AP surveys were conducted with researchers from Stanford University, the University of Michigan and NORC at the University of Chicago.
Experts on race said they were not surprised by the findings.
“We have this false idea that there is uniformity in progress and that things change in one big step. That is not the way history has worked,” said Jelani Cobb, professor of history and director of the Institute for African-American Studies at the University of Connecticut. “When we’ve seen progress, we’ve also seen backlash.”
Obama has tread cautiously on the subject of race, but many African-Americans have talked openly about perceived antagonism toward them since Obama took office. As evidence, they point to events involving police brutality or cite bumper stickers, cartoons and protest posters that mock the president as a lion or a monkey, or lynch him in effigy.
“Part of it is growing polarization within American society,” said Fredrick Harris, director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University. “The last Democrat in the White House said we had to have a national discussion about race. There’s been total silence around issues of race with this president. But, as you see, whether there is silence, or an elevation of the discussion of race, you still have polarization. It will take more generations, I suspect, before we eliminate these deep feelings.”
Friday, October 26, 2012
“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’” Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”
Nato, Obama and Clinton legacy in Libya: Murder, mob rule, terror and mass executions
How are Libyans celebrating their first anniversary of freedom brought to them by the Obama and Clinton sanctions of Nato bombing and support of anarchists and terrorists?
Amid conflicting reports that the Libyan city of Bani Walid was captured by army forces, RT has learned that 600 people were allegedly killed in Wednesday’s fighting, and over 1,000 have been hospitalized. Locals are appealing for international aid.
Libyan officials claimed that government forces conducted a 20-day siege before capturing Bani Walid, the last stronghold for supporters of the Gaddafi regime, and seized the city. Sources in the town gave conflicting reports, saying that local militias were responsible for the siege and now control of the area.
“We continue to receive conflicting reports. From sources on the ground, we’re hearing that the army is withdrawing from the city, although we are hearing of widespread killings. Government sources say the city has fallen,” RT correspondent in neighboring Lebanon, Paula Slier, said.
When asked why the West is ignoring the massacres in Bani Walid, US Department of State Spokesperson Victoria Nuland told RT that Washington is “watching the situation very closely” while its position on this situation remains “absolutely clear.”
“We support the efforts of the Libyan government to get control of militias and to provide security throughout the country, including in Bani Walid, and to do so in a way that is respectful of the human rights of all citizens and allows humanitarian organizations to get in,” Nuland said.
An individual in Italy who allegedly has relatives in Bani Walid spoke to RT about the current state of the city. Calling himself ‘Alwarfally’ – referring to a tribe from Bani Walid – he asked to remain anonymous for the interview.
He said he contacted his family in the besieged city, who told him that the situation there has stabilized: The militia retreated, but only after kidnapping a local member of the ‘Council of the Elders,’ which was tasked by Bani Walid’s tribal leaders with governing the city after the fall of Gaddafi.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Shock and awe, Colin Powell endorses Obama
Who would have thought? What a game changer. What can be the connection? Is it leadership? Foreign policy excellence? Accomplishment?
You don't think it could be be a 97% deal do you?
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Finally, the truth is coming out on Benghazi
The subject line of this 4:05 PM email sent by State 9/11/12: "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU)."
The email said nothing about a YouTube video. The email said nothing about a spontaneous demonstration.
The text of the email said: "(SBU) The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosives have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support. The Operations Center will provide updates as available."
Forty-nine minutes later--at 4:54 PM on 9/11/12--the State Department sent out a follow-up email to the same set of recipients, including the two in the Executive Office of the President.
The subject line on this second email said: "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"
The text said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on the site attempting to locate COM [Chief of Mission] personnel."
This email also said nothing about a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstration.
(CNSNews.com) - On Sept. 11, 2012, just two hours after the State Department first began notifying government agencies back in Washington--including the White House--that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack by armed men, State sent out an email that went to at least two people in the White House that said the group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.
The email, which was sent from a State Department address at 6:05 PM on Sept. 11, 2012, was obtained by CBS News and posted online by the news agency in a PDF file. This email and others posted by CBS News had certain elements redacted--particularly the exact identities of the person who sent it and the persons who received it.
The email sent at 6:05 P.M. on Sept. 11 was sent by a person using an @state.gov email address. The subject line said: "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)"
The body of the email said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twiter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
Among the addresses of those who received are two that include that tag "@nss.eop.gov," a White House email address. "EOP" stands for "Executive Office of the President. The names of the two recipients in the Executive Office of the President who received the email have been redacted.
Someone at the State Department sent an original email about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate at 4:05 PM on Sept. 11, 2012. This email was sent from an address tagged "@state.gov." The name of the person who sent the email is redacted.
This email, too, was sent to two people in the Executive Office of the President. It was also sent to at least 32 individuals at the State Department itself, a person in the office of the Director of National Intelligence ("@dni.gov"), a person at the FBI ("@ic.fbi.gov"), and a person in the Defense Department ("@pentagon.mil").
All the names of the recipients in these federal agencies are redacted.
The subject line of this 4:05 PM email sent by State 9/11/12: "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU)."
The email said nothing about a YouTube video. The email said nothing about a spontaneous demonstration.
The text of the email said: "(SBU) The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosives have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support. The Operations Center will provide updates as available."
Forty-nine minutes later--at 4:54 PM on 9/11/12--the State Department sent out a follow-up email to the same set of recipients, including the two in the Executive Office of the President.
The subject line on this second email said: "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"
The text said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on the site attempting to locate COM [Chief of Mission] personnel."
This email also said nothing about a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstration.
The third and last email obtained by CBS News was sent by the State Department at 6:07 PM on 9/11/12--or just two hours and two minutes after the first email giving initial notification of the attack. This email went to a somewhat different group of recipients--but still included two persons in the Executive Office of the President and someone at the FBI.
The subject line on this email said: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)."
The text said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
Again, this email made no mention of a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi.
Did events in Cuba, fifty years ago, set into motion a KGB plot to kill Kennedy?
The assassination of President John F Kennedy: the finger points to the KGB
Nearly 50 years on, a new book suggests that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was guided by hardline Stalinist dissidents
The young American was agitated, increasingly emotional, and had laid a loaded gun on the table. The Soviet Union must grant him a visa as soon as possible, he pleaded. His life was being made intolerable by FBI surveillance and he, a dedicated communist, wished to return to the arms of Mother Russia.
One of the three Soviet diplomats present took the gun and unloaded it before returning it to its owner. There would be no visa in the near future, he explained calmly. Dejected, the American gathered up his documents and departed the Soviet consulate, bound not for his previous home in New Orleans, but Dallas. It was Mexico City, Saturday, September 28 1963, and the man wanting the visa was Lee Harvey Oswald. Fifty-five days later, he would assassinate John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 35th president of the United States.
This is the standard version of events, as related by one of the “diplomats” present that day, Oleg Nechiporenko. The other two were Pavel Yatskov and Valery Kostikov. All were, in reality, officers in the KGB. Kostikov was, according to the CIA, attached to Department 13 of the First Chief Directorate, specialising in “executive action” – sabotage and assassination.
Half a century later, two great traumas of the Cold War era stir in the memory – the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 14-28 1962 and the Kennedy assassination on November 22 the following year. The 50th anniversary of the latter is bound to reignite debate about that fateful lunchtime in Dealey Plaza. In his book, Reclaiming History, the lawyer Vincent Bugliosi expends 1.5 million words proving that Oswald was the lone gunman.
Many disagree, not least the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, which in 1979 concluded that, in all probability, two gunmen were involved – and Kennedy was, therefore, the victim of a conspiracy. In its findings, the committee concluded something else, that the Soviet government had not been involved in the assassination. In 1979, the nuclear stand-off between East and West had a decade to run, and the finding was as necessary then as in 1963, when a declaration of Soviet involvement could have triggered a thermonuclear war.
Robert Holmes agrees that the Russian government was not involved at an official level but believes events on Cuba, being marked this week, and those of a year later are intimately related. A former diplomat, who served in the British embassy in Moscow between 1961-2, he has made a fresh study of that fraught era. His conclusion is neither as neat as Bugliosi’s “lone nut” hypothesis nor as labyrinthine as the conspiracies proposed by authors like Jim Marrs, whose work inspired the Oliver Stone film JFK.
Oswald may have acted alone, thinks Holmes, but he was almost certainly under the control of an outside force. In his new book, A Spy Like No Other, he suggests that Kennedy was most likely the victim of a rogue element within the KGB, hardline Stalinists who were, by training and temperament, incapable of taking the humiliation of Cuba lying down. They conspired behind the back of Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, to take revenge on Kennedy, whose cool but resolute stance, bolstered by overwhelming US superiority in missiles and bombers, had forced the withdrawal of Russian medium-range nuclear missiles from Fidel Castro’s Cuba.
“Cuba was a humiliation of the first order for these men,” says Holmes. “They believed in the Stalinist way of doing things: hit your enemy, and hit hard.
“Khrushchev and Kennedy didn’t become friends in the wake of Cuba but they were able to see eye to eye, to an extent. They were moving forward, calming the world down. This group within the KGB didn’t want that; they wanted to fight. They thought Khrushchev should actually have fired off atomic weapons, and were devastated when he yielded to American pressure.”
The spy of the title is Ivan Serov, a pure cold warrior schooled in the purges of the 1930s, when Stalin sent millions to their deaths. As an agent of terror, he had overseen the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people from the Baltic states in 1941 and the liquidation of countless supposed traitors in the war with Germany. After Stalin’s death in 1953, he seized his chance, helping to overthrow Lavrentiy Beria, the old dictator’s principal henchman. Appointed head of the KGB by Khrushchev in 1954, he played a crucial role in putting down the Hungarian uprising of 1956, supported by his allies Yuri Andropov and Vladimir Kryuchkov.
Andropov would go on to lead the KGB, and then the USSR from 1982 until his death in 1984. Kryuchkov would attempt to roll back history in 1991 when he presided over an attempted coup against the government of Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1959, Serov was appointed head of the GRU, Soviet military intelligence. His apparent undoing coincided with the Cuban crisis when a GRU officer, Oleg Penkovsky, was unmasked as a British agent. Penkovsky was executed and Serov disappeared into the shadows. Rumours had it that, unable to cope with his disgrace, he had shot himself. In fact, he lived until 1990.
Holmes believes Serov’s “disgrace” was a front, masking his involvement in an affair of infinitely greater importance than Penkovsky. These three, Serov, Andropov and Kryuchkov, were most likely the architects of a plot to kill Kennedy. “These were three stalwarts,” says Holmes. “They want action. Kennedy is the arch enemy. Something has to be done. Serov would definitely have known Kostikov and would have been able to communicate with him through the KGB system. Kostikov would have kept any orders from Moscow secret, and may have assumed he was involved in an officially sanctioned operation.
“Oswald? Yes, he may have been erratic and was a focus of suspicion because he had emigrated to the Soviet Union before returning to the US. But when you need an expendable assassin, you have to work with what you’ve got.”
How long Oswald had been a Soviet asset, Holmes is not sure. But his treatment in Mexico City that weekend in September 1963 was highly unusual. “You would not have had three senior supposed diplomats meeting with a person of no importance on a Saturday morning.
“The three men were supposed to be playing basketball: KGB versus the GRU. They would not have missed that. If there was some kind of an emergency, one of them may possibly have stayed to talk to Oswald, but Oswald was then a John Doe, a nobody.
“Yes, he had spent a couple of years in the Soviet Union but he wasn’t anybody special. He had applied on the Saturday morning for a visa that was going to take four months to come through. The answer would have been, 'Come back on Monday.’ But no, three of them stayed behind to talk to Oswald for up to two hours. For that to happen, he had to be somebody.
“Immediately after the meeting with Oswald, they sent a classified telegram to Moscow. You don’t do that for someone who walks in for a visa. There was something special going on there.”
Holmes, who reached the rank of First Secretary, one level below ambassador, felt the pressure exerted by the Soviet state. “You lived and worked on the basis that there were microphones in every wall.
“When you went to a restaurant you felt you had been placed at a specific table with a microphone attached to it. You could never relax. There was a lot of talk that the Soviets were beaming some kind of ray at embassies.”
The Kennedy conspiracy industry is cranking up for the big anniversary. Holmes is a sober type and tries not to be too sensationalist. He admits he could be wrong, but thinks a rogue element in the KGB is more plausible than Mafia-CIA-Military-Industrial-Complex, and everyone else besides, hypotheses.
“There’s more than a reasonable possibility,” he says. “I would say that it is all circumstantial evidence, but if there was evidence that would stand up in court, we wouldn’t be sitting here talking about it. None of the Kennedy assassination theories would stand up in court. Other assassination theories require some kind of leap of faith; with mine, it is only a little step.”
But Oswald? Erratic, talkative Oswald? Surely he would have told all, had Jack Ruby not pumped a slug into his stomach? “If he hadn’t shot Officer J D Tippit after the Kennedy shooting, he may have got away that day, but I’m pretty sure the KGB would have either spirited him back to the Soviet Union or killed him. There’s no way they could have allowed him to be captured.”
'Spy Like No Other’ by Robert Holmes (Biteback) is available from Telegraph Books at £18 + £1.35 p&p. Call 0844 871 1515 or visit books.telegraph.co.uk
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The final debate: Romney, confident about the polls, decided that the election is about the economy and denied Obama his game strategy.
Romney surprised many by pulling his punches on foreign affairs. By not making an issue of foreign policy, Romney keeps the focus on Obama’s greatest weakness, the bad economy, the only thing most Americans care about.
Think not? Look at this from pollingreport.com:
Think not? Look at this from pollingreport.com:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Sept. 26-30, 2012. N=832 likely voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.4.
| ||||||
"There are many important issues in this presidential campaign. When it comes to deciding for whom you will vote for president, which one of the following is the single most important issue in deciding for whom you will vote? The economy. Social issues and values. Social Security and Medicare. Health care. The federal deficit. Foreign policy and the Middle East. Terrorism." If "all":"Well, if you had to choose the most important issue, which would you choose?"
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
The economy
| 46 | |||||
Social issues and values
| 15 | |||||
Social Security and Medicare
| 12 | |||||
Health care
| 10 | |||||
The federal deficit
| 7 | |||||
Foreign policy and the Middle East
| 6 | |||||
Terrorism
| 1 | |||||
None/Other (vol.)
| 1 | |||||
Unsure
| 1 | |||||
Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. Sept. 21-24, 2012. N=1,007 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
| ||||||
"Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now?Unemployment and jobs. The federal deficit. Health care. Gas prices. The situation in the Middle East. Taxes. Immigration. Terrorism." Options rotated
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Unemployment and jobs
| 43 | |||||
Federal deficit
| 14 | |||||
Health care
| 11 | |||||
Gas prices
| 7 | |||||
Situation in the Middle East
| 6 | |||||
Taxes
| 4 | |||||
Immigration
| 3 | |||||
Terrorism
| 3 | |||||
Other (vol.)
| 4 | |||||
None of these (vol.)
| 1 | |||||
Unsure
| 4 | |||||
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 8-12, 2012. N=1,170 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
| ||||||
"What is the most important issue to you in deciding how you will vote for president this year?"Open-ended
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Economy and jobs
| 37 | |||||
Health care
| 11 | |||||
Budget deficit/National debt
| 4 | |||||
The President/Barack Obama
| 4 | |||||
Education
| 3 | |||||
Taxes/IRS
| 3 | |||||
Abortion
| 2 | |||||
Medicare/Medicaid
| 2 | |||||
Women's issues
| 2 | |||||
Misc. social issues
| 2 | |||||
Other
| 20 | |||||
Unsure
| 10 | |||||
CBS News Poll. Aug. 22-26, 2012. N=1,218 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
| ||||||
"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Economy/Jobs
| 50 | |||||
Budget deficit/National debt
| 7 | |||||
Health care
| 5 | |||||
Immigration
| 2 | |||||
Education
| 2 | |||||
War/Peace
| 2 | |||||
Politicians/Government
| 2 | |||||
Partisan politics
| 2 | |||||
Misc. social issues
| 2 | |||||
Other
| 21 | |||||
Unsure
| 5 | |||||
Pew Research Center. June 7-17, 2012. N=1,563 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.9.
| ||||||
"Which ONE of the following issues matters most to you in deciding your vote for president this year: jobs, the budget deficit, health care, Social Security, immigration, or gay marriage?"Options rotated
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Jobs
| 35 | |||||
Budget deficit
| 23 | |||||
Health care
| 19 | |||||
Social Security
| 11 | |||||
Immigration
| 5 | |||||
Gay marriage
| 4 | |||||
Other (vol.)
| 2 | |||||
Unsure
| 2 | |||||
CNN/ORC Poll. May 29-31, 2012. N=1,009 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
| ||||||
"Which of the following is the most important issue facing the country today? The economy. The federal budget deficit. Health care. The situation in Afghanistan. Illegal immigration. Terrorism. Policies toward gays and lesbians." Options rotated
| ||||||
| 5/29-31/12 | 3/24-25/12 | 12/16-18/11 | ||||
| % | % | % | ||||
The economy
| 52 | 53 | 57 | |||
The federal budget deficit
| 18 | 20 | 16 | |||
Health care
| 14 | 11 | 13 | |||
Terrorism
| 5 | 2 | 4 | |||
Illegal immigration
| 4 | 4 | 5 | |||
Afghanistan
| 3 | 6 | 3 | |||
Policies toward gays, lesbians
| 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
Other (vol.)
| 2 | 1 | 2 | |||
Unsure
| 1 | 1 | - | |||
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 17-20, 2012. N=1,004 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
| ||||||
"What is the single most important issue in your choice for president?" Open-ended
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Economy/Jobs
| 52 | |||||
Health care/Repeal of Obamacare
| 7 | |||||
Morals/Family values
| 5 | |||||
Ethics/Honesty/Gov't corruption
| 4 | |||||
Other
| 27 | |||||
Unsure
| 4 | |||||
Reuters/Ipsos Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. April 12-15, 2012. N=891 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.3.
| ||||||
"Which one of these issues would you say is most important when thinking about the current presidential election campaign? Jobs and the economy. Health care. Family values. Leadership. National security. Taxes. Foreign policy. Representing change."
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Jobs and the economy
| 53 | |||||
Health care
| 14 | |||||
Family values
| 9 | |||||
Leadership
| 8 | |||||
National security
| 5 | |||||
Taxes
| 3 | |||||
Foreign policy
| 3 | |||||
Representing change
| 2 | |||||
None
| 1 | |||||
Unsure
| 1 | |||||
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Feb. 8-13, 2012. N=1,197 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
| ||||||
"Which one issue would you most like to hear the candidates for president discuss during the 2012 presidential campaign?" Open-ended
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Economy and jobs
| 44 | |||||
Health care
| 8 | |||||
Budget deficit/National debt
| 4 | |||||
Education
| 3 | |||||
Taxes/IRS
| 3 | |||||
Immigration
| 2 | |||||
Politicians/Government
| 2 | |||||
Partisan politics
| 2 | |||||
Other
| 21 | |||||
Unsure
| 11 | |||||
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 12-17, 2012. N=1,154 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
| ||||||
"In deciding who you would like to see elected president this year, which one of the following issues will be most important to you: abortion, or the federal budget deficit, or the economy, or health care, or illegal immigration, or something else?" Options rotated
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Economy
| 56 | |||||
Federal budget deficit
| 15 | |||||
Health care
| 14 | |||||
Illegal immigration
| 5 | |||||
Abortion
| 3 | |||||
Something else
| 6 | |||||
Unsure
| 1 | |||||
Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. June 17-20, 2011. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
| ||||||
"Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now? Unemployment and jobs. Government spending. The federal deficit. Health care. The war in Afghanistan. Gas prices. Immigration. Taxes." Options rotated
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Unemployment and jobs
| 42 | |||||
Government spending
| 17 | |||||
The federal deficit
| 13 | |||||
Health care
| 10 | |||||
War in Afghanistan
| 5 | |||||
Gas prices
| 4 | |||||
Immigration
| 3 | |||||
Taxes
| 1 | |||||
Other (vol.)
| 2 | |||||
Unsure
| 3 | |||||
Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). May 15-17, 2011. N=910 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
| ||||||
"Which one of the following issues do you think the president and Congress should focus
on right now? The economy and jobs. The deficit and government spending. Health care. Terrorism and national security. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Immigration." Options rotated | ||||||
| % | ||||||
Economy and jobs
| 50 | |||||
Deficit and government spending
| 22 | |||||
Health care
| 8 | |||||
Terrorism and national security
| 5 | |||||
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
| 4 | |||||
Immigration
| 2 | |||||
All (vol.)
| 7 | |||||
None/Other (vol.)
| 1 | |||||
Unsure
| 1 | |||||
Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. March 4-7, 2011. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
| ||||||
"Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now? Immigration. Health care. The federal deficit and government spending. The war in Afghanistan. Unemployment and jobs." Options rotated
| ||||||
| 3/11 | 12/10 | |||||
| % | % | |||||
Unemployment and jobs
| 43 | 50 | ||||
Federal deficit and spending
| 29 | 25 | ||||
Health care
| 12 | 9 | ||||
War in Afghanistan
| 7 | 7 | ||||
Immigration
| 3 | 5 | ||||
Other (vol.)
| 4 | 1 | ||||
Unsure
| 2 | 3 | ||||
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 15-19, 2011. N=1,036 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
| ||||||
"Which of the following do you think is the most important thing for Congress to concentrate on right now: job creation, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget deficit, illegal immigration, health care, or something else?"
| ||||||
| % | ||||||
Job creation
| 43 | |||||
Health care
| 18 | |||||
Federal budget deficit
| 14 | |||||
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
| 12 | |||||
Illegal immigration
| 7 | |||||
Something else
| 3 | |||||
Unsure
| 3 | |||||