Truman’s True Warning on the CIA
December 22, 2013
Exclusive: National security secrecy and a benighted sense of “what’s good for the country” can be a dangerous mix for democracy, empowering self-interested or misguided officials to supplant the people’s will, as President Truman warned and ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern explains.
By Ray McGovern
Fifty years ago, exactly one month after John Kennedy was killed, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.” The first sentence of that op-ed on Dec. 22, 1963, read, “I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency.”
It sounded like the intro to a bleat from some liberal professor or journalist. Not so. The writer was former President Harry S. Truman, who spearheaded the establishment of the CIA 66 years ago, right after World War II, to better coordinate U.S. intelligence gathering. But the spy agency had lurched off in what Truman thought were troubling directions.
Sadly, those concerns that Truman expressed in that op-ed — that he had inadvertently helped create a Frankenstein monster — are as valid today as they were 50 years ago, if not more so.
Truman began his article by underscoring “the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency … and what I expected it to do.” It would be “charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without Department ‘treatment’ or interpretations.”
Truman then moved quickly to one of the main things bothering him. He wrote “the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.”
It was not difficult to see this as a reference to how one of the agency’s early directors, Allen Dulles, tried to trick President Kennedy into sending U.S. forces to rescue the group of invaders who had landed on the beach at the Bay of Pigs, Cuba, in April 1961 with no chance of success, absent the speedy commitment of U.S. air and ground support.
Wallowing in the Bay of Pigs
Arch-Establishment figure Allen Dulles had been offended when young President Kennedy had the temerity to ask questions about CIA plans before the Bay of Pigs debacle, which had been set in motion under President Dwight Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would NOT approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles set out, with supreme confidence, to mousetrap the President.
Coffee-stained notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. They show how Dulles drew Kennedy into a plan that was virtually certain to require the use of U.S. combat forces. In his notes, Dulles explained that, “when the chips were down,” Kennedy would be forced by “the realities of the situation” to give whatever military support was necessary “rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”
The “enterprise” which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations to assassinate him, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with little or no attention to how the Russians might react. The reckless Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom then-Deputy Secretary of State George Ball later described as a “sewer of deceit,” relished any chance to confront the Soviet Union and give it, at least, a black eye.
But Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak. He fired Dulles and his co-conspirators a few months after the abortive invasion, and told a friend that he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” The outrage was very obviously mutual.
When Kennedy himself was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963, it must have occurred to Truman as it did to many others that the disgraced Dulles and his unrepentant associates might not be above conspiring to get rid of a president they felt was soft on Communism and get even for their Bay of Pigs fiasco.
‘Cloak and Dagger’
While Truman saw CIA’s attempted mousetrapping of President Kennedy as a particular outrage, his more general complaint is seen in his broader lament that the CIA had become “so removed from its intended role … I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. … It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.” Not only shaping policy through its control of intelligence, but also “cloak and dagger” operations, presumably including assassinations.
Truman concluded the op-ed with an admonition that was as clear as the syntax was clumsy: “I would like to see the CIA restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.” The importance and prescient nature of that admonition are even clearer today, a half-century later.
But Truman’s warning fell mostly on deaf ears, at least within Establishment circles. The Washington Post published the op-ed in its early edition on Dec. 22, 1963, but immediately excised it from later editions. Other media ignored it. The long hand of the CIA?
In Truman’s view, misuse of the CIA began in February 1953, when his successor, Dwight Eisenhower, named Allen Dulles as CIA director. Dulles’s forte was overthrowing governments (in current parlance, “regime change”), and he was quite good at it. With coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) under his belt, Dulles was riding high by the late Fifties and moved Cuba to the top of his to-do list.
The Truman Papers
Documents in the Truman Library show that nine days after Kennedy was assassinated, Truman sketched out in handwritten notes what he wanted to say in the op-ed. He noted, among other things, that the CIA had worked as he intended only “when I had control.”
Five days after the op-ed appeared, retired Admiral Sidney Souers, whom Truman had appointed to lead his first central intelligence group, sent a “Dear Boss” letter applauding Truman’s outspokenness and blaming Dulles for making the CIA “a different animal than the one I tried to set up for you.”
Souers specifically lambasted the attempt “to conduct a ‘war’ invading Cuba with a handful of men and without air cover.” He also lamented the fact that the agency’s “principal effort” had evolved into causing “revolutions in smaller countries around the globe,” and added: “With so much emphasis on operations, it would not surprise me to find that the matter of collecting and processing intelligence has suffered some.” (Again, as true today as it was 50 years ago.)
Clearly, the operational tail of the CIA was wagging its substantive dog, a serious problem that persists to this day.
Fox Guarding Hen House
After Kennedy was murdered in Dallas, the patrician, well-connected Dulles got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK’s assassination. Documents in the Truman Library show that Dulles also mounted a small domestic covert action of his own to neutralize any future airing of Truman’s and Souers’s warnings about covert action.
So important was this to Dulles that he invented a pretext to get himself invited to visit Truman in Independence, Missouri. On the afternoon of April 17, 1964, Dulles spent a half-hour one-on-one with the former president, trying to get him to retract what he had written in his op-ed. Hell No, said Harry.
Not a problem, Dulles decided. Four days later, in a formal memorandum of conversation for his old buddy Lawrence Houston, CIA general counsel from 1947 to 1973, Dulles fabricated a private retraction for Truman, claiming that Truman told him the Washington Post article was “all wrong,” and that Truman “seemed quite astounded at it.”
A fabricated retraction? It certainly seems so, because Truman did not change his tune. Far from it. In a June 10, 1964, letter to the managing editor of Look magazine, for example, Truman restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in “strange activities.”
Dulles and Dallas
Dulles could hardly have expected to get Truman to recant publicly. So why was it so important for Dulles to place in CIA files a fabricated retraction? I believe the answer lies in the fact that in early 1964 Dulles was feeling a lot of heat from many who were suggesting the CIA might have been involved somehow in the Kennedy assassination. Columnists were asking how the truth could ever be reached, with Allen Dulles as de facto head of the Warren Commission.
Dulles had good reason to fear that Truman’s limited-edition Washington Post op-ed of Dec. 22, 1963, might garner unwanted attention and raise troublesome questions about covert action, including assassination. He would have wanted to be in position to dig out of Larry Houston’s files the Truman “retraction,” in the hope that this would nip any serious questioning in the bud.
As the de facto head of the Warren Commission, Dulles was perfectly positioned to protect himself and his associates, were any commissioners or investigators, or journalists, tempted to question whether Dulles and the CIA played a role in killing Kennedy.
And so, the question: Did Allen Dulles and other “cloak-and-dagger” CIA operatives have a hand in John Kennedy’s assassination and in then covering it up? In my view, the best dissection of the evidence pertaining to the murder appeared in James Douglass’s 2008 book, JFK and the Unspeakable. After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes that the answer is Yes.
Obama Intimidated?
The mainstream media had an allergic reaction to Douglass’s book and gave it almost no reviews. It is, nevertheless, still selling well. And, more important, it seems a safe bet that President Barack Obama knows what it says and maybe has even read it. This may go some way toward explaining why Obama has been so deferential to the CIA, NSA, FBI and the Pentagon.
Could this be at least part of the reason he felt he had to leave the Cheney/Bush-anointed torturers, kidnappers and black-prison wardens in place, instructing his first CIA chief Leon Panetta to become, in effect, the agency’s lawyer rather than leader.
Is this why the President feels he cannot fire his clumsily devious Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who had to apologize to Congress for giving “clearly erroneous” testimony in March? Is this why he allows National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander and counterparts in the FBI to continue to mislead the American people, even though the intermittent snow showers from Snowden show our senior national security officials to have lied — and to have been out of control?
This may be small solace to President Obama, but there is no sign that the NSA documents that Snowden’s has released include the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 6,300-page report on CIA torture. Rather, that report, at least, seems sure to be under Obama’s and Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein’s tight control.
But the timorous President has a big problem. He is acutely aware that, if released, the Senate committee report would create a firestorm almost certainly implicating Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan and many other heavy-hitters of whom he appears to be afraid. And so Obama has allowed Brennan to play bureaucratic games, delaying release of the report for more than a year, even though its conclusions are said to closely resemble earlier findings of the CIA’s own Inspector General and the Constitution Project (see below).
Testimony of Ex-CIA General Counsel
Hat tip to the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, who took the trouble to read the play-by-play of testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee by former CIA General Counsel (2009-2013) Stephen W. Preston, nominated (and now confirmed) to be general counsel at the Department of Defense.
Under questioning by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colorado, Preston admitted outright that, contrary to the CIA’s insistence that it did not actively impede congressional oversight of its detention and interrogation program, “briefings to the committee included inaccurate information related to aspects of the program of express interest to Members.”
That “inaccurate information” apparently is thoroughly documented in the Senate Intelligence Committee report which, largely because of the CIA’s imaginative foot-dragging, cost taxpayers $40 million. Udall has revealed that the report (which includes 35,000 footnotes) contains a very long section titled “C.I.A. Representations on the C.I.A. Interrogation Program and the Effectiveness of the C.I.A.’s Enhanced Interrogation Techniques to Congress.”
Preston also acknowledged that the CIA inadequately informed the Justice Department on interrogation and detention. He said, “CIA’s efforts fell well short of our current practices when it comes to providing information relevant to [the Office of Legal Counsel]’s legal analysis.”
As Katherine Hawkins, the senior investigator for last April’s bipartisan, independent report by the Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment, noted in an Oct. 18, 2013 posting, the memos from acting OLC chief, Steven Bradbury, relied very heavily on now-discredited CIA claims that “enhanced interrogation” saved lives, and that the sessions were carefully monitored by medical and psychological personnel to ensure that detainees’ suffering would not rise to the level of torture.
According to Hawkins, Udall complained and Preston admitted that, in providing the materials requested by the committee, “the CIA removed several thousand CIA documents that the agency thought could be subjected to executive privilege claims by the President, without any decision by Obama to invoke the privilege.”
Worse still for the CIA, the Senate Intelligence Committee report apparently destroys the agency’s argument justifying torture on the grounds that there was no other way to acquire the needed information save through brutalization. In his answers to Udall, Preston concedes that, contrary to what the agency has argued, it can and has been established that legal methods of interrogation would have yielded the same intelligence.
Is anyone still wondering why our timid President is likely to sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee report for as long as he can? Or why he will let John Brennan redact it to a fare-thee-well, if he is eventually forced to release some of it by pressure from folks who care about things like torture?
It does appear that the newly taciturn CIA Director Brennan has inordinate influence over the President in such matters not unlike the influence that both DNI Clapper and NSA Director Alexander seem able to exert. In this respect, Brennan joins the dubious company of the majority of his predecessor CIA directors, as they made abundantly clear when they went to inordinate lengths to prevent their torturer colleagues from being held accountable.
(Also, see “CIA Torturers Running Scared,” Sept. 20, 2009; or “Are Presidents Afraid of the CIA?” Dec. 29, 2009)
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer in the early 60s and then a CIA analyst for 27 years. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
hillary is a dangerous crook, has been for decades, but it's everyone elves fault but hers. Sad...
Clinton advisers point fingers at Huma Abedin, inner circle for loss
While many of Hillary Clinton’s top advisers have focused their post-presidential election fury on blaming alleged Russian interference and FBI Director James Comey for Clinton’s loss, some in the so-called “Hillaryland” orbit are looking inward, including pointing fingers at Clinton’s most-trusted aide: Huma Abedin.
“The real anger is toward Hillary’s inner circle,” a Clinton insider told Vanity Fair for a Wednesday feature on Abedin. “They reinforced all the bad habits.”
One of the most important people in that “inner circle” was Abedin, 40, who has been by Clinton’s side since she was a White House intern during President Bill Clinton’s tenure. The email trove hacked from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and posted on WikiLeaks shows Abedin, the estranged wife of disgraced ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner, as an important resource for the campaign. The vice chair of the Clinton campaign, Abedin offered guidance on Clinton’s probable thoughts regarding upcoming events, meetings and calls before the requests ever made it to the Democratic presidential candidate. While her fingerprints don’t often appear on policy issues, she weighed in with authority on most other matters.
ABEDIN CLAIMS SHE NEVER RECEIVED FBI WARRANT
Clinton was known to keep an extremely small and tight-knit group around her, and, indeed, during the 2016 primary and presidential campaign, the core group – including Campaign Manager Robbie Mook, Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, adviser Cheryl Mills, Podesta and Abedin – never changed.
One Clinton insider, however, said the closeness of that group also created problems, prompting dismissive answers when new ideas that originated outside the circle were suggested, Vanity Fair reported.
“Where in most presidential campaigns the circle grows broader and broader, hers grew smaller and smaller,” a source told Vanity Fair.
A spokesperson for the Clinton campaign disputed that notion to Vanity Fair and said the campaign’s plane seated up to three times as many people during the run-up to the November vote. Abedin declined to be interviewed for the feature.
Abedin’s proximity to Clinton – and in turn the limelight – also created another issue, according to some observers.
“She was enjoying the red carpet and enjoying the photo spreads much too much in my opinion,” one Clinton insider told Vanity Fair. “She enjoyed being a celebrity too much.”
Though Abedin’s next move seems to be in limbo now that Clinton’s political career appears to be over, she was recently spotted at Clinton’s “Thank You” holiday party for top-tier donors on Thursday and then at an after party with fellow attendees Mick Jagger and Reese Witherspoon, The New York Post reported.
“Maybe I’m just p----- off, but I really don’t give a s--- about what happens to Huma to be honest with you,” one close adviser to Clinton told Vanity Fair
Facebook añadirá una alerta a las noticias cuya veracidad esté en discusión, para advertir a los usuarios que pueden estar leyendo o compartiendo informaciones falsas.
Era algo predecible: ante la impotencia de los medios de comunicación tradicionales de convencer a la población con sus mentiras, ahora Facebook les ayuda a deshacerse de la competencia en los medios alternativos por medio de la censura.
Empezó facilitando la censura al gobierno chino. Ahora ya parece que ha aprendido de él. Y lo está poniendo en práctica.
El fundador de la red social, Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, informó el jueves de que lanzará una nueva aplicación para frenar la difusión de noticias falsas:
"Cuando mucha gente nos avise de que una historia es un bulo, vamos a hacer que la estudien organizaciones externas dedicadas a comprobar los hechos. Si estas están de acuerdo en que la historia es falsa, veréis una bandera al lado de la historia señalando que ha sido puesta en entredicho".
La nueva herramienta contará con el apoyo de organizaciones como el sitio de verificación de información Snopes, ABC News y la agencia de noticias Associated Press para comprobar la autenticidad de las historias.
"Todavía serás capaz de leer y compartir esa historia, pero ahora tendrás más información si los verificadores creen que es riguroso", precisó Zuckerberg, quién agregó que esas noticias no podrán ser promocionadas en anuncios en Facebook para que nadie pueda obtener beneficio con historias falsas.
... o lo que ellos decidan que son historias falsas, claro.
TEL AVIV - La organización se asoció con Facebook para ayudar a determinar si una cierta historia es "disputada" es financiada por el multimillonario George Soros y un montón de otros financiadores de izquierda.
La Red Internacional de Chequeo de Datos (IFCN) redactó un código de cinco principios para que los sitios web de noticias aceptaran, y Facebook anunció ayer que trabajará con "organizaciones de verificación de hechos de terceros" que son signatarias del código de principios.
Facebook dice que si la "confirmación de datos organizaciones" determinar que una cierta historia es falsa, conseguirá marcado como controvertida y, según el anuncio de Facebook, "habrá un enlace al artículo correspondiente explicar por qué.
Las historias que han sido disputadas también pueden aparecer más bajas en News Feed. "
IFCN está organizada por el Instituto Poynter para Estudios de Medios.
Una búsqueda superficial del sitio web del Instituto Poynter encuentra que la IFCN de Poynter es financiada abiertamente por las Fundaciones de Sociedad Abierta de Soros, así como la Fundación Bill & Melinda Gates, Google y la Fundación Nacional para la Democracia.
La IFCN de Poynter también está financiada por la Red Omidyar, que es la organización sin fines de lucro para el millonario liberal fundador de eBay, Pierre Omidyar.
La Red Omidyar ha asociado con la Sociedad Abierta en numerosos proyectos y se ha dadosubvenciones a terceros que utilizan la Fundación Tides financiado por Soros.Tides es uno de los mayores donantes de causas izquierdistas en Estados Unidos.
Otro importante donante del Instituto Poynter es la Fundación Craig Newmark, la organización benéfica creada por Craig Newmark, fundador de Craigslist.
El lunes, pocos días antes del anuncio de la asociación Facebook, Poynter emitió un comunicado de prensa revelando que Newmark donó $ 1 millón para el grupo para financiar una silla de la facultad en la ética del periodismo.
Estados el comunicado de prensa:
El donativo apoyará un programa de cinco años en Poynter que se enfoca en la verificación, la verificación de hechos y la rendición de cuentas en el periodismo.Es la mayor donación que Poynter ha recibido de una fundación individual.
La Cátedra Newmark ampliará la enseñanza de Poynter en ética del periodismo y desarrollará programas de certificación para periodistas que se comprometan con las prácticas éticas de toma de decisiones.El miembro de la facultad también organizará una conferencia anual sobre temas de ética en Poynter y será un colaborador regular de Poynter.org.
Newmark financia las puntuaciones de los grupos liberales también financiados por Soros, entre ellos el Sierra Club, la New America Foundation, y la Fundación La luz del sol.
Newmark también financia el grupo de periodismo de investigación llamado el Centro para la Integridad Pública, donde se desempeña en el tablero.Soros Open Society es otrodonante Integridad Pública.
Soros se ha ganado su mega-fortuna en parte por la venta corta de divisas y causando crisis económicas.Se le atribuye a la rotura de la libra el 16 de septiembre de 1992 en un día en que se dio a conocer en Gran Bretaña como "Miércoles Negro".
Él los informes,ganó $ 1.2 millones de dólares de esa crisis.En 2002, fue condenado por tráfico de influencias.
Poynter, por su parte, ha organizado programas polémicos de periodismo en el pasado, incluyendo uno que fue acusado de minimizar la amenaza del terrorismo islámico mundial.
FoxNews.com informó el curso sugirió a los reporteros "mantener el número de muertos por el terrorismo islámico en el" contexto "mediante la comparación de peaje para que el número de personas mueren cada año por la malaria, el VIH / SIDA y otros factores."
El curso enseñó a los reporteros que el término "jihad" significa lucha interna, y discutió lo que afirmaba era el tema de "activistas de derecha" que trataban de vincular a los musulmanes estadounidenses con el terrorismo.
Continuación FoxNews.com:
La sección incluye la punta del buen periodismo que los periodistas deben comprobar para ver si los expertos que están entrevistando "tienen un sesgo o una estaca en la historia que están cubriendo". Pero entonces sólo cita ejemplos de grupos anti-musulmanes.
El curso sobre el Islam, informó Fox News, fue apoyado por un grupo que se autodenominó el Consejo de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales, que ha recibido financiación de grupos financiados por Soros.
En respuesta al informe, el Instituto Poynter explicó que creó el curso "como una herramienta para los periodistas que quieren ser precisos en la educación de su audiencia sobre la religión y la cultura del Islam, las comunidades musulmanas en los EE.UU., y las distinciones entre el Islam como Un movimiento político y las filosofías radicales que inspiran a los islamistas militantes ".
"Creemos que es necesario comprender mejor las complejidades de las sociedades musulmanas y el curso en línea ofrecido por Poynter y Washington State University es un recurso vital para ese fin", agregó Poynter.
"Los valores que sustentan el curso son la verdad, la precisión, la independencia, la justicia, la minimización del daño y el contexto, los valores periodísticos fundamentales sobre los cuales construimos toda nuestra enseñanza aquí en Poynter".
IFCN de Poynter código de principios para agencias de noticias, por su parte, dice lo siguiente:
1. UN COMPROMISO CON LA NONPARTISANSHIP Y LA EQUIDAD
Hacemos verificación de verificación usando el mismo estándar para cada verificación de hechos.No concentramos nuestra verificación de hechos en ningún lado.Seguimos el mismo proceso para cada verificación de hechos y dejamos que la evidencia dicte nuestras conclusiones.No abogamos ni tomamos posiciones políticas sobre las cuestiones que comprobamos.
2. UN COMPROMISO CON LA TRANSPARENCIA DE FUENTES
Queremos que nuestros lectores puedan verificar nuestros propios resultados.Proporcionamos todas las fuentes con suficiente detalle para que los lectores puedan replicar nuestro trabajo, excepto en los casos en que la seguridad personal de una fuente podría verse comprometida.En tales casos, proporcionamos tanto detalle como sea posible.
3. UN COMPROMISO CON LA TRANSPARENCIA DE FINANCIACIÓN Y ORGANIZACIÓN
Somos transparentes acerca de nuestras fuentes de financiamiento.Si aceptamos fondos de otras organizaciones, nos aseguramos de que los financiadores no tengan influencia sobre las conclusiones a las que llegamos en nuestros informes.Detallamos los antecedentes profesionales de todas las figuras clave de nuestra organización y explicamos nuestra estructura organizativa y nuestro estatus legal.Indicamos claramente una manera para que los lectores se comuniquen con nosotros.
4. UN COMPROMISO CON LA TRANSPARENCIA DE LA METODOLOGÍA
Explicamos la metodología que utilizamos para seleccionar, investigar, escribir, editar, publicar y corregir nuestros controles de hechos.Animamos a los lectores a que nos envíen reclamaciones a verificación de hechos y sean transparentes sobre por qué y cómo comprobamos los hechos.
5. UN COMPROMISO CON LAS CORRECCIONES ABIERTAS Y HONESTAS
Publicamos nuestra política de correcciones y la seguimos escrupulosamente.Corregimos de forma clara y transparente de acuerdo con nuestra política de correcciones, buscando en la medida de lo posible para asegurar que los lectores vean la versión corregida.
Aaron Klein es el jefe de la oficina de Breitbart en Jerusalén y reportero de investigación.Es un autor más vendido del New York Times y conduce el programa de radio de fin de semana, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio." Síguelo enTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Síguelo enFacebook.
Con la investigación de Joshua Klein y Brenda J. Elliott.
Francia acogió, del 7 al 9 de diciembre de 2016, la 4ª Cumbre de la Open Government Partnership (Asociación para un Gobierno Abierto), que contó con la participación de 70 países.
La Open Government Partnership surgió de una importante reforma realizada por la administración Obama: la Iniciativa por un Gobierno Abierto (Open Government Initiative), puesta en marcha desde el primer día del primer periodo presidencial de Barack Obama, en 2009.
En aplicación de los principios del filósofo Karl Popper, promovidos por las fundaciones del multimillonario George Soros, los objetivos proclamados de esta iniciativa son:
Velar por la transparencia de los gobiernos democráticos;
Hacer que los ciudadanos participen en la toma de decisiones a través de las ONGs - no a través de los Parlamentos.
Dos nuevos objetivos surgieron en el momento de la creación de la organización intergubernamental:
Luchar contra el soborno, menos en los casos de los cabilderos debidamente registrados;
Generalizar el uso de las nuevas tecnologías.
Quien lanzó la Open Government Partnership en 2011 fue la entonces secretaria de Estado estadounidense, Hillary Clinton.
En aplicación de sus propios principios, esta organización intergubernamental asocia numerosas ONGs tanto a sus debates como a su administración.
La presidencia de la Open Government Partnership está actualmente en manos de Francia y del World Resources Institute.
Este último es una asociación estadounidense creada por el Partido Demócrata de Estados Unidos y se promueve el mercado de la ecología, evitando pasar por la ONU.
Fue a través de esta ONG que el ex vicepresidente estadounidense Al Gore popularizó la teoría de la actividad humana como causa del cambio climático [1].
La Open Government Partnership está financiada, en primer lugar, por varias fundaciones creadas por empresas (la Open Society, de George Soros; la Omidyar Network, muy implicada en el golpe de Estado ucraniano; The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; la Ford Foundation, tradicionalmente vinculada a la CIA) y por los países miembros.
Al cabo de 5 años de existencia, ya cualquiera es capaz de darse cuenta de que, contrariamente a las promesas de Barack Obama y a sus decretos presidenciales, Estados Unidos nunca había sido tan poco transparente, corrupto y, en definitiva, cerrado como hoy en día.
Sin embargo, los demás países miembros de la Open Government Partnership han sido obligados a debilitarse - supuestamente por el bien de todos - únicamente en beneficio de las "ONGs" y de las fundaciones de las empresas acreditadas. [1] «1982-1996: La ecología de mercado», por Thierry Meyssan, Оdnako(Rusia), Red Voltaire, 25 de abril de 2010.
Comentario:
Cada día queda más claro como se maneja la patocracia global, una mafia con varios frentes "legales" para financiar sus agendas de dominación y control.
Y uno de estos frentes son sus ONGs que reclutan y pagan a ingenuos para comenzar revoluciones de colores, para patrocinar la oposición de países soberanos, para hacerse del control de recursos de países no alineados, etc.
Es una lástima que muchos ni siquiera estén enterados de esto, y aún más que se les permita seguir en operación.
Muchos países podrían seguir el ejemplo de Rusia, que sin chistar, sacó del país a todos esos frentes legales y ONGs... un cáncer para una nación soberana:
Francia acogió, del 7 al 9 de diciembre de 2016, la 4ª Cumbre de la Open Government Partnership (Asociación para un Gobierno Abierto), que contó con la participación de 70 países.
Comentario: